News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2008, 11:11:20 AM »
Tom-

I tend to agree with you, but how do you handle situations where you are comparing two very strong courses that play very similar but visually are much different. 

Compare Raynor's Mountain Lake with Coore/Crenshaw's Sugarloaf.  Both seem to be very strong, similar topography, similar location, but really different looks.....I would always rank Sugarloaf higher because I just like the C&C look better than the Raynor look....but you may like the Raynor look better....I can see where splitting hairs starts becomes hard to justify. 

Hmmm, this is pretty hard to do, I suppose that is why I started this thread, I seem to be arguing with myself...

Tom, also, what do you think of Olympic Lake?

Chip
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 11:34:29 AM by Chip Gaskins »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2008, 11:13:41 AM »
The most memorable first day of golf I've ever had was my first round at Pumpkin Ridge (Witch Hollow).  July 3rd, 1992.  By the 7th tee, I turned to my father and said, "That's it.  I'm joining this club."  At the time, I lived in California with my new wife, who had lived in and enjoyed Oregon previously.  Two days later I joined, and it took us nine months to change or leave jobs and move our life to Oregon.

I don't think memorability quite captures a course's greatness.  It's too dependent on one's mood that day.  A little too subjective, where some impartial rational analysis is required.

For me, the iPod is the world's greatest toy.  Best toy I've ever had.  I use it maybe 8-10 hours a week to listen to music while exercising.  I have a large music collection, and I've transferred most of the songs I know onto the iPod.  I have about 7500 songs, and I know about 2/3 of them.  I've also taken the time to rate about 4000 of them.  Before I even owned an iPod, I had decided that a 6 point system, from 0 to 5 stars, was the way to rate music, so it pleased me to no end to see Apple agreed and made the machine that dramatically increased the ease in which I play music while working out.  This is a good place to describe my music ratings.

A two star song is the neutral rating, a song where I'll listen without much interest, but without changing the channel.

*****  -    One of my personal all-time favorites
 ****   -    Excellent, a song I love
  ***    -    A good song, a song I like
   **     -    No strong opinion, neutral
    *      -    A song I dislike
    0      -    A song I hate or strongly dislike

With no attempt to allocate a percentage of songs to each category, the current ratings have about 100 songs (2.5%) as 5 stars and about 800 (15-20%) more as 4 stars.  But these 4 and 5 star song numbers wouldn't change much as I continue to rate songs.  It will be harder to find more of them, since I'm an old narrow-minded fart who now spends more time analyzing golf courses.  This is a very long process, but it's safe to say in the grand scheme, 1-2% of all songs I know are 5 stars, and 10-15% are 4 stars.

Sometimes I will give a song an additional star because it is clearly recognized as a classic or excellent song.  I like "Stairway To Heaven".  Great song, but for me, after hearing it 1,000 or more times, it's not my favorite Led Zeppelin song, so it's probably a three star song for me.  But it's clearly excellent, and it would be foolish to give it anything less than four stars.

I recently said that golf courses get to a point where they are "as good as golf can get", where it's just so beautiful and fun that nothing more can be asked for.  I've yet to see a perfect course; we can always identify flaws, and no course offers the complete spectrum of the golf experience.

I can talk about this forever, so I'll stop here.  For your amusement...

Unusual ***** song choice:  "For Once In My Life", by Stevie Wonder.  Transcendent.
Valid 0 star song:  "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett & The Union Gap.   Eeewwwww.



John Kavanaugh

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2008, 11:19:31 AM »
John,

What is the finest course you ever played with an open membership that you didn't join?  JK likes to join courses.

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2008, 11:20:29 AM »

*****  -    One of my personal all-time favorites
 ****   -    Excellent, a song I love
  ***    -    A good song, a song I like
   **     -    No strong opinion, neutral
    *      -    A song I dislike
    0      -    A song I hate or strongly dislike

Unusual ***** song choice:  "For Once In My Life", by Stevie Wonder.  Transcendent.
Valid 0 star song:  "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett & The Union Gap.   Eeewwwww.


And your ***** Golf Courses?

I love Pumpkin Ridge as well.  I used to play it by myself sneaking out of work early (I worked at Intel in SFO and was in Portland a lot)

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2008, 11:40:38 AM »
When deciding which courses to join, I decide to pass on Prairie Dunes.  Oakmont also had memberships open at that time, and I decide against that one, too.  In general, I passed on these two for the same reason.  I felt these courses were so popular that the tee sheet would always be full all summer long, and you would always contend with a great deal of guest play.  I value real privacy.  The secondary reason is the use of heavy rough to defend par.  Both Prairie Dunes and Oakmont are brutally difficult, and it is demoralizing hitting out of 3-6 inch rough all the time.

By the way, I'm full up on clubs right now.  If something great comes along, who knows?  If you want to know the honest truth, I'm watching the economy carefully.  I can see a day in a few years, after the shit really hits the fan, that some of these really prestigious older clubs will run into real trouble, and lose a bunch of members.  Maybe by then one of them will have me.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2008, 11:52:16 AM »
Sooo many courses...sooo little time.  If the raters could visit each course every year, then the validity of these list may go up.  With all the rempdelling going on these days, how do they stay current?

While, if you must rate, I perfer a system that scores rather than ranks.  Perhaps there should be a $$$ ranking.  Basically, how much would you be willing to pay to play the course again $0 - $500.  Then just add up the total and figure the average.  As they say "vote with your wallet".  This would also help operators price their courses better.
Coasting is a downhill process

John Kavanaugh

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2008, 11:56:17 AM »


By the way, I'm full up on clubs right now.  If something great comes along, who knows?  If you want to know the honest truth, I'm watching the economy carefully.  I can see a day in a few years, after the shit really hits the fan, that some of these really prestigious older clubs will run into real trouble, and lose a bunch of members.  Maybe by then one of them will have me.


We can only pray.  Based on how every course you join jumps up the rankings once you become a member (I won't mention which to protect your privacy) you should be able to present your track record and get in where ever you wish.  Have you ever belonged to a course that dropped in status?

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2008, 11:58:11 AM »
My 5 star golf courses would definitely include Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Shinnecock Hills, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Royal Dornoch, and Riviera.  I'm pretty sure Crystal Downs, Merion and the National Golf Links would make the list if I played there enough.  I'm predicting Old Macdonald will make this list.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 11:50:37 PM by John Kirk »

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2008, 11:58:58 AM »
Sooo many courses...sooo little time.  If the raters could visit each course every year, then the validity of these list may go up.  With all the rempdelling going on these days, how do they stay current?

While, if you must rate, I perfer a system that scores rather than ranks.  Perhaps there should be a $$$ ranking.  Basically, how much would you be willing to pay to play the course again $0 - $500.  Then just add up the total and figure the average.  As they say "vote with your wallet".  This would also help operators price their courses better.

that is good way, but it would be very driven on your current net worth.  i played Pinehurst #2 while in college and it cost $185, ouch.  when i finished i would have said, no way i would pay $185 to play it again, however now (and I am still poor with two kids and college loans) I would happily pay $185 to play #2

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2008, 12:03:21 PM »
Well, Pumpkin Ridge keeps filtering down.  I can understand why.  It suffers because it was built in 1991-1992, and is not long or difficult enough for great players.  Pumpkin Ridge is aesthetically brilliant.  Robert Cupp and John Fought that has the Golden Age parkland "look" better than any modern I've seen.  Beautiful bunkering.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2008, 01:35:01 PM »
Chip, I just assumed that raters already have a high net worth, otherwise they would have to work for a living. (Although I don't think raters have to pay greens fees - so maybe I'm wrong).  Plus, I was asking if you would pay the rack rate again, just what would you pay - if it was your money.  You don't have to actually have it.  I just thought this up so it may have some flaws.

I figure that if you have a low net worth you would give all you courses a lower dollar value - as long as everything is relative.  On college you might have said "boy I'm poor, but I would part w/$50 to play #2 and maybe $47 for Tabacco Road and $25 for #4, etc.  When your allotment went into the pool and was averaged out, it should carry the same relative weight.  Just like they do now with numbers.  I was just thinking people might assign a different value when thinking in terms of the good 'ol greenback.
Coasting is a downhill process

Matt_Ward

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2008, 03:18:58 PM »
Huck:

Wake up and smell the coffee -- OK? How does one split hairs between the likes of Oakmont and Shinnecock Hills?

Both are clear top ten layouts and for those who are advocates of one versus the other the possibility is such a distinction rests with personal preferences. Greatness is there for both -- while at the same time grouping them together recognizes the fact that they are indeed different from a design perspective from one another.

What's stupid is when magazines believe they can isolate a particular number and say such a course is better than the next -- the old #32 versus #36 routine. Such an inclusion is only meant to cause controversy -- the self created variety I might add.

When you group courses in cluster you can recognize their respective individual greatness and at the same time honor the fact that their individual differences in terms of their style, look and the nature / variety of the holes and shot values they require.

Simple as that -- no cop out at all.

JohnV

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2008, 06:28:28 PM »
The most memorable first day of golf I've ever had was my first round at Pumpkin Ridge (Witch Hollow).  July 3rd, 1992.  By the 7th tee, I turned to my father and said, "That's it.  I'm joining this club."  At the time, I lived in California with my new wife, who had lived in and enjoyed Oregon previously.  Two days later I joined, and it took us nine months to change or leave jobs and move our life to Oregon.

And I've regreted hosting you that day ever since. ;)  Not really since it got Cheryl back in Oregon where she belonged.

Tom Huckaby

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2008, 08:18:00 PM »
Huck:

Wake up and smell the coffee -- OK? How does one split hairs between the likes of Oakmont and Shinnecock Hills?

Both are clear top ten layouts and for those who are advocates of one versus the other the possibility is such a distinction rests with personal preferences. Greatness is there for both -- while at the same time grouping them together recognizes the fact that they are indeed different from a design perspective from one another.

What's stupid is when magazines believe they can isolate a particular number and say such a course is better than the next -- the old #32 versus #36 routine. Such an inclusion is only meant to cause controversy -- the self created variety I might add.

When you group courses in cluster you can recognize their respective individual greatness and at the same time honor the fact that their individual differences in terms of their style, look and the nature / variety of the holes and shot values they require.

Simple as that -- no cop out at all.

Wide awake here, Matt.

And you're still copping out.   That's OK - it's not like it's wrong or bad or anything - I just figured you as one who relished the tough choices.

But we've gone in circles enough - no need for a Kavanaughesque crap-fest, so just answer me this:  what's the huge distinction one category and another?  How can you make that choice?  Is the difference between your top 12  (note you said there are 12 "top 10" courses in America) and the poor #13 so huge and so distinct?

I just figure if you can make that distinction, you can also distinguish between Oakmont and Shinnecock.  But that's OK if it's too much for you and you just want to lump them all together.
 ;D ;D
TH

ps - I am really just having fun with you here, and don't care all that much how this is done.  I truly do think the best answer is to NOT take any ranking very seriously.  There never will be a perfect system.


« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 08:31:15 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2008, 10:00:57 PM »
JES II,
That wouldn't work with some of the people I play with. On a recent trip to Bandon some got lost on Pacific Dunes on their third round there in four days. On the car ride back they were trying to describe "that hole with the ocean on the left" After I tried  the 11th and 13th, they said no, and I gave up.

Kyle Harris

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2008, 10:19:50 PM »
Take the difference between what you paid for the day (mandatory cart included) and what you felt you should have paid for the day after playing.

Mark Bourgeois

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2008, 02:19:18 AM »
Matt

I think the compromise is a step in the right direction but you still haven't escaped the flaw in the rankings which is fundamental in nature; ie, trying to force an ordinal system on a diverse collection of courses.

The "Richelin" system is an advance in that respect.

Here's my crackpot at it:
Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

These values should be expressed not in ordinal rankings but quantitatively.

A course would be "rated" according to how much value its existence added to the total value of golf course architecture. So it wouldn't be rated so much as it would be valued.

For simplicity, suppose the sum value of golf course architecture equalled 100 pennies.

A course "valuer" would have to allocate those 100 pennies across the world of golf courses. This is what I meant by a closed system in the earlier post.

Given that new courses open each year, adding to the total value of all courses, we could inflate the 100 pennies by a certain amount each year, or inflate it only when a course comes along and earns a certain number of pennies.

Or we can keep the figure constant in recognition that courses close each year, too, and that some which open *subtract* from the total value!

Still another option is to go with the Golfweek model, whose classical rankings intuitively the reality that its a closed system, even as it botches the job by using an ordinal system. So, hold the older group constant at 100 pennies (or even better some acknowledged share of a global total of 100), and inflate a second group.

The beauty of this "added value" system (which as a concept IRW was invented by the game theoritician Barry Nalebuff) lies in the implicit recognition that outside 50-75 courses - if that many - in the entire world, the loss of a particular course to history will have negligible impact on the global value of golf course architecture.

Also, such a system would have credibility because its focus simply is the contribution to architecture of a course, rather than its conditioning, history, shot values and other dubious criteria. The list wouldn't change much, so people wouldn't be drawn into these stupid conversations about the 28th vs 42nd courses.

The magazines would never go for it because it wouldn't sell magazines, which would reveal very clearly the real purpose of magazine ratings.

Against all odds, should such a list gain credibility / influence, it would have a hugely positive influence on the preservation of treasured features, holes and courses. Green committees at last would have to calculate the harm they do to the value, to the contribution, of their course when they lengthen it, narrow it, blow up the greens etc.

And should enough of these treasures be made obsolete by I&B, perhaps a groundswell of popular demand would lead to a change and bring these courses back into the tournament rota. (save for the hideous problem of gigantism in the majors...)

The key to making this work is who gets to do the valuation.  I think I would need really smart people; however, many of them are compromised.  I still could use them if:

1. On their word of honor they pledged to value honestly
2. Their valuations were done anonymously, with no possibility of their valuations being made known
3. Outlier valuations were thrown out
4. About 50-75 valuers were used

The value of any system lies in what it produces. I suspect pretty much all the acknowledged "great" courses would make it, maybe some surprises as well like Woking.

No matter, each valuer may have his own view toward value, some tipping toward a curatorial perspective and voting in the Myopia Hunts and Prestwicks.  Others may just look purely at personal "shot values."

But NO ONE will be allowed to value anything other than the explicit architecture. No major-tournament history, locked-gate auras, or stimp readings allowed!

Mark

Matt_Ward

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2008, 04:05:04 PM »
Huck, Mark, et al:

I personally believe there needs to be some sort of course differentiation when ratings of any type are used. I just don't see the wherewithal to provide such differentiations down to specific individual numbers (e.g. #32 versus #33, etc, etc).

I also don't believe one can apply a general "X" stars whether it be Michelin or any other without really breaking down things a bit further.

Huck, when you deal with a subjective matter there is no perfect answer -- but it's crucial to get some sort of consistent formula that can help illuminate the process that was taken. I have never been a fan of "consensus" assessment because far too often people have only played "X" number of courses with no intersection of other courses rated by a completely different group. No doubt the specific categories with their attendant ratings numbers were created to deal with this situation. Far too often I have found from my own direct playing experiences that such numbers are really becoming less and less valid / relevant. Adding more and more panelists doesn't provide more coverage as advocates have stated -- it simply means people voting for / against the same candidadtes relatively near to where they reside.

Huck, if you ask me which courses I personally like -- I'd be happy to dissect Oakmont from a Shinnecock Hills. In my mind, both would easily make my first ten listing of courses played.

When you move from the first ten to a second ten the differences are not that pronoucned but if forced to articulate my reasons I know I could provide my personal reasons for such differentiation.

By the way -- just an FYI -- I believe Tom Doak once stated that America has roughly a dozen top ten layouts.

Mark:

I don't see an issue with "forc(ing) an ordinal system on a diverse collection of courses." Frankly, the whole reason why you rate is to differentiate between the supreme tops and those that follow under them.

I see clustering of courses as being the best of both worlds. You group courses of quality -- although there specific design focus, look, and overall feel in how they play can be quite varied.
 
I also don't view "shot values" as a "dubious" category as you seem to suggest. At the core of architecture is how it relates to the actual playing of the game. Too many people here on GCA fall into the predictable trap in assessing courses primarily on how they look and with connection to other style elements. Shot values is where the architecture is put to the test through the playing of the game itself. I also believe there are low handicap players who really don't understand high quality shot values even though they are capable in playing such shots. The key is the "eye" of the person doing the assessment and being open minded in allowing for different styles and presentations to make the highest of grades.

Mark, I hear what you say about elevating the "value" of a course versus that of its being rated according to some number or cluster effect as I have advocated. I just don't think you go far enough in separating courses. Digest was quite correct when they first started doing such national ratings by breaking them down into clusters. When another magazine inserted the college football poll syndrome then Digest leaped ahead and did a similar thing in order to not be left out.

Mark, it is axiomatic that magazines do ratings to sell magazines. No one denies that. The issue is whether or not there is credibility to what is actually listed by their periodic updates. I find so many of the results today to be less and less in terms of overall credibility -- much of it tied to solid due diligence on the part of those collecting the data.

I do agree that having less people involved would be better -- provided they have the time, energy and passion for doing such things. Information on courses does change and staying current is critical. I really believe that ratings should be spread out over my time -- to say once every four years in order for the dust to settle on new courses and for any real changes that have happened to allow sufficient time for key people to get around and play them personally. Magazines are using ratings like a narcotic - they know people constantly are hooked on hearing about how their course fared or those in their "neck of the woods."

Mark, your "new" system is an interesting one. There will never be a perfect answer since humans are involved. Thanks for sharing ...











Doug Ralston

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2008, 04:25:08 PM »
Doesn't GW/GCA use that important extra criterion: Favored/Un-Favored Architect?

Doug

Tom Huckaby

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2008, 07:26:31 PM »
Matt:

I was just shitting you, so to speak.  As if we haven't discussed these exact issues about 500 times previously.  So, fish on.

In the end these things are taken WAY too seriously.

TH

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2008, 07:40:19 PM »
As if we haven't discussed these exact issues about 500 times previously.

So was there even a remote consensus reached on how best to do rankings (if at all)?

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2008, 07:45:25 PM »

With no attempt to allocate a percentage of songs to each category, the current ratings have about 100 songs (2.5%) as 5 stars and about 800 (15-20%) more as 4 stars.  But these 4 and 5 star song numbers wouldn't change much as I continue to rate songs.  It will be harder to find more of them, since I'm an old narrow-minded fart who now spends more time analyzing golf courses.  This is a very long process, but it's safe to say in the grand scheme, 1-2% of all songs I know are 5 stars, and 10-15% are 4 stars.





This post just caught my eye because I've rated all of my songs in iTunes over the years and never counted them up.  I just checked and out of 6000 songs, I've only got 45 "5 star" songs.  I wouldn't have thought the number would be so low.

I guess I'm more of a 0.5% to 0.75% guy when it comes to dishing out 5 stars.  I'm much more generous with the 4 star reviews - almost 10%.

I just mentally counted 8 "5 star" golf courses I've played and I've played less than 200 in total, so I guess I'm more lenient with my courses than I am my songs.  Or maybe I just haven't experienced enough to realize that my 5 star courses are really 4 star courses.  It's all about your personal perspective.

Tom Huckaby

Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2008, 07:54:10 PM »
As if we haven't discussed these exact issues about 500 times previously.

So was there even a remote consensus reached on how best to do rankings (if at all)?

Are you freakin' kidding?  Not even close.



John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2008, 11:49:00 PM »

With no attempt to allocate a percentage of songs to each category, the current ratings have about 100 songs (2.5%) as 5 stars and about 800 (15-20%) more as 4 stars.  But these 4 and 5 star song numbers wouldn't change much as I continue to rate songs.  It will be harder to find more of them, since I'm an old narrow-minded fart who now spends more time analyzing golf courses.  This is a very long process, but it's safe to say in the grand scheme, 1-2% of all songs I know are 5 stars, and 10-15% are 4 stars.



This post just caught my eye because I've rated all of my songs in iTunes over the years and never counted them up.  I just checked and out of 6000 songs, I've only got 45 "5 star" songs.  I wouldn't have thought the number would be so low.

I guess I'm more of a 0.5% to 0.75% guy when it comes to dishing out 5 stars.  I'm much more generous with the 4 star reviews - almost 10%.

I just mentally counted 8 "5 star" golf courses I've played and I've played less than 200 in total, so I guess I'm more lenient with my courses than I am my songs.  Or maybe I just haven't experienced enough to realize that my 5 star courses are really 4 star courses.  It's all about your personal perspective.

Tim,

I could have just as easily said there were 100 "5-star" songs out of all 7500 on the iPod, since I own virtually all of may favorites, and it's very hard to find new "5-star" songs, especially as you get older.

With respect to golf courses, perhaps guys like you and I just don't play many 1-star and 2-star courses.  When I do, I generally have a really good time.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 01:33:22 AM by John Kirk »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating
« Reply #49 on: March 09, 2008, 12:44:20 AM »
When Digest - Jim Franklin

You couldn't be more wrong if you think Jim embodies a GD panelist and Jim would agree with me 100%.