Course Rankings - A Different Take

[Glenn Spencer]

TH,

The rating formula is shown and it seems that an architect or developer can cater to these categories. That is my problem with it. Also, my experience (very limited) with raters tells me that it is hard to believe everyone is qualified to be putting courses into these categories.

Walking?

No, I absolutely do not believe the game is better played on foot. I like to play with a caddie or take a cart. I think carrying my bag is awkward and not enjoyable. I don't think The Ocean Course should get extra points for walking, nor do I think that Bethpage should get knocked down because only a certain percentage can actually walk the golf course. The course is the course. How you play it shouldn't affect its ranking. Extra points for walking is adding points for personal reasons.

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn:

Fair enough. 

Interesting take, one with which I agree in parts but wholly disagree in most, but at least we know where you stand. 

I still think GD's system is the best.

TH

[Glenn Spencer]

How is walking any different than public or private? Bethpage is more enjoyable to the masses because everyone can play it. Cypress is private and therefore not as many people can enjoy it??? Walking is a personal add-on, simple as that.

[Tom Huckaby]

How is walking any different than public or private? Bethpage is more enjoyable to the masses because everyone can play it. Cypress is private and therefore not as many people can enjoy it??? Walking is a personal add-on, simple as that.

So you say.  I get it.

I disagree.

I'll never convince you, and you'll never convince me.  I was curious what your take was, and you provided it.  Many thanks.  But there's little point to arguing when opinions are so widely different.

TH

[Jim Nugent]

And Huck, another question: if GD's system is best, what do you think of it putting Riviera in 61st place?  

[Glenn Spencer]

To be honest, I don't think I knew what magazine used those categories when I replied. They don't make sense to me for any rankings. It is not a golf digest thing with me. GD may be the best, I don't know. I just know that the ability to walk a course does not make it any better than one that you can't.

[Glenn Spencer]

How is walking any different than public or private? Bethpage is more enjoyable to the masses because everyone can play it. Cypress is private and therefore not as many people can enjoy it??? Walking is a personal add-on, simple as that.

So you say.  I get it.

I disagree.

I'll never convince you, and you'll never convince me.  I was curious what your take was, and you provided it.  Many thanks.  But there's little point to arguing when opinions are so widely different.

TH

Fair enough, I didn't know that we were arguing, but fair enough.

[Tom Huckaby]

And Huck, another question: if GD's system is best, what do you think of it putting Riviera in 61st place?  

Jim:  I'd say that is an outlier.  Each of the ranking systems have such.

But enough already.  It's clear that GD is generally reviled in this bastion of purists.  But out in the real world, well.....

I feel like a Muslim arguing religion in the Vatican.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

How is walking any different than public or private? Bethpage is more enjoyable to the masses because everyone can play it. Cypress is private and therefore not as many people can enjoy it??? Walking is a personal add-on, simple as that.

So you say.  I get it.

I disagree.

I'll never convince you, and you'll never convince me.  I was curious what your take was, and you provided it.  Many thanks.  But there's little point to arguing when opinions are so widely different.

TH

Fair enough, I didn't know that we were arguing, but fair enough.

We weren't YET.  And I'd prefer not to, as we surely get more than enough of that in here as it is.  So thanks.

TH

[John_Conley]

Has a course ever been listed in a ranking prior to opening?  I'm going to take it at your word that it has happened, but it would be nice to know which course(s).

Sure there aren't several posts missing from the thread?  If not, at least several points are missing from your argument.

All ears.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,

      So Castle Pines is really the 36th best course in the United States?   Seriously?   

      Arcadia and Spyglass better than the Riv?

      I am a fan of Sahalee but 76th best? 

[Tom Huckaby]

Craig:

Scour the other lists and I feel certain one could find plenty with which to disagree as well.  In any case, a few outliers does not render incorrect the entire methodology.  And I continue to believe that the methodology used by GD is superior to that used by the other magazines.  But of course I expect damn near every participant here to disagree.

TH

[John Mayhugh]

We get one course premature on the Caribbean list and for that you think the whole process  -- involving 2,200 courses -- is misguided? You can always reach me with your concerns via email (or through the magazine) if you have concerns about procedure.

First - I requested such contact from a member of the GolfWeek staff. I don't purport to be the holder of great knowledge... but have been around a bit.

Second - Stop taking this so hard... EVERY rating panel gets cirtiqued here... you are not different.

Third - Listing a course that is that far from ever being played is inexcusable... rather than attack I expected you to agree.

Fourth - Hope to see you here next spring assuming my critiqu has not precluded the summit.

The great thing about ratings... they elicit debate... some of whcih is contrary to what each of us want to hear.

It's fascinating how perspectives affect interpretation.  I don't see where Brad is "taking this so hard" or "attacking" you at all.  He just answered your questions.  I do agree with him that the thread itself is difficult to follow.

Is the core issue that Golfweek included a course in their rankings that hadn't opened yet? If so, everyone should agree that does not make sense.  If Golfweek did this, then it would be nice to have an explanation why.  Otherwise, it doesn't help credibility.

For the most part, I think of rankings as a kind of entertainment.  They should help to identify the best tiers of courses, but anytime you say, for example, Pebble Beach is better than NGLA, you're going to have some disagreement. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am lost on this thread but hope I am with what Greg is on to here. I think it is fine for a magazine to write about a course before opening and to even predict critical acclaim or popularity. However it goes again everything I understand about rating courses to give a rating before a statistical minimum number of raters have viewed it to give the rating validity.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Have you mentioned what makes it so superior?

It seems to reward courses that are hard, with plush conditions and that have really nice clubhouses.

P.S.  While it is true Golfweek seems to have the most mind meld with the members of this GCA, you do realize that I am just picking on you and its not personal.   

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Huck, disagreement is hereby noted for the record.

[Tom Huckaby]

Have you mentioned what makes it so superior?

It seems to reward courses that are hard, with plush conditions and that have really nice clubhouses.

P.S.  While it is true Golfweek seems to have the most mind meld with the members of this GCA, you do realize that I am just picking on you and its not personal.   

I fully understand what you are TRYING to do, Craig.

You just remain wrong.  I'd clue you in as to why, but that would require me to re-do an argument I've made 1000 times already, and even I have gotten tired of it.  

TH

ps to Tiger - understood. 

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know exactly what course Greg is referring to as being ranked well before opening, but it would not be the first instance.  Bandon Dunes was ranked by GOLFWEEK (in the Top 10 modern) four months before Opening Day -- I remember that well because I was there doing the planning work for Pacific Dunes when the word came through.  (It was probably in print only a couple of months before opening, but it takes a while to get things into print.)

Pacific Dunes may also have been ranked before its official opening, I honestly can't remember.

Why would a magazine do this?  Because they want to "scoop" their rivals and be the first to give a course the good news.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Huckster,

    I always loved this quote from Geoff...

    "More recently, it's the influence of the Golf Digest 'Resistance to Scoring' criteria. Sadly, the tough-is-good, par-is-the-ultimate-achievement mentality is rampant in the game thanks to certain governing bodies preaching it at the majors and in the rule book. But now that technology is out of control, par is not the standard for perfect play anymore, and I don't think that's a bad thing by any means. But look at Golf Digest's ranking. It's primarily 'publicity-shy, low handicappers who travel' on that panel, and all they do is look at conditioning, resistance to scoring and the mysterious, 'shot values.' Have you ever seen the Golf Digest Top 100 before Ron Whitten and the Editors fix it with the Tradition score? It's frightening. 650 low-handicap panelists find that Wade Hampton and Shadow Creek are among the Top 10 courses in the U.S., and Sanctuary is #17? Meanwhile, Cherry Hills, Riviera, Inverness, Baltimore, Baltusrol Lower, Chicago Golf Club, all land in the second fifty before the editors straighten things out. That tells you how much a group of low handicappers knows."


Always good to know when I'm having a crappy day at work, I can pick on you.   

[Peter Wagner]

Greg,

I am completely confused by your rant and I don't understand your point.

To those that question Riv at 61,
I wonder if Riv's current management had something to do with this?  The relatively new owner is doing things very differently these days and perhaps some of these changes rub raters the wrong way.  (How's that for being tactful?)

My 2 cents is that Riv is in great shape and I'm surprised by the 61.  I would guess the next round of ratings polls will reflect it's true position amongst the best courses.

- Peter

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,

      So Castle Pines is really the 36th best course in the United States?   Seriously?   

I love Castle Pines, sounds about right to me. The Golf Club should be ahead of it, but Butler National and Whistling Straits wouldn't be on my list.

[Kalen Braley]

To take Peter's comments one step further. Perhaps this is a side bar to ANGC also seeing a drop in the ratings, although I'm not sure if that was on GD's list or not.

I'm not a Riv buff, but just an observation from some of the threads I've read. Perhaps the raters are just showing thier displeasure with the "restoration" job that was performed there and it reflects it in the ratings.  I know that work has gotten bashed here several times, and the lower rating would seem to fall in line with the claimed inaccuracy of the work.

[Matt_Ward]

Frankly, it would be neat if the magazines actually provided bit of reason to the process. In years past -- GD would not rate a course until it had been opened for a bit of time. I thought such a rule made good sense because the fanfare tied to something "new" usually results in a spike immediately --see the bump Harbour Town had when it first opened.

Give a two or three-year waiting period for any overall ratings and you will see if the same fanfare tied to the opening is really justified. A course can still be eligible for best new or something similar to that but an overall placement makes little sense given the usual rush to judgement mentality that often pervades a good many people.

Clearly, magazines want to scoop the competition and as a result the waiting period got chucked out the window for publishing expediency.

[Mike Erdmann]

I don't know exactly what course Greg is referring to as being ranked well before opening, but it would not be the first instance.  Bandon Dunes was ranked by GOLFWEEK (in the Top 10 modern) four months before Opening Day -- I remember that well because I was there doing the planning work for Pacific Dunes when the word came through.  (It was probably in print only a couple of months before opening, but it takes a while to get things into print.)

Pacific Dunes may also have been ranked before its official opening, I honestly can't remember.

Why would a magazine do this?  Because they want to "scoop" their rivals and be the first to give a course the good news.

While I wasn't a rater at the time, I played Bandon Dunes a good seven months before it opened.  The lodge was just a foundation then but the golf course was complete.  So I think it's unfair to high-center on "Opening Day" if the requisite number of raters have played the course before that date and have submitted ratings.

Also, this thread is now working on its second page, and Greg still hasn't given us any information on what course he's talking about.  Would that be asking to much in order to promote somewhat intelligent discussion on the topic?  It's not like this is top-secret information, and without specifics, its hard to lend credence to Greg's argument.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huckster,

    I always loved this quote from Geoff...

    "More recently, it's the influence of the Golf Digest 'Resistance to Scoring' criteria. Sadly, the tough-is-good, par-is-the-ultimate-achievement mentality is rampant in the game thanks to certain governing bodies preaching it at the majors and in the rule book. But now that technology is out of control, par is not the standard for perfect play anymore, and I don't think that's a bad thing by any means. But look at Golf Digest's ranking. It's primarily 'publicity-shy, low handicappers who travel' on that panel, and all they do is look at conditioning, resistance to scoring and the mysterious, 'shot values.' Have you ever seen the Golf Digest Top 100 before Ron Whitten and the Editors fix it with the Tradition score? It's frightening. 650 low-handicap panelists find that Wade Hampton and Shadow Creek are among the Top 10 courses in the U.S., and Sanctuary is #17? Meanwhile, Cherry Hills, Riviera, Inverness, Baltimore, Baltusrol Lower, Chicago Golf Club, all land in the second fifty before the editors straighten things out. That tells you how much a group of low handicappers knows."


Always good to know when I'm having a crappy day at work, I can pick on you.   

Geoff's rant must be at least a few years old, as the process certainly doesn't work at all that way these days.... and is even pretty wildly off for how it worked back then....

But hey, whatever gets you through the day.