Newspaper Article on Golf Course Rankings

[John Kavanaugh]

These rankings are meaningless.  I just looked up IL and Chicago Golf Club was #1 with a total of 2 votes.   

Jon,

I don't get your problem.  I think a solid case can be made for Chicago Golf Club as #1 in Illinois.  I thought it was cool as hell to see the club on this list given a majority of golfers in Illinois have never heard of the place.

[JR Potts]

John:

I want to commend you on your continued rant against the raters "rating" their own courses.  It is the truest and most accurate thing I've read on this site.

For some to say that those homeschooled rankings don't make and impact on the whole is laughable - especially when mere fractions separate several spots on the rankings.

And again, I agree - why not post the raters individual rankings?  Like opinions on this site, we'll quickly be able to learn which ones to read and which ones to ignore.

[John Kavanaugh]

John:

I want to commend you on your continued rant against the raters "rating" their own courses.  It is the truest and most accurate thing I've read on this site.

For some to say that those homeschooled rankings don't make and impact on the whole is laughable - especially when mere fractions separate several spots on the rankings.

And again, I agree - why not post the raters individual rankings?  Like opinions on this site, we'll quickly be able to learn which ones to read and which ones to ignore.

Thanks Ryan but I was really hoping for a rant about how Medinah is better than Chicago Golf.  After living in Illinois my entire life I will finally see Medinah next week in preparation for the Butler Cup.  Don't you think we should play the tips?

[JR Potts]

John:

I want to commend you on your continued rant against the raters "rating" their own courses.  It is the truest and most accurate thing I've read on this site.

For some to say that those homeschooled rankings don't make and impact on the whole is laughable - especially when mere fractions separate several spots on the rankings.

And again, I agree - why not post the raters individual rankings?  Like opinions on this site, we'll quickly be able to learn which ones to read and which ones to ignore.

Thanks Ryan but I was really hoping for a rant about how Medinah is better than Chicago Golf.  After living in Illinois my entire life I will finally see Medinah next week in preparation for the Butler Cup.  Don't you think we should play the tips?

I do.  Certainly you should play 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16 & 17 from the tips.  On the rest of the holes, the difference is negligible and little, if any, impact on strategy and enjoyment.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.  Our new superintendent has done a wonderful job in my opinion.  What makes me most excited is his statement that "he's just getting started."  Make sure to hit the ball in the fairway, what used to be a insignificant goal has become pivotal due to the firm and fast nature of the course and the current maintenance practices.

Word is, he hasn't yet turned on the sprinkler system but for testing.

When you playing - hopefully I can swing by and say hi.

Re: Medinah vs. Chicago Golf - you can't compare the two.  They're totally different golf courses built and re-built (in Medinah's case) for two totally different purposes.  I, for one, would rather play Medinah every day.  That being said, every other day I would love nothing more than to drive 5 minutes from my house to play my second 18 at Chicago.

[JWinick]

John:

I'm not knocking Chicago Golf - in fact, I'm looking forward to playing it some day.  I'm just knocking the fact that it could be rated #1 in Illinois with only two people reviewing the course.  That's absurd.   Any ranking system in which a course can be rated that high without a minimum of reviewers is flawed.   If I go in there and rank Chicago Golf a 1 star, it would drop off the list.   

In concept, a public ranking system makes a lot of sense.  I just don't think Golflink has done a good job at it.

Jon

[John_Conley]

In concept, a public ranking system makes a lot of sense.  I just don't think Golflink has done a good job at it.

Jon

Jon, I started this thread on the heels of yet another discussion about how GOLFWEEK or other magazines come up with their lists.  On that recent thread I posed the question, "okay then, how would you go about creating a better list?"  (The whipping boy du jour was the GOLFWEEK "Best Municipal" ranking.)

One suggested something online where everyone had a say.

Like you say, I don't think Golflink has that figured out.  You won't be able to convince me that they are better off identifying a small hard-core universe of raters, conducting workshops periodically, and limiting the pool of courses under consideration so their raters don't spend as much time focusing on the truly average.

It is easy to dismiss the list, but if you buy into the description it might be upsetting.  This isn't the definitive anything.

[John Kavanaugh]

You won't be able to convince me that they are better off identifying a small hard-core universe of raters, conducting workshops periodically, and limiting the pool of courses under consideration so their raters don't spend as much time focusing on the truly average.

John,

Surely you admit the the Golfweek "right to play" list of 1700 courses if far too large and includes many private courses that will never make the top 100 classic.  It is a sold bill of goods that gives traveling salesmen someplace to play after a morning meeting.  At least 1200 courses need to be cut from that list and the courses notified that they are no longer eligible.

[John_Conley]

Jaka, I agree that there needs to be a mechanism for culling courses from the ballot.  Sometimes I suggest some myself.

I am not close enough to the inner workings to know if a good or bad job is being done in this area.  With all the offshoots, most courses are probably 'close' to making some list!  The exception obviously being private clubs pre-1960 that don't have a residential component.

With all that said, sometimes courses fare well in the rankings after renstorvation and make the Top 100.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jaka, I agree that there needs to be a mechanism for culling courses from the ballot.  Sometimes I suggest some myself.

I am not close enough to the inner workings to know if a good or bad job is being done in this area.  With all the offshoots, most courses are probably 'close' to making some list!  The exception obviously being private clubs pre-1960 that don't have a residential component.

With all that said, sometimes courses fare well in the rankings after renstorvation and make the Top 100.

John,

I had to go play a quick one so did not get the chance to say thanks for a reasonable measured response.  As I was on the first green today of this Langford/M gem I got to thinking that maybe a course like Glenn Echo is better than Lawsonia.  So I could be wrong.