Critics, Tastes, Rankings--restaurants vs. golf courses

[Tony_Muldoon]

Going back to the Guide Michelin, on the whole its starred restaurants are very expensive and the food is showy - a layer of foie gras covered in a jus de something impossible to obtain anywhere else in the world balanced on grouse stuffed with Beluga caviare held up on six frogs' legs surrounding a bed of truffled scallops cooked in vintage Krug. That's just one course. It is in the area of bibs that Michelin really comes into its element, identifying those good value retsaurants which still do peasant food, a rapidly declining species. However, take yourself to La Rochelle (or just about anywhere on the north and west coasts) and you'll almost certainly choose to eat in any of the plain, harbourside fish restaurants where the oysters, mussels, praires, etc come as fresh as can be accompanied by a bottle of Gros Plant or white from the Il de Re. No Michelin inspector will ever go near those restaurants - they don't do anything fancy, yet it is the gastronomic equivalent of unmodernised links golf (possibly on Machair). Get Michelin involved and the food gets fancy - and we know all too well what the equivalent golf courses are like.

Mark

The frogs probably won't go in those restaurants because of all the rosbifs!

I always assumed it was the reviewers who did the Bibs.  Are those done by slob / failed-out inspectors, a sort of GCA.com wing?

But the important thing is the contradiction in your last sentence: Michelin *does* offer recommendations for peasant food.  Not the formal tick-the-list reviews, but still they are recommendations.  In fact in just the past two weeks I ate at few starred restaurants as well as an even greater number of Bibs.  If Michelin wasn't involved, someone should inform them that forgeries of the red and green guides are being sold in respectable bookshops around the world!

Mark

Mark, Mark and Mark are correct.  Michelin distorts the market.  Every reader of the guide is encoraged to try and eat 'up' and not to find the local 'hidden gem'.  My wife and I gave up on trying the 'best' restaurants when a move into two star teritory involved over attentive service and being attacked and strangled by a bib just before the lobster arrived. It is well known that Stars are not awarded unless the decor fits the expectation of the inspectors - it's not just about the food.  Make any group into raters and they'll deveise their own rules of what's important.  That's why Ian's 'unofficial' list wil be interesting.  Perhaps he'll agree to rank them inot three groups and not give actual scores.

[Sean_A]

I have been to a few starred restaurants that weren't in the least hoitey toitey.  Boys, the times they are a changing.  Michelin is seriously on the move and you lot aren't keeping up.  Even sushi joints make top marks.  However, I still seek out the recommendations because they seem much easier to book.  In fact, I eat at one in Warwick quite often - The Art Kitchen.  Beautiful Thai food in an American bar type setting.  Dinner for two is cheaper than most pubs.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony

Golf course rankings and Michelin reviews alike do seem to make a fetish of their objects, certainly when one ventures into 2- and 3-star territory.  Two examples suffice:

1. Michelin demoted Comme Chez Soi from 3 to 2 stars when Tynant handed over the reigns to his son in law Rigolet.  This was no abrupt transition, as Tynant had been semi-retired for years.  Having eaten at CCS both before and after the demotion, there was zero difference.  Pure fetish.

2. Gordon Ramsay's reality show documenting his quest to get a third star for his eponymous restaurant in Chelsea.  More fetish.

Sean

It's all a matter of degree.  1-stars, Bib recommendations, restaurants worthy of inclusion, notes for "casual" and the like: these all are different animals than the world of the 3-star.  Chefs don't commit suicide for losing a "Bib."

Mark

[Sean_A]

Tony

Golf course rankings and Michelin reviews alike do seem to make a fetish of their objects, certainly when one ventures into 2- and 3-star territory.  Two examples suffice:

1. Michelin demoted Comme Chez Soi from 3 to 2 stars when Tynant handed over the reigns to his son in law Rigolet.  This was no abrupt transition, as Tynant had been semi-retired for years.  Having eaten at CCS both before and after the demotion, there was zero difference.  Pure fetish.

2. Gordon Ramsay's reality show documenting his quest to get a third star for his eponymous restaurant in Chelsea.  More fetish.

Sean

It's all a matter of degree.  1-stars, Bib recommendations, restaurants worthy of inclusion, notes for "casual" and the like: these all are different animals than the world of the 3-star.  Chefs don't commit suicide for losing a "Bib."

Mark

Mark

Maybe I am eating in the wrong joints.  I make it down to Le Champignon Sauvage a few times a year.  It doesn't strike me as ott or even that good really.  I mean its good, but it doesn't stand out for me as superior.  I visit another in Cambridge about once a year.  Its much more ott and not really to my liking, but the food is superb.  I think these are the only 2 stars I have eaten at recently.  Theres all sorts of starred joints and they can be very, very different these days. 

Ciao

   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean

I am with you on everything but the three-stars -- and I probably should add, the two-stars with three-star ambitions.

I disagree with Tony that Michelin distorts the market for all other restaurants.  In fact, an argument could be made that for non-three-star-wannabee two-stars and lower (does that make sense?) -- well, at least for one-stars and below -- Michelin is a follower not a leader. Local publications, websites, and word of mouth get the drop on them.

As you probably know, in all of England just three restaurants earn three stars, and just one in what IMHO is right now the greatest restaurant city in the world, London.

I've heard of Le Champion Sauvage but not eaten there. Some people think it deserves a third star.  That you think less of it perhaps shows why it will not get that third.  It's considered a quantum leap -- you never really hear anyone speak of such leaps as undeserving.  On the other hand, despite their scarcity, three-stars sometimes (often) do get called out.

This is exactly analogous to the point about courses finding it hard to make it in these rankings and hard to be booted out.

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark:

SOLD.  And I got that every course needs to be seen, but not by all raters.  That's what I assumed all along.

But I still don't think any of it has any chance of being implemented.  Not that I am happy about it, but I think my trump card which "wins" this argument is this:

no magazine has any incentive whatsoever to change how they do it now.  They get relatively free data, it works to give them rankings, and their readers and advertisers seem quite happy with how it all works.

But you are darn perceptive... care to take on what's in it for them to change?

Well, Tom Doak got Golf to change the way they did it, just by writing a letter!

I guess it depends on who really runs the rankings, editorial or business.  If the former, one would hope the desire to actually produce an accurate ranking trumps "because that's how we've always done it."

If the latter, the expansion of the rankings seems to provide beaucoup marketing opportunities.  Also, I would imagine many clubs and courses that need the rankings actually aren't all that happy with how it's done now but fear speaking out.  Many of the ones that don't need the rankings have either a shut door (private) or no comps (public), yes?

If all this fails, then there's nothing like "new and improved" to move product.

It's interesting to consider why both GD and GM made substantial changes to their systems in recent years, albeit while keeping the fundamental philosophy.  That seems to indicate an understanding of the deep flaws, yet a willingness to change.

Maybe GM would be the most likely candidate.  Those panelists have few to no access issues, plus it's a smaller panel in the first place.  I could see architects favoring this approach, and at least one panelist has gone public with his criticism of the drive-by method.

Mark

[Bill_McBride]

I like the Doak Scale and the concept of travel distances. I also like the 10 round comparison scale.

Pasatiempo - I have played it twice. I think the back 9 is one of the best 9's in golf. Love every hole. The front has some very good stuff too, but are any holes great on the front? It even gets tight there in the 6, 7, 8 area, and I don't remember the holes well enough. Doak 7.5, if you are in San Fran, you make the trip down, but I don't think you get on a plane just to play Pasa.

Mike, I have been quoted on many occasions as saying that Pasatiempo's back nine is my favorite nine holes of golf.  The only slightly weak hole has been #17 and that has apparently been vastly improved by the extenslon of the green toward the barranca behind.   #12 was a better hole when the barranca in front was truly nasty and the opening was tighter before the trees were cut back.  Now it's spoon and PW for the better players.  Otherwise the changes have all been for the best.

It's also a great walk.

[Sean_A]

Sean

I am with you on everything but the three-stars -- and I probably should add, the two-stars with three-star ambitions.

I disagree with Tony that Michelin distorts the market for all other restaurants.  In fact, an argument could be made that for non-three-star-wannabee two-stars and lower (does that make sense?) -- well, at least for one-stars and below -- Michelin is a follower not a leader. Local publications, websites, and word of mouth get the drop on them.

As you probably know, in all of England just three restaurants earn three stars, and just one in what IMHO is right now the greatest restaurant city in the world, London.

I've heard of Le Champion Sauvage but not eaten there. Some people think it deserves a third star.  That you think less of it perhaps shows why it will not get that third.  It's considered a quantum leap -- you never really hear anyone speak of such leaps as undeserving.  On the other hand, despite their scarcity, three-stars sometimes (often) do get called out.

This is exactly analogous to the point about courses finding it hard to make it in these rankings and hard to be booted out.

Mark

Yep, I agree about 3*, they are a quantum leap both in courses and restaurants. I haven't been to a 3* of either type.  I break my Rihcelin Guida down roughly as (and note that I definitely include value in judging courses as I've always said that if rating courses was only about the quality then I would never need to play a course - I can watch others for free - I guess that means I don't really think of courses as art):

3* Likely only a few in the world.  It has it all - meaning you couldn't want for more in a course, its surroundings and clubhouse.  Worth a trip all on its own to see.  Even if very expensive its great value.  I don't have an example. 

2* Still an excellent course, perhaps worth a trip on its own to see, but certainly worth planning a trip around.  The course should not in any way be disappointing.  The cost starts to become more of a factor in terms of value.  Examples: Sandwich, St Enodoc, North Berwick.

1* For sure a great course, but sometimes much more run of the mill type in that folks probably need to dig a bit to see greatness.  There will likely be "flaws" that either add to the charm or detract from it depending on bias.  Worth a day & night detour.  Will probably find some 2* courses in this class because of expensive green fees.  Whats expensive - probably anything over £100.  Examples: Pennard, Addington, Old Town, TOC, Merion and many more.

R Some of these courses could be right on the edge of a 1* and in fact you may change your mind about them in the future.  In any case, these courses are good to very good.  There should be several holes which are lovely and few duds.  Courses will vary between looking up first if in the area to a good fall back course if in the area.  Probably worth up to 5 hours of windshield time to see if in the very general area.  Many of these courses represent excellent value and some may be in this class that are 1* quality, but too expensive.  Examples: Lederach, Burnham & Berrow, Perranporth, Huntercombe, Wallasey, Pine Needles, Shepherd's Hollow and many, many more

Ciao

[Jonathan Cummings]

Mark - your posts on this subject are interesting and perceptive.  JC

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks all, for your time and your wisdom.

I do recognise that restaurants are not the same as golf courses:

--one has venues which are absurdly overpriced and so does the other one
--one milks reputation for all it is worth, and so does the other one
--one has venues which offer value for money and so does the other one
--one has venues which change slowly over time, while the other has ones which can change at the drop of a hat (or toque)
--you can build a very good one of them for six figures, which will just pay for the pensions of the drones at the other one
--if it rains at one, the experience is almost the same as when the sun shines
--one recognises that there are hundreds of "best in the world"s while others try to claim ther are far fewer
--one has "rankings" which change yearly and radically and one has rankings which change glacially, no matter how the relative and absolute  experience might have changed over time
--oh, you get the points, don't you?......

Rich

PS-- I know now who are my "go to" guys when picking restaurants for BUDA or any other gca.com sort of gathering.

j-p p

[Mark Bourgeois]

...wasn't it JPP who steered us a few years ago to "probably the best Indian restaurant in the North of England"?

Jonathan, I wish I could take credit but my first post was verbatim plagiarism from Ran's interview!

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

...wasn't it JPP who steered us a few years ago to "probably the best Indian restaurant in the North of England"?

Jonathan, I wish I could take credit but my first post was verbatim plagiarism from Ran's interview!

Mark

Pas de tout, mon cher.  It was Lloyd Cole, who is batting .500 at B|UDA Indian Restaurant recommendations--grand slam near Hoylake but a weak pop up to first base with the one in Leeds.

[Andrew Mitchell]

...wasn't it JPP who steered us a few years ago to "probably the best Indian restaurant in the North of England"?

Jonathan, I wish I could take credit but my first post was verbatim plagiarism from Ran's interview!

Mark

Pas de tout, mon cher.  It was Lloyd Cole, who is batting .500 at B|UDA Indian Restaurant recommendations--grand slam near Hoylake but a weak pop up to first base with the one in Leeds.

Rich
I thought Lloyd recommended you to Akbars in Leeds?  I'm surprised you consider that a bum steer.  I heartily seconded it so I guess I'm 0 for 1.

[Rich Goodale]

Sorry, Andrew, but I thought that Akbar's was somewhat less than medicore, but that's just my 'umble opinion, particularly in relation to the place we ate at near Hoylake.

Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

Andrew

I would put it above mediocre but the qualifier of "North of England" is what did me in -- eating at Amaya in London has ruined me I guess!

Mark