[Sean_A]

3.  Finally there are several courses I have played which are "top 100" material (i.e. 8+ on the Doak Scale, IMO) but which are not on
Cheers

Rich

Rihc

Ian went through a rather long nominating process that was quite extensive to come up with nearly 500 courses world wide.  Doak questioned the need for this many and you want to add more?

Ciao

Sean, for what its worth, there are courses not listed which are, in my opinion, worthy of consideration.  But they have no hope of getting the requisite votes, so I didn't bother to nominate or second any of them.

Ed

Ed

I too can think of a few that I would have included by my criteria, but I knew they were never Doak 7s or higher - trying to use Doak's travel criteria.   

Rihc & Ed

I too would be interested in hearing about courses you feel could have been on the ballot.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Thanks.  Having run one of these processes for many years, I can say that that whole "worthy of consideration" thing is a giant waste of time.  If you think a course should be rated in the top 100, just say so, and it will probably make the ballot ... but "worthy of consideration" is a euphemism for "I wanted to score some brownie points with someone by mentioning Course X, but there's no way it will make this list."

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Thanks.  Having run one of these processes for many years, I can say that that whole "worthy of consideration" thing is a giant waste of time.  If you think a course should be rated in the top 100, just say so, and it will probably make the ballot ... but "worthy of consideration" is a euphemism for "I wanted to score some brownie points with someone by mentioning Course X, but there's no way it will make this list."

Tom

To be fair, I think its difficult for many people in my position who have only played maybe 25 of the courses typically seen on the world's Best Of lists.  When I see the difference in my preferences within these 25 I begin to wonder about the other 75 courses often listed and some of the other courses which I really like which aren't ever mentioned for top 100 status, especially when I see pix which don't exactly impress.  The important thing is that I can only wonder so I wonder about tossing around other non-traditional candidates.  To be honest, a guy like me shouldn't be involved in a best of the world rating because I don't have enough wide ranging experience and am likely never to obtain it.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know if you will agree or not, but I noticed MPCC Shore was on the list, yet MPCC Dunes was not.

While I haven't played the Dunes, I have played the Shore and many say that the Dunes course is even better.  So its seems very likely that MPCC Dunes should have also been included.

[Ash Towe]

Ian,
Thanks for the time and effort in running this.  The results from this forum will be most interesting.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich G:

I am dying to know of any course which is an 8 on the Doak scale and didn't make this ballot.  Please post your thoughts here, or in a separate thread.

Please don't die, Tom!  We need you!

Oops, sorry--just having yet another Tinkerbell moment......

As for the subject at hand, none of the courses I list below are solid top 100 material, but some of them could be, and in any case they are far "better" than many of the courses which are on the current list.  I'd give all of these at least a 7 on the Doak Scale:

Applebrook
Brora
Murcar
Portsalon
Winchester

And then how about Painswick?  Can anyone seriously believe that their architectural education is complete if they have not seen that course (or at least another of its ilk)?

Fire away.

Rich

[Mike Nuzzo]

Wolf Point should be on the list - even though hardly anyone will see it.
Cheers

[Ed Oden]

Sean:

Thanks.  Having run one of these processes for many years, I can say that that whole "worthy of consideration" thing is a giant waste of time.  If you think a course should be rated in the top 100, just say so, and it will probably make the ballot ... but "worthy of consideration" is a euphemism for "I wanted to score some brownie points with someone by mentioning Course X, but there's no way it will make this list."

Tom, the "worthy of consideration" remark was mine, so I hope you don't mind if I respond even though your post was directed to Sean.  I agree with you that its a waste of time to go down that road.  That's exactly why I didn't bother to nominate or second the courses which I am thinking of.  I am not looking to add to the ballot.  If I wanted to do so I would have contributed to the nomination thread.  Contrary to your suggestion, if I was looking for "brownie points", I would have nominated them.  I don't see how failing to mention a course or courses I think highly of can be viewed as an attempt to curry favor. 

Ed

[Adrian_Stiff]

Royal Worlington never made the 421 and got a Doak 9.

I always thought TD scored this a bit high, and Burnham low at 5, rest I am never more than a point away.

Wonder if TD feels he may have scored this nine holer a bit much.

[Ian_L]

Ian, there's a falacy in here. The problem is not outliers but the yardstick.

Don't use averages like the mags do, use the mode instead. This is a truer representation of what you are trying to accomplish. You will get a clearer picture of what the *group* thinks.

Please give serious consideration to this approach - it will let everyone give whatever score they want!

Mark

That's an interesting idea.  I can certainly come up with a third list rating the courses this way.  Since the survey has already been started, though, I think we will keep the current rules.  Again, the focus here is getting a Top 100, so those courses that many consider sub-5 material will not be a large consideration.

Rich, I forgot to address one of your questions.  You're right that I did say "very familiar with" on the ballot. Ultimately, it's your decision.  If you feel like you know the course as well as if you'd played it once, then I would suggest voting.  I have been to the AT&T at Pebble Beach a couple times but wouldn't dream of rating the course on the Doak Scale.  Ultimately, it's how comfortable you feel with your knowledge of the course.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

"At least a 7" is a bit different than "8+" in my book.  I've seen four of the five courses you listed, and would score each of them at 6 or 7 myself ... I'd be surprised if any of them made the final list, anyway.

Adrian:

I really didn't intend to omit Royal Worlington & Newmarket.  I love that course; it just slipped through the cracks because I was using other top-100 lists to come up with the ballot, and I didn't think a course that missed out on the top 100 in the UK could contend for the top 100 in the world.  I only used my own thoughts to pare down the number of contenders a bit, not to add any.  I might only have rated Royal Worlington an "8" for this exercise, but I think it's terrific.

Ed:

I meant to say that I was glad you showed such restraint in not naming courses "worthy of consideration".  People do that all the time for the GOLF Magazine rankings and it's a total waste of time ... long reviews of a course to say they think it DOESN'T belong on the list.

[Jamie Barber]

I've added the review of those I've played. Of course there is somewhere close to my heart I'd like to have seen on the list but it has few friends on GCA

[Sean_A]

Royal Worlington never made the 421 and got a Doak 9.

I always thought TD scored this a bit high, and Burnham low at 5, rest I am never more than a point away.

Wonder if TD feels he may have scored this nine holer a bit much.

Adrian

I think Doak missed the boat on a few courses over here, but they are usually over-ranked.  Burnham on the other hand was always a course that stuck out for me as to why Doak only gave it a 5.  He has a few 6s such as Purbeck, Boat of Garten & Westward Ho! that I can't believe he thinks are better than Burnham.  Its true that for mere mortals Burnham does lack in the drivable par 4 category (which he loves so much and  so do I!) and I have long thought this could be rectified with a new tee further forward and right for #16 - especially if the fairways for #3 and 16 were combined as I think they should be - tee hee.  Other than this shortcoming, I can think of nothing Burnham lacks given its out and back routing.  

Thinking of it, Tenby seemed to be hard done by with a 4.  

Rihc

I would give Brora an 8 if it could be ranked.  It is a terribly under-rated course that is every bit as good as many big guns.  The problem is yardage is far too important a factor for these lists.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I mentioned this in a prior post but perhaps was skipped over...

Can a case for MPCC Dunes be made to belong on this spreadsheet?

[George Freeman]

Thanks Ian for a) doing this, and b) following up w/ my question.

Well done, it was easy and a joy to do!

However, it was also quite depressing:  Oh how many courses I haven't seen (and desperately yearn to)!!

[Cristian]

 I think the system should be dynamic rather than static.

Cheers

Rich
[/quote]

I think this is an excellent idea; if we have a system where one can amend one's scores and add new scores for courses recently played, the system would improve gradually, but would also allow new courses to gradually work their way up the rankings. Recent courses could perhaps be seen moving up the rankings, as they mature (or go south once the hype is over.

But even more interestingly, if everybody takes the trouble to review one's ratings every now and then, over time we could see which architects or architecture principals are becoming more popular or losing support. That would make a dynamic list really interesting!

However I do not know how much work goes into that and/or if it's technically feasible, any how I think this exercise is great fun, if only because it makes you rethink of all those rounds in special places...

Thanks Ian!

[John Kirk]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the opportunity; I filled out my form.

By the end of the year, I'll be able to add 5-10 new votes.  Will I have a chance to adjust my votes in the future?

Looking forward to the results.

[Ian_L]

John, feel free to contact me privately and I can add your rating manually (I just plug it into the spreadsheet).

Cristian, your idea would certainly be far superior to mine.  It would be great to have a sort of continuous golf ranking system.  Unfortunately, that is way above my skill level and would likely require its own website with each member having his own account, or something along those lines.  Maybe some true adventure seeker will take this up in the future.

[David_Elvins]

Ian,

Well done on putting the survey together.  A great effort.

I look forward to the results. 

[Rich Goodale]

Rich:

"At least a 7" is a bit different than "8+" in my book.  I've seen four of the five courses you listed, and would score each of them at 6 or 7 myself ... I'd be surprised if any of them made the final list, anyway.

You are right, Tom.  In my mind I meant "possibly an 8 or above,"  Now why couldn't I just have said that?  I also meant to say that there courses out there (including the 5 I listed) which are as good of better than a significant number of the courses which Ian has in his data base and they should not be ignored.  If we limited the data base to only the courses which wouldn't surprise you if they made the final list we might just as well have you give us your choices and save the rest of us a lot of bother.

Sean

Good to see that there is at least one person who beleives that there is one course (Brora) that Tom does not rate highly enough.

Rich

[Ian_L]

Update: I have attached a word document containing the ballot of 412 courses if you'd like to print it out to mull over before voting online. I've fit it into three pages, hopefully this is manageable (and legible).

Rich, it's too bad you weren't around for the nomination process, which was meant to catch just the courses you're talking about.  I'm sure some if not all your nominations would have made the final ballot.

There are hundreds of courses that are "better" than some of those listed on the ballot.  I tried to make it clear in the nomination thread that just because there is a course that is better than one on the list does not qualify it as a good nomination.  We are simply looking for the Top 100 courses in the world according to GCA members.  I have no illusions that this is a list of the top 412 courses in the world.  Those "duds" are simply collateral damage from the use of magazine rankings to come up with the initial list (before GCA nominations).

Hope this makes sense...

[Mark Pearce]

Sean

Good to see that there is at least one person who beleives that there is one course (Brora) that Tom does not rate highly enough.

Rich

Not World Top 100 by any means but don't get me started on The Northumberland, Brancepeth and Seaton Carew.  The CG is like Robert Parker's scores.  It is one (educated and informed) man's view of things.  It wouldn't be healthy if other (equally educated and informed or not) people didn't have different views.  Just like Parker scores, however, I suspect there are people who view CG rankings as objectively correct and set in stone.

Extending the wine scoring analogy, the problem with this exercise lies in the averaging of different people's views.  Averaging scores for a wine means that you average the views of tasters who like the style of a particular wine and those that don't.  Many people love Barossa Shiraz, for instance.  Others find the style overblown and overpowering.  Take a great example of Barossa Shiraz.  Many tasters might rank it a 9, say, in a 10 point scale.  Those who don't appreciate the style might score it a 5 or maybe a 6.  The average score is, say, a 7.  In fact, however, it isn't a 7 point wine to anyone but rather a 5 or a 9 point wine.  I would rather calibrate my palate with that of a critic whose tastes I know, so that if, say Critic A scores a wine well I can expect to enjoy it.  (Similarly I know that if Parker scores a wine in the high 90s I need to read his note carefully to see if it is likely I will enjoy it, that score serves as a warning note rather than an endorsement).

Similarly with golf courses, I would rather understand what sort of courses a commentator likes than see an average score.  I suspect many would score somewhere like Kington very low indeed but Sean's recommendation made me want to visit and I will always be grateful I did.  The bi annual Golf World rankings have, in recent years, seen Turnberry favoured over Muirfield.  To me that's obvious nonsense but obviously there are enough on their panel who disagree and who shift the average that way.  This is an interesting exercise but I'm not sure it will tell me much about the real ranking of any of these courses.

[Sean_A]

Sean

Good to see that there is at least one person who beleives that there is one course (Brora) that Tom does not rate highly enough.

Rich

Not World Top 100 by any means but don't get me started on The Northumberland, Brancepeth and Seaton Carew.  The CG is like Robert Parker's scores.  It is one (educated and informed) man's view of things.  It wouldn't be healthy if other (equally educated and informed or not) people didn't have different views.  Just like Parker scores, however, I suspect there are people who view CG rankings as objectively correct and set in stone.

Extending the wine scoring analogy, the problem with this exercise lies in the averaging of different people's views.  Averaging scores for a wine means that you average the views of tasters who like the style of a particular wine and those that don't.  Many people love Barossa Shiraz, for instance.  Others find the style overblown and overpowering.  Take a great example of Barossa Shiraz.  Many tasters might rank it a 9, say, in a 10 point scale.  Those who don't appreciate the style might score it a 5 or maybe a 6.  The average score is, say, a 7.  In fact, however, it isn't a 7 point wine to anyone but rather a 5 or a 9 point wine.  I would rather calibrate my palate with that of a critic whose tastes I know, so that if, say Critic A scores a wine well I can expect to enjoy it.  (Similarly I know that if Parker scores a wine in the high 90s I need to read his note carefully to see if it is likely I will enjoy it, that score serves as a warning note rather than an endorsement).

Similarly with golf courses, I would rather understand what sort of courses a commentator likes than see an average score.  I suspect many would score somewhere like Kington very low indeed but Sean's recommendation made me want to visit and I will always be grateful I did.  The bi annual Golf World rankings have, in recent years, seen Turnberry favoured over Muirfield.  To me that's obvious nonsense but obviously there are enough on their panel who disagree and who shift the average that way.  This is an interesting exercise but I'm not sure it will tell me much about the real ranking of any of these courses.

Mark

Of course you are correct, I guess that is why Mark B suggests using the mode rather than than the mean for this ranking.  Trying to use the Doak Scale is difficult for me because I don't really see things in a top 100 perspective or that there is really that much difference in quality once we are talking about the very good courses - its more a matter of opinion.  I try to look at the overall picture and decide how much a course is worth revisiting and/or how highly I would recommend it.  So to this end, I prize individuality which is why so many championship courses suffer in my eyes - they are often much of a muchness because they are constantly updating to challenge the best players in the world - which really is another way to say they are slowly becoming homogenized.  That said, when one does stand out as very different it is really something special.  I much prefer The Rihcelin Scale (which to be fair to Doak is something he had in mind originally with his system) to a top 100 deal because I get a better idea of how what the writer thinks of the course. 

You just have to take this stuff with a pinch of salt.  For me, it will be interesting to see how much this group varies in their opinions (if at all) from the mainstream publications.  Folks on here complain bitterly every time a ranking comes out, but I wonder how different this ranking will be.

BTW If I had to translate Kington to the Doak Scale it would get an 7 - which is what I reckon a 1* roughly is.  But I know that very, very few other folks would agree with me and that the translation doesn't work well at all.   

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Ian

I did participate on the nominations thread, even though I
choose not to offer any nominations.  I see this excellent effort of yours as being just the first step in a process which can lead to a more interesting and valid ranking than any of the other existing systems.  In effect, one of the results of this effort should be a pared down list of "candidates," possibly based on those that had a mode of 7 or above.  Then you can open up the floor for more nominations (including those cut by this initial process) for some sort of work-in-progress/dynamic system.  Just my opinion.

Mark P

Excellent post, and it makes me think that the ballots ought to be made public, or at least be made available to the public with the permission of the person submitting the ballot.  It would be far more interesting to me to see how Pat Mucci and Matt Ward and rated the courses relatively (in a condorcet sort of analysis) than what the group think was.

Sean

You are right about the need for a more descriptive ranking system.  I find the Doak system too granualar if it trying to distinguish amongst the top 100 courses using 3 grades (8-10).  I assumed that an 8 was 2** in the Rihcelin system which meant that I put a lot of very good courses at 7 (including Brora!).

Mark B

You are absolutely right about using the mode rather than the mean, particularly since there has been no vetting of the "panelists" except "Scout's Honor, Please!"

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean

You are right about the need for a more descriptive ranking system.  I find the Doak system too granualar if it trying to distinguish amongst the top 100 courses using 3 grades (8-10).  I assumed that an 8 was 2** in the Rihcelin system which meant that I put a lot of very good courses at 7 (including Brora!).

Rich

I was outraged when Nadia Comaneci received 10s in the '76 Olympics as there is no such thing as perfect.  I feel the same about golf courses especially when a key line in Doak's explanation is that not even one hole can be missed.  While it may be true that some great courses can't truly be improved, that is a very different thing from being perfect.  Consequently, I chuck out 10 as an impossible score, but importantly, it is always worth striving for perfection in whatever form it may be.  For me, 3* is roughly 9 (and all the dopey 10s), 2* is roughly 8 and 1* is roughly 7.  I made a mistake with Brora as I see that I have it as a 1* on my notes - so this is roughly a Doak 7. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()