[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I agree with your assignment of stars vs. the various scores on the Doak scale.  In fact there are a lot of courses I rated 6 which would get a star from somebody ... even from me ... there are a lot of courses which I think are cool and worth a visit, but which I can't bring myself to rate alongside the other 7's.

For that matter, I agree with what you said about perfection in rankings.  As far as golf courses are concerned, perfection is relative.  The other part of my perfect definition was "Drop this book and go, immediately.", and I still think that part works.

I was listening to an NPR program about a web site that posts restaurant ratings from diners, and it occurred to me that the online version of The Confidential Guide should be reviews of golf courses by 20-30 different critics ... so you could see what 2-3 different people whose tastes you agree with think of a particular course, instead of just one man's opinion or a vanilla consensus.

However, I must say I do find it funny that so many people have prefaced their participation in this thread with claiming not to like rankings or not have seen enough to be helpful!

[jeffwarne]

Saen,
Oddly enough, the only 10 I gave was your home track-

I mean would you rather play 36 there or Muirfield?
I'd drop a lot more things than a book (even if she does love me ) to go play Pennard right now.

Of course rankings are subjective, otherwise there'd be no need for rankings

[Sean_A]

Saen,
Oddly enough, the only 10 I gave was your home track-

I mean would you rather play 36 there or Muirfield?
I'd drop a lot more things than a book (even if she does love me ) to go play Pennard right now.

Of course rankings are subjective, otherwise there'd be no need for rankings

Jeepers Jeff.  Pennard is one of a handful of my all-time favourites and yes, I would rather play there than Muirfield anyday, but I can't see it as higher than 8 assuming all things are in order - so a 7 (1*) is more like it - for now.  To put this into context, I think Pennard when it is maintained properly is a better course than Brora and could be seen as a step higher - but this probably depends on one's mood more than anything - tee hee.  I don't think Brora can do anything to make their course really any better (the out n back routing is the biggest reason for this) and as such it really rides the fence of 1* or not. I give it the benefit of some doubt because of how the course is presented (rough n ready, but wonderfully so) and its beautiful place to be regardless of what one's score is like. 

Tom

Yes, there are quite a few courses you rated between 4-6 that I think deserve a star.  I guess I am not as enamoured with many of the big guns as you are or don't feel the need to rate these places so highly partly because they host championships.  As I say, many are a bit too homogenized for my liking.   

I too like the idea of 20-30 panelists thrusting and counter-thrusting.  But I would like to see guys on it with much more world experience than folks in my position.  Crucially though, panelists would have to have seen the "other" courses about.  When folks know what the so called second tier is all about  - this is when proper debate can occur.  Matt Ward often goes on about sacred cows and I gotta believe he is right to a certain extent.

So far as "drop this book" goes, I haven't seen a course which I felt that strongly about.  I was just saying the other day that Barnbougle, Longshadow, Ballyneal, Wolf Point and Castle Stuart are the only quite recently built courses which really turned my head.  Even then, I am not dropping anything to have a go!

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Saen,
Oddly enough, the only 10 I gave was your home track-

I mean would you rather play 36 there or Muirfield?
I'd drop a lot more things than a book (even if she does love me ) to go play Pennard right now.

Of course rankings are subjective, otherwise there'd be no need for rankings

Jeepers Jeff.  Pennard is one of a handful of my all-time favourites and yes, I would rather play there than Muirfield anyday, but I can't see it as higher than 8 assuming all things are in order - so a 7 (1*) is more like it - for now.  To put this into context, I think Pennard when it is maintained properly is a better course than Brora and could be seen as a step higher - but this probably depends on one's mood more than anything - tee hee.  I don't think Brora can do anything to make their course really any better (the out n back routing is the biggest reason for this) and as such it really rides the fence of 1* or not. I give it the benefit of some doubt because of how the course is presented (rough n ready, but wonderfully so) and its beautiful place to be regardless of what one's score is like. 

Tom

Yes, there are quite a few courses you rated between 4-6 that I think deserve a star.  I guess I am not as enamoured with many of the big guns as you are or don't feel the need to rate these places so highly partly because they host championships.  As I say, many are a bit too homogenized for my liking.   

I too like the idea of 20-30 panelists thrusting and counter-thrusting.  But I would like to see guys on it with much more world experience than folks in my position.  Crucially though, panelists would have to have seen the "other" courses about.  When folks know what the so called second tier is all about  - this is when proper debate can occur.  Matt Ward often goes on about sacred cows and I gotta believe he is right to a certain extent.

So far as "drop this book" goes, I haven't seen a course which I felt that strongly about.  I was just saying the other day that Barnbougle, Longshadow, Ballyneal, Wolf Point and Castle Stuart are the only quite recently built courses which really turned my head.  Even then, I am not dropping anything to have a go!

Ciao

Sean,
Are you saying there are courses you like less than Pennard that you rate higher?
While we're at it Brora (8 for me) is the only course I've ever walked off 18 and gone straight to # 1 again (blew off Dornoch). (and you know how I like to hit and run)
And Pennard I played as the second round of distant courses two days in a row.

I don't look at "shot values", or conditioning-just the overall joy I get from a course. So setting certainly plays a part of it, but I love the raw naturalness and playability of Brora and Pennard.

[Garland Bayley]

Mark,

You haven't convinced me that you understand wine rankings.
I.e., wine scores are on a 100 pt scale. Divide by 10 to relate them to Doak scale. A 6.9 would be considered undrinkable, whereas it would be a great choice for playing golf.

[Sean_A]

Saen,
Oddly enough, the only 10 I gave was your home track-

I mean would you rather play 36 there or Muirfield?
I'd drop a lot more things than a book (even if she does love me ) to go play Pennard right now.

Of course rankings are subjective, otherwise there'd be no need for rankings

Jeepers Jeff.  Pennard is one of a handful of my all-time favourites and yes, I would rather play there than Muirfield anyday, but I can't see it as higher than 8 assuming all things are in order - so a 7 (1*) is more like it - for now.  To put this into context, I think Pennard when it is maintained properly is a better course than Brora and could be seen as a step higher - but this probably depends on one's mood more than anything - tee hee.  I don't think Brora can do anything to make their course really any better (the out n back routing is the biggest reason for this) and as such it really rides the fence of 1* or not. I give it the benefit of some doubt because of how the course is presented (rough n ready, but wonderfully so) and its beautiful place to be regardless of what one's score is like. 

Tom

Yes, there are quite a few courses you rated between 4-6 that I think deserve a star.  I guess I am not as enamoured with many of the big guns as you are or don't feel the need to rate these places so highly partly because they host championships.  As I say, many are a bit too homogenized for my liking.   

I too like the idea of 20-30 panelists thrusting and counter-thrusting.  But I would like to see guys on it with much more world experience than folks in my position.  Crucially though, panelists would have to have seen the "other" courses about.  When folks know what the so called second tier is all about  - this is when proper debate can occur.  Matt Ward often goes on about sacred cows and I gotta believe he is right to a certain extent.

So far as "drop this book" goes, I haven't seen a course which I felt that strongly about.  I was just saying the other day that Barnbougle, Longshadow, Ballyneal, Wolf Point and Castle Stuart are the only quite recently built courses which really turned my head.  Even then, I am not dropping anything to have a go!

Ciao

Sean,
Are you saying there are courses you like less than Pennard that you rate higher?
While we're at it Brora (8 for me) is the only course I've ever walked off 18 and gone straight to # 1 again (blew off Dornoch). (and you know how I like to hit and run)
And Pennard I played as the second round of distant courses two days in a row.

I don't look at "shot values", or conditioning-just the overall joy I get from a course. So setting certainly plays a part of it, but I love the raw naturalness and playability of Brora and Pennard.

Jeff

Yes, my ratings based on the Rihcelin or Doak scale is not the same thing as my favourite courses - though there does tend to be an overlap between the two.  For instance, I think Dornoch is a better course than Brora, but I prefer Brora as I can have just as much fun for half the price.  I don't think my differences between the two idea of best and favourite is strange - is it?

Garland

Wine ratings are a complete scam.  All these crazy competitions where almost all of the best producers don't enter because they know the only important voice in the industry is Parker.  Why, because what he says sets the price for that year, hence the reason price lists aren't released until Parker releases his verdicts.  Though there are signs of Chateaux blowing off Parker by keeping their prices high despite at best mediocre years in Bordeaux since 2005.  While I don't like the idea of high prices, I do like the idea of Parker's power being eroded.  A dominant voice in the industry such as Parker's leads to homogenized wine - something I can do without.       

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

Do Doak ratings lead to a homogenized product?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Do Doak ratings lead to a homogenized product?

Garland

Do Doak's ratings dominate the critique market and therefore the pricing structure of green fees?

Ciao

[henrye]

Sean,

Do Doak ratings lead to a homogenized product?

I don't think so.  Tom rates Rye at a 9.  Nothing homogeneous about that.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Great stuff Ian, thanks for all your hard work.

I enjoyed the opportunity to voice my opinion.

[Mark Bourgeois]

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

Before starting that profile of Royal Melbourne Composite a few months ago, my working assumption was that the course was the closest thing to perfection I had seen.  What I learned though was that no course, at least when analyzed at the level of individual holes, can stand up to close analysis.

Thinking more about this, there seemed to be another aspect of perfection, specifically how sometimes what we might consider individual flaws actually contribute to the greatness of the course as a whole.  Sort of like cholesterol, there are "good" flaws -- or is that good "flaws" -- and "bad" flaws.

An example of a good flaw might be a "breather" hole.  This idea is straight from Wethered and Simpson's notion of the "ideal" course: if you made it a collection of the world's "greatest" holes you would tire of it quickly and and not want to play it every day.

Another example of a good flaw could be where a flawed hole or feature is incorporated into the design which enables or unlocks the greatness.  This is the "greater than the sum of its parts" argument.  One example might be the blind drive on the 4th hole of Royal Melbourne West, which gets you to a fantastic run of holes (and shots).

All of which is a long-winded way of writing that perfection exists if you're willing to accept that nothing's perfect that lacks imperfection.  You might laugh at that, but the Romantics, John Ruskin, and Tolstoy all believed strongly in the concept!

Blah blah blah...anyway, the greatest commentary on perfection in design is Harry Colt's description of Swinley as his "least bad" course.  There is a world of experience and wisdom encapsulated by "least bad."

Mark

EDIT: looking back on this post, its real mission is probably much too subtle for people to pick up on, which is campaigning for Ganton as a 10.  G-A-N-T-O-N -- what's that spell?  Ganton! Goooo Ganton!!!

[Peter Pallotta]

And besides the wise ones you mentioned, Mark, the Navajos used to purposely weave into their beautiful blankets one little mistake, just to let the devil out.

The world is so keen on progress and improvements and perfections of all kinds that we miss the obvious: that we're fleeing from the present, the now, as if it were the plague, and that instead of a genuine and satisfying value-system for today we've put our faith an imaginary one for tommorrow.   

There is the artifice in all art, often a small  trick upon which the greatness of the art rests. Don't go looking too hard for the trick, I say - it defeats its own purpose.

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter this is for you.  I guarantee it is worth the effort:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xPENSgUgsHEC&pg=RA1-PA152&dq=nature+of+gothic&as_brr=1#PRA1-PA152,M1

Mark

[Ronald Montesano]

What this enterprise reveals to me is the dearth of courses on my resume.  I think that all GCA participants should, in good conscience, take up a collection to send me to as many of these courses as can be afforded.  In return, well, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed...

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

Thanks for bringing up the issue of imperfection.  I think we on this board have had some good discussions of this, going back many years.  The main reason for my thanks, however, is that it reminds me of some of my earlier contributions to this issue using Browning's "Andrea del Sarto," as an exemplar, in particular:

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

Then, this too led me to finding my old college text of Browning's poems, and the re-reading of his so many precious poems and phrases.  There are many missable moments in those 472 pages, but they only serve to highlight those moments that shine directly into the soul.  For one example, click below:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/rb/toccata.html

That, in itself, makes Browning a "10" in my book.

My textbook also includes a number of expositions relating to Ruskin and his "Stones of Venice," including this poignancy:

"...no great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure; that is to say, his mind is always far in advance of his powers of execution, and the latter will now and then give way to trying to follow it......

Accept this for a universal law, that neither architecture nor any other noble work of man can be good unless it is imperfect."

One of the things about Dornoch which gives me the greatest pleasure is the joy I get from playing its most imperfect holes, the 7th and the 16th.  Each is more interesting and complex than I will ever be able to fathom, even if I am lucky enough to play the course for another 31 years, and I learn something from these holes each and every time I play them.

Thanks again, Mark.

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

Before starting that profile of Royal Melbourne Composite a few months ago, my working assumption was that the course was the closest thing to perfection I had seen.  What I learned though was that no course, at least when analyzed at the level of individual holes, can stand up to close analysis.

Thinking more about this, there seemed to be another aspect of perfection, specifically how sometimes what we might consider individual flaws actually contribute to the greatness of the course as a whole.  Sort of like cholesterol, there are "good" flaws -- or is that good "flaws" -- and "bad" flaws.

An example of a good flaw might be a "breather" hole.  This idea is straight from Wethered and Simpson's notion of the "ideal" course: if you made it a collection of the world's "greatest" holes you would tire of it quickly and and not want to play it every day.

Another example of a good flaw could be where a flawed hole or feature is incorporated into the design which enables or unlocks the greatness.  This is the "greater than the sum of its parts" argument.  One example might be the blind drive on the 4th hole of Royal Melbourne West, which gets you to a fantastic run of holes (and shots).

All of which is a long-winded way of writing that perfection exists if you're willing to accept that nothing's perfect that lacks imperfection.  You might laugh at that, but the Romantics, John Ruskin, and Tolstoy all believed strongly in the concept!

Blah blah blah...anyway, the greatest commentary on perfection in design is Harry Colt's description of Swinley as his "least bad" course.  There is a world of experience and wisdom encapsulated by "least bad."

Mark

EDIT: looking back on this post, its real mission is probably much too subtle for people to pick up on, which is campaigning for Ganton as a 10.  G-A-N-T-O-N -- what's that spell?  Ganton! Goooo Ganton!!!

Mark

Yes, I think its fair enough that someone may have one or two courses which they believe are as close to perfection as damn it and a 10 allows these courses to be distinguished in this way.  The key is keeping this number to easily countable on one hand or even one finger or this concept becomes meaningless as perfection can't strike that often.  I hope one day to hit it rihc and see one of these Perfections.   

Ciao

[Jonathan Cummings]

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

Sean - you just gave a damn good definition of bias.  You are self-adjusting a rating system that Ian has asked you to use.  As you imply your "9" would equal what others would likely give a "10" to. 

It is just this type of modification to a grading scale that a person compiling the overall grades would need to be on the lookout for.  Numerically bias is pretty easy to identify, especially if that person is submitting many grades.  For Ian's exercise people should try hard to not alter his suggested 5-10 Doak scale in anyway.  If you do, in the end it will only introduce unnecessary noise into the outcome, ratchet up the workload of those doing the compiling and reduce the quality of the resultant list(s).

JC

[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

Sean - you just gave a damn good definition of bias.  You are self-adjusting a rating system that Ian has asked you to use.  As you imply your "9" would equal what others would likely give a "10" to. 

It is just this type of modification to a grading scale that a person compiling the overall grades would need to be on the lookout for.  Numerically bias is pretty easy to identify, especially if that person is submitting many grades.  For Ian's exercise people should try hard to not alter his suggested 5-10 Doak scale in anyway.  If you do, in the end it will only introduce unnecessary noise into the outcome, ratchet up the workload of those doing the compiling and reduce the quality of the resultant list(s).

JC

Jonathon

The entire idea of rankings is about self adjusting because we are trying to stick a square peg in a round hole - which is why I much prefer the Rihcelin Guida because there is a lot more latitude and comparing courses without having to come down on such a definite number.  In other words - its a bit more wishy washy - tee hee.  If you look at Doak's definition of 10 I can place my hand on heart and say I have never seen a course which met that criteria for me.  Alright, so I have seen many Doak 10s - I just happen to disagree with Doak because I don't generally see such sharp distinctions in quality once we are looking at a list of the best courses in the world.  The idea that say Muirfield is a "drop whatever you are doing and call the travel agency" while Pennard "is not necessarily worth a trip to see" is such a huge disparity in the description of quality that its hard for me to take that seriously.  I think the viewpoint between the two is fundamentally flawed and that is more than likely down to the differences in how Doak and I describe quality.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that Doak can't point out anything concrete which distinguishes between his 10s and at least some of the 9s.  I think he is just going out there on a limb to try and identify what for him are the very best courses (his preferences of the very best?).

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich, great stuff.  That brings back memories for me, too.  In college I took a course my dad took 20 or so years before me.  I used his text and recall the benefit of his margin notes for My Last Duchess. That's not cheating, is it?

The Ruskin quote is from the chapter I hyperlinked.  He makes a number of other points in support of imperfection, too.

Yet another example of the "perfection" of imperfection is the purposeful use of dissonance in music.

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

Sean - you just gave a damn good definition of bias.  You are self-adjusting a rating system that Ian has asked you to use.  As you imply your "9" would equal what others would likely give a "10" to. 

It is just this type of modification to a grading scale that a person compiling the overall grades would need to be on the lookout for.  Numerically bias is pretty easy to identify, especially if that person is submitting many grades.  For Ian's exercise people should try hard to not alter his suggested 5-10 Doak scale in anyway.  If you do, in the end it will only introduce unnecessary noise into the outcome, ratchet up the workload of those doing the compiling and reduce the quality of the resultant list(s).

JC

Jonathan

It's progress to see magazines publish the value along with the position, but then when you look closer you see these systems rig the results by allowing editors to determine the weights rather than design a system where the individual assigns not only the score but the weight.

From a computational perspective, then, magazines manipulate the final outcome in exactly the same way as Ian does when he asks no one score a course below five.  Exactly the same way.

(Not only that, a few months ago it looked to me like one magazine was not satisfied with the outcome of their "soft" manipulation of results and just outright made up at least a few numbers.  That's what I concluded when I ran the nums.  But a friend in a position to know definitively waved me off...)

Mark

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

You haven't convinced me that you understand wine rankings.
I.e., wine scores are on a 100 pt scale. Divide by 10 to relate them to Doak scale. A 6.9 would be considered undrinkable, whereas it would be a great choice for playing golf.

Garland,

As Sean says, wine ratings are a complete scam.  For a start, it depends on whose ratings you are looking at.  On your side of the Atlantic Parker is God and has his 100 point scale.  Only it's not.  Scoring starts at 51, so it's a 50 point scale.  Only it's not, because anything that isn't faulty will score at least, what, shall we say 80?  So it's a 20 point scale.

Not being concerned with apparent size as much as you guys, over here, where Jancis Robinson is Queen, she uses a 20 point scale.  Only on closer inspection she doesn't, because nothing goes below 10 and anything not faulty starts at 12, so it's a 9 point scale.

Broadbent (who never quite recovered his credibility from "authenticating" those "Thomas Jefferson" bottles) uses a 5 star system.  Neil Martin (who I knew before he became part of Parker's Wine Advocate empire) used to use a 25 point scale, before being forced to adopt the US 100 point scale when he started to write for WA.

None of these scales are linear (and nor is Doak's) so your suggestion that you should divide by 10 is a nonsense.  Take an 80 point wine on Parker's scale.  That is only just drinkable yet an 8 Doak score course may be in the world top 100.  An 80 point wine probably equates to a Doak 3 (maybe even a 2, I could argue that a Doak 3 (average) equates to a Parker 85).

Of course anyone who reads much about wine knows what each scale means (or is supposed to mean).  Interestingly, and carrying on what I was saying above, Parker always says (knowing full well that his accolytes will ignore it) that the score doesn't matter as much as the description and it's from that that we should decide whether to buy a wine or not, since different palates mean that a taster may strongly prefer one 85 point Parker wine over another.  I don't want to stretch an already hyper-extended analogy beyond breaking point but I think, perhaps to a lesser extent, the same may be true of golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

"If I was a betting man, I would bet that Doak can't point out anything concrete which distinguishes between his 10s and at least some of the 9s.  I think he is just going out there on a limb to try and identify what for him are the very best courses (his preferences of the very best?)."

Sean:  The only concrete I have ever seen on a golf course is a cart path, and those shouldn't be out there.  So perhaps my 10's and 9's could be lumped together ... or any two other grades.  At the end of the day ratings are SUBJECTIVE and if anybody tries to tell you otherwise they are full of baloney.  Rankings are just a consensus of people's ratings and therefore they, too, are subjective.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - re the complaint about 10s and Doak's definition.. note this was odd to me also... so the man cleared it up awhile ago.  THis is from a GCA post last year:

GCA 7/11/12008


Tom H:  You are right about the definition of a "10" in The Confidential Guide.  People are always quoting it to tell me why some course is worthy, or not worthy; and I really didn't mean it that way.  Ballybunion is one of the 10's on the Doak scale (and probably not the only one) where there are a couple of holes of which I don't think so highly ... but I still gave it a 10, so my definition must be not quite right.

I guess a better definition would be that every hole has to add something of value to the course as a whole.  However, I do not have enough cash on hand to buy back all of the Confidential Guides and make the edit.


Now back to other rating-related quibbling.....

[Garland Bayley]

OK Mark, you understand wine rating! I guess that leaves the question do you understand the Doak scale? 

[Rich Goodale]

Mark,

You haven't convinced me that you understand wine rankings.
I.e., wine scores are on a 100 pt scale. Divide by 10 to relate them to Doak scale. A 6.9 would be considered undrinkable, whereas it would be a great choice for playing golf.

Garland,

As Sean says, wine ratings are a complete scam.  For a start, it depends on whose ratings you are looking at.  On your side of the Atlantic Parker is God and has his 100 point scale.  Only it's not.  Scoring starts at 51, so it's a 50 point scale.  Only it's not, because anything that isn't faulty will score at least, what, shall we say 80?  So it's a 20 point scale.

Not being concerned with apparent size as much as you guys, over here, where Jancis Robinson is Queen, she uses a 20 point scale.  Only on closer inspection she doesn't, because nothing goes below 10 and anything not faulty starts at 12, so it's a 9 point scale.

Broadbent (who never quite recovered his credibility from "authenticating" those "Thomas Jefferson" bottles) uses a 5 star system.  Neil Martin (who I knew before he became part of Parker's Wine Advocate empire) used to use a 25 point scale, before being forced to adopt the US 100 point scale when he started to write for WA.

None of these scales are linear (and nor is Doak's) so your suggestion that you should divide by 10 is a nonsense.  Take an 80 point wine on Parker's scale.  That is only just drinkable yet an 8 Doak score course may be in the world top 100.  An 80 point wine probably equates to a Doak 3 (maybe even a 2, I could argue that a Doak 3 (average) equates to a Parker 85).

Of course anyone who reads much about wine knows what each scale means (or is supposed to mean).  Interestingly, and carrying on what I was saying above, Parker always says (knowing full well that his accolytes will ignore it) that the score doesn't matter as much as the description and it's from that that we should decide whether to buy a wine or not, since different palates mean that a taster may strongly prefer one 85 point Parker wine over another.  I don't want to stretch an already hyper-extended analogy beyond breaking point but I think, perhaps to a lesser extent, the same may be true of golf courses.

Nice exegesis of the wine rating scale, Mark.  A few comments:

1.  The 20 point scale was probably invented (or at least perfected) by the late (I assume) Harry Waugh.  He wrote some great books in the early 70's about Bordeaux vintages and (the then fairly nascent) California wines which, alas, I lost in one of my many subsequent moves.....

2.  All rating and ranking scales can effectively be reduced to a 1-->5 range.  My two years in the US Army were spent trying to distinguish between field grade officers (i.e. Major and above) based largely on superiors ratings on a scale of 0.0--->240.0.  I once did an analysis of the data and it turned out that any body with an average rating below 235.0 would never advance beyond Major, and anybody with an average of below 238.5 or so would never get past Lieutenant Colonel.  Any average score below 239.9 would never make General.

3.  There have been some very interesting pieces in the wine press (mostly in the USA) over the past 3-5 years regarding consultants who having analysed Parker's recommendations have, VERY succesfully, advised vineyards as to how to raise their ratings on the Parker scale, through chemistry and agronomy.

4.  I suspect there are parallels here to golf course ratings, raters, and the looks and feels of the new courses of the past 20 years.

Rich

[Niall C]

The last time I looked my local Borders didn't have a copy of the Confidential Guide and I can't seem to find it on the link provided. Anyone got a good link ?

Thanks

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()