[Mark Smolens]

Everytime one of these comes out I get disgusted!  Spyglass Hill at #51 is a slap in the face.  I have played 7 other couses in the Top 50 and Spy surpasses most of those (only Cypress is the exception). 

When the raters think that Bandon Dunes is more "Memorable" and better "Manicured", they're smokin something really bad.

Why is it so overlooked?

This post is a prime example of why these ratings are necessarily the product of subjectivity, and nothing more.  I have played 11 of the courses listed in the top 50 (and Spyglass twice), and I would put Spyglass above only one of those courses (placing Rich Harvest in the top 50 is imo a stretch of gargantuan proportions -- I don't think you should get extra credit for the fact that an 18 hole course can be played from a myriad of places in case you get bored, or for the tour of the car museum, which is very cool but unrelated to the merits of the course).  The first four holes at Spyglass along the beach are awesome.  The rest of the course, a relentless slog of long par 4s through pine trees might as well be in North Carolina.  Perhaps it was a bad week conditioning wise when I was there, but plugging balls in mushy fairways on 460 yard par 4s is not my idea of fun.  I frankly liked Spanish Bay more than I liked Spyglass.  It was windy, and very tough (and the environmentally sensitive areas were a pain), but it was at least an attempt to make the course look and play like it was on the linksland.

[Garland Bayley]

One has to remember that Golf Digest started its list years ago as the 100 hardest courses. It has morphed to what it is today. It still has the category of resistance to scoring. Having such a category is going to diminish the ranking of some great golf courses. Obviously arrow fairways contribute to resistance to scoring. Why would any average golfer rate a course higher for having narrow fairways?

As Shack has said, Americans have forgotten that golf is supposed to be fun. Maybe some year GD will figure that out.

[Jim Colton]

Mark,

  I agree with you on Rich Harvest.  I much rather play Black Sheep down the street.  I recall seeing a RH member with an embroidered logo bag, and around the tree RH logo was embroidered something like '49th in Golf Digest Top 100 courses'.  Obviously, their GD rating means a lot to them to embroider it on their bag, unless it's just a ploy to get members to buy new golf bags every two years.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, why do I feel like you are trying to pick a fight?

Matt, yes, we both agree that GD list can certainly be better. We just disagree on how.

You believe that by picking certain kinds of raters, the list will be better.

I just don't agree with that. Unless you can clone yourself there are going to be people on that panel who are going to have vastly different opinion than you, no matter how "national" they are. And there are natural bias toward exclusive and more expensive courses that will trump golf course architecture. It is almost impossible to fight that tendency.

My point of view is that only way to get a better list is to minimize the differences between raters by minimizing "personal" opinions.

Look at it this way. You can't build a sky-scraper with just bricks. I don't care how much quality control you put in how careful you are in selecting those bricks, you cannot create sky-scrapers with them. If you want to build a sky-scraper, you need steel and concrete and they are different beasts than bricks. That does not mean that with bricks alone, you cannot build a very fine and large home. You just have to have different expectations.

[Garland Bayley]

I didn't know anything about Rich Harvest, so I looked them up on the web. Below is what they feature to promote the course. For many of us such a promo would plummet the course in our rankings. Talk about resistance to scoring! That might be their inroad to the top 100.


No. 4 Silver - 'Devil's Elbow'
The most demanding tee shot in golf. The tee shot requires an absolute perfect shot to a small landing area. Welch Creek, oaks and hickory frame the dogleg left. Entrance to the green from the right will pick up the greens right to left movement.

EDIT: More nonsense from Rich Harvest
Gold No. 3 - Snead's Crotch
Walk with a legend, tee shot 230 with a draw
An accurate tee shot with a driver or iron is a must. The trees line the fairway with the green heavily protected on the left side. Irons to the green must have height to clear the trees protecting the left front.

[Jim Colton]

Rich Harvest is  actually hosting the next Solheim Cup.  The 'Elbow' has been properly panned on this site in the past.  What they don't tell you on the website is that's actually astroturf that you're looking at.

I believe they have opened up that tee box in preparation for the Solheim.  I don't really see that course being strong for match play, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard C:

C'mon, try to develop a bit of a thicker skin -- OK.

Richard, you need people who have EXPERTISE on just what it is they are rating. It also is common sense to know that only a certain few of these people have the wherewithal (time, $$ and knowledge) to provide a far deeper and rigorous analysis of different courses -- defined by me as being fully capable in cross comparing courses from different areas of the country.

You also have to differentiate between people who really understand their "neck of the woods" -- as you can see by a companion thread running now on "personal courses" which is good informative. Digest used to have a distinction between regional / state selectors and those at the national level. It was not really pushed beyond the limited scope it had at that time.

I don't expect opinons to be lock step with me or anyone else for that matter.

I do expect opinions to be well informed and demonstrate a capacity to really delve beyond personal tastes and preferences.

I have opined many times on courses that are not "my cup of tea" but they do have really fascinating designs and qualities. I think you are throwing out the window the wherewithal of intelligent people to see beyond their own favorites.

Raters who are extremely knowledgeable will have strong personal opinions and those who are quite engaged with seeing and playing the broadest range of places are in a far better position to provide such thoughts. What Digest needs to do is create a different level of rater involvement. Throwing everyone into the process only produces the product you see now.

To use your sky-scraper analogy -- I am looking for quality masons. They are there -- the pubs have seen fit to throw open the process via a Yellow Pages thinking. The lack of their due diligence shows with the results provided.

Raters should have clear roles -- you create categories for such raters because you understand that only a few can really do the heavy lifting that a national level perspective must have.

Candidly, using raters is a cheaper way to get some sort of poll. Digest could easily internalize or limit the process to another way in doing such an effort. Engaging free and cheap labor works quickly no doubt -- it doesn't demonstrate a desire to elevate the final info product that's produced.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, I didn't say I minded a little fight...

To expect people to completely hide built-in bias is totally unreasonable. Personal tastes and preferences are very very powerful things to overcome.

For example, there was a recent study where one group of people were given a $5 wine and asked to rate it on how much pleasure they got. The second group was given the same wine, but was told the bottle is worth $100. When they measured the actual brain waves related to pleasure, the second group had much higher reading than the first. This means that physically, the second group enjoyed the bottle much more than the first group - even with the identical wine.

Let's apply that to golf course rating. If you give raters, and I don't care how professional they are, access to ultra-exclusive clubs like ANGC, Pine Valley, etc. just by knowing how exclusive those clubs are and how much history they have is automatically going to influence the raters' opinions in a very positive way.

I believe the same goes for conditioning. If everything is green and lush with flowers everywhere (or with spectacular ocean views), people are going to enjoy it more and they will rate it higher. It does not matter how much guidance you give on firm and fast.

You can't fight human nature.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard C:

Do yourself a favor and really read what Doak provides via his book CG. No doubt he states his favorites but he is fully capable in acknowledging layouts that offer a great deal if not tied to his cup of specific design tea.

Let me use your wine example -- I've played courses where greens fees start at $250. I've played others no more than a 10th of the charge. I have seen and played the latter which are better than the former. It doesn't happen often but it does. I don't make the assumption that more money means automatically more quality. I played BB for years before many knew about it and always raved about the place even when grass grew by accident and not be design.

Richard, the BS about club status (e.g. ANGC, PV, SH, et al) doesn't matter squat to me. People who really value design don't get seduced by all the BS fluff. You will argue otherwise but I have been with people who see through the window curtains and the like and want to taste really good design.

Richard, you have a very limited understanding of what first rate raters can do. A number of those people contribute to this site -- others simply lurk. I'm not suggesting that there are those who will be seduced by the conditioning, the fanfare of ANGC, etc, etc.

Doak saw through it in his CG book. Other are fully capable in doing likewise. The mags need to spend more time in getting their assembled raters who can do likewise. The end product being thrown forward by Digest now is far less than what a pub of its standing can produce.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, you are missing the point of the study.

The point of the study was that the wine was the same, but people PHYSICALLY experienced more pleasure just because they knew the value. If you compare a fine bottle of wine to vinegar, of course, it does not matter if the vinegar is $250. People are not going to enjoy it.

But of course raters are not comparing fine wine to vinegar (I don't think too many raters visit my local muni). Many of the top course are very close to each other in quality. And when you are evaluating something that is very close in quality, the subjective nature of your brain is going to play an overwhelming part.

While it is true that there are some people who are aware of this fact and they may be able to compensate for that effect, but it is unreasonable to think that any significant group of people will be able to resist it.

You keep saying I this and I that, but there is only one Matt Ward (thank god for that! ). There is no way for you to guarantee that other raters will not succumb their basic instinct.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

I'll say this again because you MISSED IT big time.

Disagreements will occur -- I didn't say otherwise.

However ...

When you assemble a panel of "experts" it's rightly assumed the people doing the assessing have some sort of skills that rightly elevate the key elements and throw out the fluff.

Richard, read Doak's book -- he is able to do it. He's not the only person who can give high marks to courses that are not his personal favorites. Other can do similiarly.

The idea that the approach taken by Digest now works doesn't hold water when you look at their top 100 listing and how it reflects nothing more than hodge podge results. Tom Paul stated this best earlier.

I have met and have discussed course assessments with a range of people -- here and elsewhere --raters and non-raters alike. You keep barking about "basic instinct" and I have countered with the conviction that people of standing can and do segregate personal favorites and those of qualities that they may not personally embrace but still acknowledge for the great course(s) they are.

You take the approach that people will not be able to move beyond their personal tastes / basic instincts. I know that those who really have their eyes on architecture can be rather elastic in a number of ways.

[Tom_Doak]

Richard:

I would agree with you that some people are always going to be impressed by exclusivity, whether they admit it or not.  When Shadow Creek made the DIGEST top 10 many years ago, private clubs complained loudly about favorable treatment of panelists to impress them ... and the funniest thing was that the loudest complainers were clubs that have benefited for years from impressing the raters with exclusivity.

However, I don't agree with your implication that all people are equally affected by such stuff.  Places like Canyata and Rich Harvest (neither of which I've seen) seem to impress the DIGEST raters, but are nowhere on the radar screen of other magazines' rankings.  Perhaps this has to do with clubbiness (key raters of DIGEST having a connection to those places, so they can invite their fellow panelists), or perhaps just with the exclusive "access" phenomenon ... but either way, DIGEST seems to have a bigger problem with it than anybody else now.  Or do you disagree?

[Richard Choi]

Matt, see that bus moving out of the depot? That's the point you missed leaving the station.

Yes, Doak's rating is great. I like it, I believe pretty much everyone here love it.

But guess what? That is because the list was compiled by a SINGLE person!!! If you select a single person to rate it who has very much the exact same taste as you, the chances are going to be high that you are going to like the result.

The GD list is "hodge podge" as you put it, PRECISELY because it was compiled by "hodge podge" group of raters. If you assemble any group of raters, you are going to get hodge podge results.

If you want people to move beyond personal taste/basic instincts, do not ask for their personal taste/basic instincts, which is exactly what GD ratings does with their very subjective categories. Give them more objective questions, and the quality of their answers will go up.

[Richard Choi]

Tom, I do not claim that everyone is affected equally, but larger the group, it is more likely that on average, their opinions are going to be affected in line with the general population.

And I do agree that GD has a bigger problem with this effect, and I am not sure as to why. Does anyone have some data on the size of the raters on GD compared to Golf Magazine and GW?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, I do not claim that everyone is affected equally, but larger the group, it is more likely that on average, their opinions are going to be affected in line with the general population.

And I do agree that GD has a bigger problem with this effect, and I am not sure as to why. Does anyone have some data on the size of the raters on GD compared to Golf Magazine and GW?

GD raters tend to average 6' 5".

Oh you meant size of the pool of raters....   

GD - nearly 900
GW - almost 500 (one of the 450 participating here correct me if I am wrong) 
GM - about 100


TH

ps - edited late as I did indeed get a correction I asked for, off-line.

[Garland Bayley]

The Golf Digest criteria are below. The first one is double weighted. The definition of shot values stresses expert golfers as much as it does strategy. I hope they don't actually have their raters doing #2, as the USGA already does it, and it can be gotten from the scorecard. They are clearly not doing these ratings for the average golfer, i.e., their readers. I guess that means Tom H has sold out to the ad department of GD.

From their criteria, it seems apparent to me why there is so much disagreement with their results on this website.

1. SHOT VALUES
How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

3. DESIGN VARIETY
How varied are the golf course's holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

4. MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

5. AESTHETICS
How well do the scenic values of the course (including landscaping, vegetation, water features and backdrops) add to the pleasure of a round?

6. CONDITIONING
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?

7. AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

Curious why you would say this:

They are clearly not doing these ratings for the average golfer, i.e., their readers.

Because I believe that the criteria GD uses is quite clearly what the average golfer would be interested in when evaluating a golf course. I gather you do not see it this way - why?

[Ian_L]

"Firm yet receptive"?  I thought those were opposites?

[Tom Huckaby]

"Firm yet receptive"?  I thought those were opposites?

That could certainly be worded better.

The idea is how firm are they without being so concrete as to make them absurd.....

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

The criteria contains,

...test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

Clearly the average golfer is not interested in difficulty from the back tees.

You can test accuracy with narrow fairways, and small pinable areas of greens. The average golfer is not interested in finding courses with narrow fairways. You can test length with long holes, trap at the corner. All this does is force long approach shots from the average golfer, which is not a plus to him.

Get the drift?

[Garland Bayley]

"Firm yet receptive"?  I thought those were opposites?

That could certainly be worded better.

The idea is how firm are they without being so concrete as to make them absurd.....

Tom! It is just plain nonsense! It is anti-traditional links to the max! It means the green has to be firm, but canted towards the fairway! Run-up shots need not apply.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

The average golfer is definitely interested on how difficult a golf course is.  This is one way to ascertain that.  

Note also a course like you mention might score high in this criteria, but fail in many others...

And also, in terms of just using USGA course rating, that would suffice for sure.  But they also want us to assess how difficult "yet fair" the course is.... thus we go beyond the course rating. A stupidly high course rating course that is just penal to the max - featuring shots most would think of as "unfair" would score poorly on this criterion.

So... my stance remains.  I think GD does a pretty darn good job of trying to evaluate what the average golfer would see as important in a golf course.  I like the criteria used, for pretty much this reason.

I will assume you disagree.  And that is fine.

Regarding "firm yet receptive", I completely disagree with your assessment.  It just means a green that is firm, but not absurdly so.  That to me describes in general a pretty darn good green.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

You need to consider thoroughly what Doak wrote you.

Individual raters should be doing likewise as Tom did in CG. The issue with Digest is that they have expanded the pool of raters far beyond any semblance of quality control. You do have people as Tom mentioned who elevated such elements as "exclusivity" and gained placement as a result.

The hodge podge can be avoided by having raters who thoroughly understand just what it is they are rating. I see the current Digest list and it smacks of nothing more than mindless inclusions of courses that tip the balance towards difficulty. I enjoy a demanding test but architecture needs more than just that dimension - certainly when you say a layout merits a top 100 position.

The ascension of ANGC is mindboggling for what the course has become in recent years. If anything Digest should have led the appropriate assault and asked what happened to the course that existed prior to Hootie and company.

Richard, you keep on wrongly insisting that the larger the group the more likely they will move towards the general population. That's your opinion.
The issue with Digest is that its findings are now so glaringly different. No doubt there will be disagreements but first rate raters / evaluators can certainly see qualities in courses they will not personally include as their favorites. Doak said as much in his book and I concur with his reasoning.

I can only hope that the folks at Digest really digest (no pun intended) what is wrong and how it can be corrected.

[Anthony Gray]

  edit

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

The average golfer is definitely interested on how difficult a golf course is.  This is one way to ascertain that. 

...

That's a head scratcher Tom. He is interested in how difficult the course is so he can avoid it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()