[Tom Huckaby]

Ted:

Fair enough.  That is a completely different question.

I remain unsure Pat's list would be better, as he has not been to nearly enough courses to adequately cover all that is needed to be covered, and I'd be wary of him relying on the takes of others.

But in any case, that is not what I questioned.   Running this list is not an easy task, and nope, Pat could not do it any better than those who do it now.

TH

[George Pazin]

Cliff, I don't believe that iteration was only for conditioning, but I could be misunderstanding the methodology. In other words, it's not conditioning that differentiates the two WF course's rankings, but rather other things. I think Richard was just adding conditioning back into his first attempts.

George, sorry but I think you're mistaken.  The title/column heading is conditioning and if you notice the point totals max out at only 10.

I think you're correct, I was confusing that list with the next one. My bad. A curious discrepancy between the two, as you noted earlier.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Anybody question an elementary school lesson on significant figures?  For GD (or other magazine for that matter) to report a number like 56.23, the implication is that they have a huge number of samples or a broad scale in their categories to be able to report an average to that degree of accuracy (4 significant figures).

Ask 10 folks to submit a grade of something on a 1 to 10 scale, average those numbers and what do you get?  Something like (example) 6.1, not 6.12, not 6.127, not 6.1278.....

For multiplication and division, the result should have as many significant figures as the measured number with the smallest number of significant figures.  (Wikipedia).  

A one to 10 scale has two significant figures; 10 raters also has two significant figures; our result can have no more than two significant figures.

Implying more significant figures than you can calculate and ranking one course above another because of your "tie-breaking" decimal point - is more than folly, it shows lack of knowledge of basic math and potentially robs the lower ranked course.

They should be reported "equal" within the accuracy of your measurement.

JC

[Cliff Hamm]

Cliff, I don't believe that iteration was only for conditioning, but I could be misunderstanding the methodology. In other words, it's not conditioning that differentiates the two WF course's rankings, but rather other things. I think Richard was just adding conditioning back into his first attempts.

George, sorry but I think you're mistaken.  The title/column heading is conditioning and if you notice the point totals max out at only 10.

I think you're correct, I was confusing that list with the next one. My bad. A curious discrepancy between the two, as you noted earlier.

I do believe this one example exemplifies the bias that enters into the ratings.  To make an analogy to wine tasting, tell someone this is a first growth bordeaux at $250 or whatever and this is a wine at $25. I can guarantee you the results.  Now do it blind and see what happens. 

Since WFW is higher rated than WFE it must be better conditioned.  If the course is well known it must be better.  Etc., etc., etc.

I will pick on conditioning.  One can argue whether it belongs in the ratings or not but certainly not on a 1 - 10 scale.  I would simply rate 3- overall excellent; 2 - well above average (CFAD quality);  1 - average golf conditioning. 

It is difficult enough, as we have seen , to rate and draw fine lines on the other categories.  For conditioning it is ludicrous.

[Richard Choi]

I agree with Cliff, at most the conditioning should be a 3 point scale.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ok I'm no math genius - Jonathan's post might as well have been written in Greek....

So Cliff, I don't get what you are driving at.

Looking at the Conditioning only list that Richard provided, the difference between #1 and #100 is barely not even 3 points; throw out Augusta and it's less than that.  How would your suggestion change things all that much given the difference might be 2?

Or is the idea that each other criterion is worth 10 points and Conditioning only 3?  I could buy that....


So same question to you, Richard... how does this work?

[Richard Choi]

Yes, Tom the Conditioning would become more "objective" with a simple 3 point scale and would be worth only about 1/3 of other categories.

I suspect that the vast majority of the courses on this list would be 2 and handful will be 3. I don't think any courses on top 100 will rate a 1.

That certainly will be more reflective of the weight we should give to Conditioning.

[Cliff Hamm]

Tom, yes conditioning only 3 points instead of 10.  Therefore not weighted as much.  Of importance also, is not trying to differentiate between conditioning at Oakland Hills vs Merion vs Winged Foot vs whatever.  They are all in tremendous shape I am sure so give them all a 3.  Don't draw fine lines where it is absolutely impossible.

[Cliff Hamm]

Yes, Tom the Conditioning would become more "objective" with a simple 3 point scale and would be worth only about 1/3 of other categories.

I suspect that the vast majority of the courses on this list would be 2 and handful will be 3. I don't think any courses on top 100 will rate a 1.

That certainly will be more reflective of the weight we should give to Conditioning.

Richard, obviously agree with you but I think top 100 courses would be a 3.  I suspect with few and far between they are all in great shape. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Richard/Cliff: gotcha, that makes sense and I concur.  Make me King and Playability is added back on, Conditioning moves to a 3 point scale.

Only this:  I concur with this re Conditioning because of the weight issue; I don't think the drawing fine lines issue changes that much.  Heck as it is now the raters are really only differentiating between levels of greatness... that is scores of 6, 7, 8, 9 are all that are given... changing it to 1,2,3 just does the same thing.

TH

[Mike Sweeney]

Simple, the rankings would be done by a bright man who takes GCA seriously.
He isn't a rater looking for hand-outs or the "benefits" associated with the job.
And Ballyneal would be on the F'ing list.

-Ted

Ted,

The only way that Ballyneal makes the "Mucci List" is if you get him a private jet for the ride.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

If Pat were in charge, there would not be a list. He would ask for nominations and then tell everyone why they are wrong

John,

You're wrong.

And so is Huckaby..

The reason ?  Just on principle.

Mike Sweeney,

I enjoyed flying commercial to Denver with TEPaul even if he did lose his ticket from Denver to North Platte in the Denver airport.

The trip back was even better.
We met the best looking flight attendent I've seen in 30 years, and she had a great personality and sense of humor to boot..

I had her go up to TEPaul and ask him if he was Bill Coore.

His eyes lit up like a Christmas Tree until he saw me laughing so hard I was crying.

[John_Cullum]

If Pat were in charge, there would not be a list. He would ask for nominations and then tell everyone why they are wrong

John,

You're wrong.

And so is Huckaby..

The reason ?  Just on principle.

That is a very good reason

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Tom, you gotta admit Conditioning category is just horrible.

Seriously, how does Bethpage Black get higher conditioning than Shadow Creek or Whistling Straits?

Richard-

Bethpage is in better shape than Whistling Straits--all year round.  With that said I enjoyed the conditioning at Whistling Straits.

I am not sure about Shadow Creek, but I would bet its close. I don't know how much better conditioning you can get than the Black course, or how much better you would like for that matter.

[Carl Nichols]

The one time I was lucky enough to play the Winged Foot courses, WFW was in better shape than WFE.  I have absolutely no reason to believe that it's always that way, but based on that one day alone, if I were a rater I'd have to give WFW a higher score.  In fact, even on a 3-point scale, I might give WFE a 2 for that day (assuming the scale is 0-3, not 1-3). 

[Tom Huckaby]

If Pat were in charge, there would not be a list. He would ask for nominations and then tell everyone why they are wrong

John,

You're wrong.

And so is Huckaby..

The reason ?  Just on principle.

That is a very good reason

I don't get it.  What am I wrong about?  I've made several contentions in this thread... not sure which one your "principle" refers to.

[Rich Goodale]

Give up the ghost, Tom.  The principle is obvious--Pat is always right!  And so he is, in his own mind, at least..... (insert smiley face here)

[Tom Huckaby]

Give up the ghost, Tom.  The principle is obvious--Pat is always right!  And so he is, in his own mind, at least..... (insert smiley face here)

AHA!  Many thanks... very sage counsel.

TH

[Anthony Butler]

The weighting of Conditioning in the overall ratings should be questioned, but it can't be denied  some courses on the list depend a great deal more on conditioning to reinforce the architects intent and the overall golfing experience.

Augusta National is not the course everyone knows without the greens rolling at least 13 and barely a blade of grass out of place. You could rough up Cypress and Pebble quite a lot before you'd seriously impact the playing experience. When the views are spectacular and natural challenges so formidible, you don't spend as much time contemplating the mowing patterns on the fairways.

[Matthew Mollica]

What if Pat Mucci ran GD rating?

Each and every reader would feel they were being criticized.
And the entire edition of the magazine would be printed in green ink.

I do suspect it'd be a good list though.

MM

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Anthony Butler,

You bring up a good point.

Previously, someone mentioned that the assessment of conditioning could be largely dependent upon the time of year and weather circumstances during the visit.

Therefore, shouldn't conditioning be dismissed altogether ?

When a course is rated, does one rate the architecture and playability purely as it's presented on the day of the analysis, or, should there be a process of extrapolation and interpolation in which the underlying assumptions and rating process are done under the assumption of equivalent conditions ?

On the other hand, should bonus points be awarded for FAST & FIRM conditions ?

Should TEPaul's "maintainance meld" be a category in and of itself ?

I think so, but again, the determination is so dependent upon the time of year of the visit and the weather conditions leading up to the visit.

I have no doubt that my list would please ME.

I listed the rating categories I prefer, some time ago.

They went along the lines of

Championship
Sporty
Member
Other

With some overlapping of categories.

[Tim Nugent]

How much do you think "conditioning" costs the golfer? After all someone has to pay $$$ for it.  If it must be included (remember, IMO these subjective list tend to be a self-fullfilling prophesy) just assign 3 points - above average, average, below average.  This way a marginally top 100 can't simply Buy it's way up (or even onto) the list.

As for the Bethpage/Whistling straights comparison, there isn't one.  They have different grass types. Plsu, I would like to see what criteria is used for "Conditioning" Is it how it looks or how it plays?

[Tom Huckaby]

Do conditions matter to you when you play?

Or is a golf course really just a work of art and playing is secondary to the exercise?

Therein lies the answer to the issue of whether "Conditions" should matter in the assessment/rating/ranking of golf courses.

If you actually play the game, then I can't see how Conditions should be dismissed altogether.  Conditions effect every fiber of the playing of the game.  Of course there is no perfect way to do this in terms of course rating, and the inherent weaknesses of the effort have been listed.  So as several have said, just make it a 3 point system or a bonus or something like that.  Dismissing it altogether however seems to me foolhardy.

But then again I do not look at golf courses as works of art to be studied in a vaccum outside of playing the game.  If some of you do, I'd imagine you give extra credit for neat Bonzai trees, odd coloring of grasses, cool use of formica and other tiles for teeing boxes, and other artistic flourishes?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()