Jim:
Consensus formulas fail because you don't have enough people playing the same courses -- you have people who only play certain courses and you have others applying such numbers to a possibly far different listing of courses from the others.
Where is the cross comparison analysis? Where is the standard reference points?
Jim, you say there's bias. Really? I dont' doubt that people do have preferences -- but I also think that it would help things immensely if one had bonafide national raters -- those who really see the entire country and can really provide a national perspective -- instead of the preponderance of regional homers that can far too often dominate the findings now. Digest takes the view that if you throw enough people as raters (they are in excess of 800, if memory serves, you will get expanded coverage. It doesn't happen that way.
Please explain to me -- since you hold the national pubs as some sort of gold standard -- how Digest fails to see the qualities of Kingsley Club after so many years in now being opened? I can provide numerous other examples as well and they would include Golf Mag and Golfweek as well.
Jim, with all due respect, the ratings are nothing more than interested people who see a smattering of the top tier courses and then throw forward numbers which are crunched through some sort of numerical formula that ipso facto, in the minds of those who have created the system, will unearth the really stellar layouts that exist.
Jim, let me point out if someone has played 100 or less courses in their lifetime and plays FI it's likely they will weigh in and say the course is in THEIR top five. That's fine ... however, if you have someone who has played 1,000 courses it's very possible FI may be rated lower simply because of the sample size involved. If you follow consensus driven formulas they weigh the guy who's only played 100 courses as a complete equal to the guy who's played 1,000. The issue is not that the first person is wrong -- for what they have played their findings can be totally true -- for them. But when weighed against someone who has played far more courses and likely has played in a range of different states / locales the overall perspective is enhanced by the totality and breath of the overall experiences encountered.
Jim, just a question -- have you played Fisher's Island? Do you see it as top ten layout in the USA from what you have personally played? Have you played Winged Foot / West -- do you see the course behind FI or ahead of it? Have you played Ballyneal? Would you place it ahead of or behind FI? Ditto Sebonack -- which is sometimes weighed in by too many people as overly difficult when playability is clearly present if people play from the appropriate tee boxes.
You say I am "far afield" -- in what way? FI is still thought of by me to be an excellent course -- somewhere in the 26th to 40th position. Just try to realize there is so much on the existing golf scene -- some of the new courses and others that have been ignored -- that merit consideration. With all due respect -- the mags themselves are not as cutting edge as many might think. Why do I say that? Because the field work is lagging behind what I and others are able to see and play.
You also say "benchmark" -- really? No system will have perfect results because of the subjective nature involved. But, I think
FI benefits from its isolation and the nature of what it takes to get there. I also see the proximity of the H20 also impacting matters. No doubt the land -- both internal and external -- play a powerful role. I am a fan of FI but if people see the course as a top 20 in the USA then, with all due respect, their overall sample size is indeed much smaller than they might imagine. Just my opinion from the "far afield" seats.
