[Norbert P]

. . .  Ron and everybody putting words to paper is bias.

I suggest that if anybody wants to read what I would call the most important bias in gca, than read everything that Geoff Shackelford writes.  He's got both hands on the intellectual tiller of where this game should be going.  And the median he uses has few regulations.

JC

  And this is what is important to understand; that if we know that everyone is biased, we have to know what that bias is.
Geoff has been a bellwether writer for years, putting his neck out for the good of golf with thoughtful writing and selection of others' work as editor. Do I suggest just reading his stuff? No. That would be like suggesting you only get your news from Daniel Schorr or, adversely, from Rush Limbaugh.  What's the use of getting all your information from the guy you agree with?  To justify beliefs?

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...would you mind sharing your thoughts on how to revamp GD ratings?  I for one am very interested.  If you already posted it, could you just pop me a PM and direct me?

Thanks!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

No problems, and I won't bring up your condescending tone again.  I am sure others will pick up that banter, but again, I do agree with you that you are on this topic to promote frank discussion, and I know it is a hot button one for you.

I have no qualms at all in you disagreeing with me on rankings, nor on the process itself.  They simply aren't all that important to me, and I also feel they probably go out of their way to be different as they can be from each other.  In that light, I have never looked at exclusion or placement of any of my favorite courses as a flaw in any system.  I get the sense that you and many others more passionate about it do.

Go ahead and email Mac your thoughts.  I know he could find them with the search engine, etc. if he worked hard enough.

With all of that said, how did biased rankings thread become a referenedum on the GD ranking system?  Have we answered the basic question posed? Or is the answer, "Yes, but only GD?"

I happen to think we all have some inherent bias in ranking golf courses, whether we admit it or not.  Just as I think MSNBC and Fox News both have their well documented bias.  I doubt anyone in the world could truly rank courses under TePaul's "Big Tent" theory, because we are all to quick to kick certain types of courses out of the tent altogether.  And, the stronger our opinions, the quicker we kick!

[Jeff Goldman]

The great critic John Simon wrote an article about film criticism in which he noted that it is "a very bloody sport."  That's as true, if not more so, for golf architecture.  Those of us who belong to clubs have a personal stake in how people view our courses because if they are lousy, it can reflect badly on our choices, and our standing.  Ever have a discussion with a friend or someone you respect where he said that one of your favorite movies was dog-meat?  Ever say that to one of your friends?  For some people, it's not easy.  So, some of the rest of us are sensitive to that, and basically say very little for fear of hurting people's feelings and damaging golf friendships.

I think that's one reason why many (me sometimes included, unfortunately) are careful here.  There are some great exceptions -- Sean, Adam (though I think he's full of it on BWR and Big Run  ), and a few others.  The DG would be much better off with more of these exceptions, and possibly our gatherings at KP, Dixie Cup etc. would be more eventful.  Especially after some imbibing. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Well said.

The issue is that discussion of courses inevitably can become heated and I dare say passionate at times.

That's fine.

My comments are not meant to belittle what peop have to say but to add a thought or two from the sidelines in having seen firsthand much of what the discussion is about.

No doubt a gathering of GCAers for golf and a bit of 19th hole discussion afterwards on such a topic would prove very interesting and likely loud !!!

[Mac Plumart]

Hey guys…

Once again, I really love this thread as it is very applicable to me and my learning process.  I subscribe to the following magazines…Golf Digest, Golf, Golfweek, Golf World, Links, and Golf Architecture.  I like all of them for different reasons and I find that each one of them seems to have a different target market.  Golf Architecture is the most unique as it seems to be geared totally towards a target market that is most definitely not my demographic, but nevertheless is very valuable to my learning process.

Concerning the reviews in the magazines, I save certain magazines (or cut out articles) when they have reviews of courses that I find interesting and/or wish to play one day.  With this in mind, I find this thread interesting as I hope that the reviews I am saving are worthwhile as I will eventually spend my hard earned money to travel to and play them.

Concerning the ratings, I find these just as interesting as the reviews.  I think Golf, Golf Digest, and Golfweek are the three most well-known critics/rates, but I think they all go through a different process to derive their lists and I think that all have biases that come through regarding the placement of courses on the list.  I have no real issue with this, unless this bias in money/revenue related as in this instance they would be trying to drive traffic to courses through inflated ratings and, therefore, stealing my (and other patrons) hard earned money.

With these inherent biases and flaws in their systems, I really like Golf World’s Readers poll.  Having said this/written this, I am sure a lot of eyes are rolling and “Oh My God what an idiot” comments are being made right now.  But hear me out.  Golf World asks a bunch of their readers to answer some questions about courses they’ve played over the last year and through this they derive their lists.  Their lists include what public, private, resort courses rank the best regarding…

Quality of the Course;
Practice Facility;
Prestige;
Service;
Value;
Speed of play;
Other amenities
to name a few.

I am sure that most of the people on this site are only concerned with Quality of the Course, but I think a lot of other golfers might value other criteria.  Perhaps if visiting a resort course they might be concerned with value or other amenities, as these items could potentially add or take away from the entire family’s enjoyment of the vacation.  And these rankings can easily be sorted through to stack up the courses criteria that best suit your preference.

Another reason, I like them is that they are regular golfer guys opinions on the courses and their experience.  I would assume that a lot of the biases are reduced in this type of format.

I just wanted to share these thoughts with you all to kind of show you what regular golfers do with these magazines, how much they value the reviews and ratings, and how important they are to get right.

If they are biased (or God forbid fraudulent) the magazine will have contributed to downgrading the public’s perception of golf, cost the golfer money, and hurt the game in the long run.

Take it or leave it, but this is how one regular, albeit passionate, golfer feels.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

A number of your items aren't related specifically to the architecture ... e.g., speed of play, service, etc, etc.

The issue is that sometimes those who do rate place an equal or even higher status level for such items when held again the nature of the course.

Let me point out briefly the three main items I use ...

1). The site itself. The quality of the land sets up the bulk of one's time while on property. Have a quality site and you are 50-60% ahead of the equation.

2). The routing. How well does the architect maximize all of the elements that make such a piece of property so special?

3). The totality and comprehensiveness of the shot values. How well does the architect blend power, finesse and accuracy into the total picture. In sum making the player play the fullest range of shots when on the course.


To a lesser degree one needs to add conditioning as a subelement of important. If the course is not set up properly then the nature of the architecture cannot fully bloom.

[Sean_A]

The great critic John Simon wrote an article about film criticism in which he noted that it is "a very bloody sport."  That's as true, if not more so, for golf architecture.  Those of us who belong to clubs have a personal stake in how people view our courses because if they are lousy, it can reflect badly on our choices, and our standing.  Ever have a discussion with a friend or someone you respect where he said that one of your favorite movies was dog-meat?  Ever say that to one of your friends?  For some people, it's not easy.  So, some of the rest of us are sensitive to that, and basically say very little for fear of hurting people's feelings and damaging golf friendships.

I think that's one reason why many (me sometimes included, unfortunately) are careful here.  There are some great exceptions -- Sean, Adam (though I think he's full of it on BWR and Big Run  ), and a few others.  The DG would be much better off with more of these exceptions, and possibly our gatherings at KP, Dixie Cup etc. would be more eventful.  Especially after some imbibing.  

Jeff

Its a pity folks get so upset about others' opinions of their course.  I have a hard time understanding this level of emotional investment.  Then again, perhaps many don't give proper credit in these matters and guys really are more thick skinned than they let on.  Anyway, there isn't much point in just giving one side of the course - I think readers want an even critique, but with measured  language.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

sean,

why measured? I want an impartial evaluation but I want someone who's willing to put his rep on the line by stating the unvarnished truth, whether that be heralding an underappreciated off-the-run gem, or putting a high end resort course in it's proper place...

[Sean_A]

Jud

Measured leaves room for error (even with our own opinions!) which is almost certainly to occur in one form or another until one has several goes on a course.  Plus, its less likely to piss people off.  The idea isn't tough for me because I am one not to really believe there is a huge difference in quality among the best whatever number.  The perception in difference in quality is more down to personal preferences and other intangibles such history.  Go read the Sandwich V TOC thread.  A few guys mention the palpable history of TOC as means to boost their opinion of the course.  These things are inherent in all of us, its just a matter of what that intangible is and if it is made clear to the reader. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

Two things;

#1---those non-architecture criteria are precisely why I like the Golf World ratings.  Let me be clear, I don't like them as a tool to evaluate the a course specifically, I like that list to evaluate the non-golf aspects of a resort.  Value (as I am sure most people want to get their money's worth), other amenities (my wife and kids won't want to play golf, so they will need something else to do).  Anyway, I am not saying Golf World is the greatest thing since sliced bread regarding golf course ratings...but I think they add in a different level of analysis and hence add some value as they are not trying to replicate what others are doing.

#2---I really want to play golf with a very good professional critic and see first hand what they look at when they evaluate a course.  Shot values, testing the power game and finesse game, and your other comments.  I think I get it but would like the give and take that would occur on the course looking at what an expert sees vs. what I see ask quesitons, etc. 

Anyway, I am sure over time I will have this chance...but for now that is why I take the ratings so seriously.  Someone who knows more about the architecture ins and outs is making the evaluations.  For now, I will learn and pay attention to what I see and feel on a course.

Great stuff guys!!!

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

The non-design elements are not part of the real discussion -- they are the sidebar parts that far too often people weigh in or allow to factor more than what they should be doing.

Mac, I'm confused - what does Golf World do precisely? If you add non-course specific items you're not rating the design elements at the appropriate level -- in my mind.

Let me put it this way -- when I see any resort get big time marks on all the other elements save for the golf course itself then I know it's more about the sideshow than the main act. A classic case example -- the Boulders in AZ comes quickly to mind.

I'll say this again -- for starters the land is the first among equals in my mind. The Good Lord created landscapes for a specific reason and when a golf layout is blessed to be located there you have the makings of something that is truly noteworthy. The routing takes the land element and adds to it with a routing that maximizes all the natural features it possesses. You then have to have quality shot values that make the player demonstrate they can play the widest array of shots. I also forgot to mention that working the ball -- whether high or low, side-to-side, is also a part of the equation. Mac, take a place like Old Head -- a spectacular location but the routing is a mixed bag and the shot values at times are first but neither of the two aforementioned categories in my mind equates to the stellar land site. On the flip side you have a place like Winged Foot / West -- the site is above average but not as noteworthy as other golf layouts within Westchester County. However, Tillinghast made the most of it with green designs that are among the best anywhere.

Mac, leaving your open to possibilities is a big part of the process. People get too focused on the architect and what they have done in the past and as a result the current design is either bolstered by the pre-stuff and now the actual place itself. What's amazing is that if for some reason the name of the designer were not known how different some ratings would be -- both up and down.

[Tom_Doak]

Someone sent me an e-mail today which featured GOLFWEEK's new listing of the Top 100 Residential Courses.  [There's a new #1.]

Anyway, reading down the list, I was struck by something, so I checked back to the most recent listing of the top modern courses and discovered that the top NINETEEN modern courses on GOLFWEEK's list are courses without any housing!

That cannot be just a coincidence ... I am inclined to think that the suggested criterion of "free from outside intrusions" that has been given to panelists has been taken a bit too far.  Personally, I don't think that a few houses around a course disclude it from consideration as a great course.  As examples:  Pine Valley and Merion and Pebble Beach and Cypress Point and Crystal Downs are all bordered by some housing, but it's generally discreet.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

You are 100% correct regarding Golf World's list.  They are not geared to only the golf course's design.  Which is why I like to look at them.  Understand that I am not aruging the fact that their lists regarding the ranking of golf course on a pure architectural basis is anywhere near as good as other critics rankings.  All I am saying is that some people might have to make judgements regarding which courses to visit/play with other criteria in mind...like other amenties for their family and value/cost.  If I am going to take my family on vacation, am I going to Pinehurst, Kiawah, or Bandon Dunes.  I'm going to Kiawah, because they've got other things for my family to do and the golf is good enough for me.  That is all.  Like I mentioned, most people on this site will hate the Golf World lists...but I am not one of them because I see the value in looking at more than simply the course...for reason I mentioned above.  Once again...not arguing with you at all.

Regarding, your information regarding how to look at courses...great stuff!!

Tom...interesting to hear you say that about housing.  I will check those lists out.  But you've got to admit, there is something about being on a golf course in the middle, of what feels like, nowhere with just you a few friends and a fantastic golf course.  No kids laying in back yards, no cars driving up and down nearby roads, etc, etc ,etc.  Right?

[Tim Bert]

Paul Turner,

First, I hope you are well and prosperous!

For the record, I am in that minority that believes Pebble Beach Golf Links is slightly "better" than Cypress Point Club, even though such an exercise involves picking knits.  Also, while not often mentioned, it probably doesn't help that Pebble Beach Golf Links is three times more expensive than Cypress Point Club.  If forced to choose between the two for one more round,  I'd play Pebble.

Cheers.

Mike

Mike -

You'll be happy to know that when you factor in the price of the mandatory caddie at Cypress Point Club and also factor in that no one pays the full fare at Pebble in the "new" economy (see NCGA) the price can be less than 2:1... closer to 1.5 times.

That being said, you're opinion is still one of a looney.

All the best!

Tim

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

Agreed.

No doubt some people with 3-4 kids in tow and a wife who requires 24/7 attention may need to make compromises in what they ultimately do. Frankly, Kiawah works quite well from a host of fronts. I don't see why a person with the profile I just mentioned would head to Bandon with that in mind. My wife came with me to Bandon when the Kidd course first opened -- she said the Bandon area was akin to landing on the moon -- nothing to do but play golf !

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - a course can survive a few houses around it - and the examples you cite are appropriate.  But name me one course in the world where surrounding houses improves the golf course experience.  JC

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

That's just it ... I think you have overemphasized "the golf course experience" a tad.

If Merion were a modern course, your panelists would think the houses spoiled it.

[Andy Troeger]

Someone sent me an e-mail today which featured GOLFWEEK's new listing of the Top 100 Residential Courses.  [There's a new #1.]

Anyway, reading down the list, I was struck by something, so I checked back to the most recent listing of the top modern courses and discovered that the top NINETEEN modern courses on GOLFWEEK's list are courses without any housing!

I have to ask having just viewed this list--is there a SINGLE home on either of the top two courses on the list? I've played them both--I admittedly played both when they were new and #2 is a few years old now.

I believe the original 18 holes of #10 has two homes on it--one on the first hole and another on the last hole.

How is Muirfield Village not considered a residential course? That would put it higher than 20th. The original point still stands though, even with an exception.

[Scott Warren]

Tom - a course can survive a few houses around it - and the examples you cite are appropriate.  But name me one course in the world where surrounding houses improves the golf course experience.  JC

I reckon the courses at Hampton Court Palace and Windsor Castle might go close!

[Joel Zuckerman]

This thread veered off track a bit in recent posts, but I would like to add my nickel's opinion regarding the original topic--something that hasn't been said until now.

There are two basic ways for a golf destination to garner publicity--the first is buying glossy ads in major mags (expensive, and only semi-effective--readers know they are ads, after all) OR--Invite writers in for an exploratory visit--called a Press trip, or FAM (short for familiarity) trip.

This 2nd method has gained great popularity in the last decade or two.  A destination (occasionally a private club) will hire a PR firm, who, among other duties, is charged with gathering writers from the "right" type of publications.  These pubs may be regional in focus for a drive-in destination, or have an affluent readership, maybe skewed towards women, seniors, etc...and of course the big prize in this lottery is getting a writer from a big national golf mag in the house.

The destination plays generous host--comping airfare, rooms, meals, golf, drinks, often swag in the form of shirts, hats, and basically tries to show these writers (anywhere from 4--20 in my experience) a good time, whether it's an overnight trip, or one of 3-4 night's duration.  The best PR firms combine the main golf destination with some ancillary courses in the area, so the writer has a bit more to write about that just the course(s) at the destination, and the reader realizes there are other (often less expensive) options in the area, perhaps inspiring them to dial that 800 number, or think seriously about taking a visit.

At trip's end, the writers head back to their various publications, and within a few days, weeks or months, stories start to trickle out about the good times to be had at XYZ Golf Destination, often with some light historical information, perhaps a brief profile of the founder, sidebars on the restaurants, other amenities on site, other GC's in the area.....that's how this game is played, and why 95% of all you read about resorts and courses in the mags is so biased.

[Mac Plumart]

Joel...

Great stuff and good to know.  Many of the experts on this site might already know that, but for people like me those insights are invaluable.

FYI...I really like the book you did concering the courses in and around Charleston.  Like you mentioned in your post, the next time I go to Kiawah (which my family has committed to going every summer) I will look up these other courses due to their proximity to my vacation desitination and the reviews I read in your book.

So, once again, the readers of these reviews take them very seriously and, therefore, they are important to get right.

[Scott Warren]

Joel,

Personally, and maybe this is a bit of the print media realist in me coming out, I don't see any issue with a story like the one you describe, which basically mentions all the reasons why folks might enjoy X course/city/gallery.

I don't think such an article claims to be a balanced course review, so it's not so much bias as the publication having a different aim for the piece.

To me, it's both one of the great strengths and weaknesses of the internet. Folk can easily find plenty of amateur course reviews. Of course it also means they can very quickly read and be mislead by some complete sh!t, but like a food, music or art critic, the secret is finding one whose tastes (indeed, biases) seem to mesh with your own.

[Mac Plumart]

Scott...

I agree with you 100%.  There is nothing wrong with that.  You've got to get the top critics from the top magazines to the new courses ASAP to get the news out regarding the best new courses and they've got to keep coming back to review them to insure the courses review hasn't changed.

Look at Golfweek, Rock Creek Cattle just made their best new course list and their best new residential list.  Correct me if I am wrong, but no other rater/critic has them listed (except the illustrious Golf Blog 100...which I am trying to be funny, but that was the first place I heard of that course and checked it out due to that).

But anyway, if I hadn't been looking at the Golf Blog 100...Golfweek would have been the first place I would have heard of this high quality course. 

Timely and correct information is what we need.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

Rock Creek has not been rated because of its relative newness and it also has a fairly remote location.

Those in the know are very aware of the Doak layout in MT.

Joel:

Press gatherings or FAM's don't always guarantee fawning reviews -- sometimes the opposite can happen.

I can remember a MWGA event at Pound Ridge in NY and the reviews were far from 100% glowing accounts.

The sheer demands of the course made it a very trying day for quite a few people and I readily admit that the Pete Dye (done by his son actually) is just a severe layout.

When you invite people to the party there's no sure bet that all will see the same thing and write uniformly about it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()