Golfweek 2010 lists

[George Freeman]

George:
GW ranks the top public courses (and only public courses) in each State.  See http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/mar/11/2010-golfweeks-best-courses-you-can-play.  Andy's point is that in certain States, the lists contain both modern and classic courses, so GW has figured out a way to rank modern and classic courses in relation to each other, at least for public courses. 

Ah, that is a good point...

I am not sure if the rankings for the Best in State lists have been adjusted or not to deal with this...that would be a question for Brad.

[Matt_Ward]

What's really funny is that GW comes out with a ratings each and every year and Rock Creek has been opened for some time and is still not rated. If you want to have timely ratings then you need timely and more accurate results.

Rock Creek's omission is a major flaw among several others.

[Sean Leary]

Matt,

Rock Creek probably does not have enough ratings. That is not a flaw.

[J_ Crisham]

The Chicago club that I had hoped would sneak into this years top 100 classics is Flossmoor. Given the dramatic transformation here one could easily argue that it's omission is simply a result of not enough raters seeing this gem as well. I am not sure I've seen a club improve as much as FCC. I just hope it doesn't bump Beverly from our precarious position of 99! Great work guys!
                                                                                                                                      Jack

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

With the new list coming out, I was expecting some interesting new addtions to the classics list and with some great new courses, changes in the modern list.  The results have me perpexed to the point of certitude--quite a few raters have no clue what is great architecture!
Riviera rated below LACC
Fox Chapel dropping
Engineers is a far better course than GCGC, Creek, Piping Rock, Creek, Fenway, among the metro-NY neighbors.

Engineers is now officially the true Rodney Dangerfield of golf courses
Incidentally, only 3 raters played the course last year

[J_ Crisham]

With the new list coming out, I was expecting some interesting new addtions to the classics list and with some great new courses, changes in the modern list.  The results have me perpexed to the point of certitude--quite a few raters have no clue what is great architecture!
Riviera rated below LACC
Fox Chapel dropping
Engineers is a far better course than GCGC, Creek, Piping Rock, Creek, Fenway, among the metro-NY neighbors.

Engineers is now officially the true Rodney Dangerfield of golf courses
Incidentally, only 3 raters played the course last year

Robert,  That is an interesting stat regarding only 3 raters seeing Engineers. I would admit that I probably have a poor understanding how the entire process works as I am not a rater. I suspect that many clubs would prefer to not be rated and keep their special setting to themselves-hard to blame a club for excercising it's right to privacy.  Just my 2cents worth.
                                                                                                                  Jack

[jim_lewis]

Regarding why GW doesn't publish a combined Classis-Modern list. I can't speak for GW but I suggest the following reasons:

1. They probably could combine the list, but they simply prefer the way the do it. It's their list and they can do it anyway the wish.
   
2. Seperate Modern and Classic lists distingishes theirs from all others.

3. Two lists allows them to recognize twice as many courses.

4. Most of the action and discussion is on the Modern list since there is relatively little change on the Classic list from year to year. If the
   lists were combined, there would be little movement and probably less interest created.

BTW, raters submit "ratings". The magazine uses those "ratings" to calculate and publish "rankings". Raters don't rank.

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

I have never seen Rock Creek. It may be that not enough raters have played it for it to be rated. I suppose it is also possible that some raters just don't share your evaluation of it. Some courses get a wide range of ratings from the first few ballots. It is not fair to the course to rank it until there is a sufficient sample to mitigate a wide variety of ratings.

Robert:
I agree that Engineers is a worthy candidate for top 100 Classic, and I think it made the list last year, or maybe year before. I doubt if it is possible for the club to know how many raters played the course last year. It is not uncommon for raters not to identify themselves when playing a private club with a member. I can say that the pro and the GM at Engineers were very accommodating when I played the course.

[Adam Clayman]

I did a search for all those who might be interested in some past discussions on the process.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4279.0/


http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,932.0/

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Beg to differ.

When a magazine claims to be the best at what it does for the core type player then they need to be on top of all such things. If they have an internal issue in processing information and when such ratings are then announced (yearly I might add) then they are not on top of such things as they need to be.

Readers want up-to-date info and the omission of Rock Creek after it has already been opened and much legitimate hype has already happened -- only serves to demonstrate that Golfweek is late.

Sean, that's a flaw in my mind.

Jim:

I've yet to see ANY reviews of Rock Creek that are not glowing. The issue is that any magazine that promotes itself as the voice of core players needs to stay ahead of the curve -- not fall behind it.

[John Kirk]

Like seeing Ballyneal as the #5 modern course.  High praise for a great golf course.

[Mark Pritchett]

It is interesting that GW has Ballyneal #5 in the country and GD has it #5 in the state of Colorado. 

Talk about being late to the party!

[Jim Nugent]

BTW, raters submit "ratings". The magazine uses those "ratings" to calculate and publish "rankings". Raters don't rank.

My understanding is exactly the opposite.  The raters DO rank the courses.  That is what their final score for the course represents.  The score we see in GW is an average of those individual ranking scores.

If I'm wrong, someone who knows please correct me. 

[Mac Plumart]

Raters rate...the aggregation of scores derives the ranking.

[Matt_Ward]

The problem in ratings today is getting real time info.

Sadly, as certain mags feel the NEED to rate EACH year they are dependent upon a dinosauric system that scatters "X" number of people around the country and then through some sort of merging of numbers you get a final result.

Rock Creek has been open for quite some time now. The failure to include it, IMHO, is a major failure for GW. No different than the failure shown by GD in regards to Kingsley and a few other clubs of note.

Please for those who write back to me and defend the existing system save your typing skills. There needs to be a newer type model that clearly can stay right on top of what is happening now.

[Jim Nugent]

Raters rate...the aggregation of scores derives the ranking.

Mac, again, I'm pretty sure you are wrong.  When a rater gives Pine Valley a 10, he is saying he considers  PV one of the top 5 classic courses in the country.   (Or top 3 or 10: I don't know the exact number.) 

That is a ranking.  Then GW averages all these rankings.  That is the score you see.  An average of all the individual rankings.  GW then ranks the courses by average score. 

This leads to the interesting fact that courses can place third (WS), with an average score that by itself puts them way further down the list. 

[Jud_T]

The problem in ratings today is getting real time info.


Rock Creek has been open for quite some time now. The failure to include it, IMHO, is a major failure for GW.  

It's particularly glaring in the current economic climate where it's not as if there's a bevy of new courses opening each year...

[jim_lewis]

Jim:

Let me see if I can explain why you are wrong. Raters rate. Golfweek ranks. I am a rater, and I do not even attempt to rank courses. I couldn't even tell you my personal top 10 in order. Here is the point that creates the confusion. Raters are to rate against a standard of the best courses they have played. That is why a requirement for being a good rater is to have played many of the great courses. Some raters, especially new ones, struggle with that standard and tend to rate too generously (sometimes the opposite). When a rater gives lots of courses a 9 or 10 rating, it is pretty obvious that they are too generous. The notion that a "10" should be among the top 5 courses, etc., is just a guide to help the raters have some similarity in the standard they use. If you have played the 10 best courses in the country (as many raters have), there is no problem if you submit 10 ratings for all. It certainly is not an exact science, but the idea is to rate against a standard. I have not bothered to count, but I may have given a "7" to 20 or so Modern courses. I could not, and would not, tell you how a would rank them. It's not that one is a 6.9 and another is a 7.1. They are all 7's and are only ranked when the other rater's balots are counted. Hope that helps.

Jim Lewis

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

It is true that raters could have played Engineers without announcing their status, but it is highly unlikely.  Engineers is not a blue blood club, but over the whole season, there are very,very few guests other than those who belong to Fresh Meadow, Glen Oaks, Glen Head, and Muttontown.  What makes this year's snubbing a joke is that there were 3 skytop green effects returned, and the front bunker on 7 was eliminated with the greenside bunkers losing their Frank Duane fingers.  In addition, several trees were taken down to further open up the beauty of its grounds.

If GCGC can be ranked 18th, then Engineers should at least be ranked 17th--it is a better course strategically and architecurally than GCGC, not to mention the other local clubs ranked higher.  Engineers might not match them in exclusivity and the clubhouses, but supposedly these rankings are based upon the courses!

[Jim Franklin]

Brad's silence is deafening. I am curious as to how Rock Creek could be left out too. I thought I saw it receive an 8.28 for new courses last year. Why couldn't that rating be used(although it is still not high enough)?

[Mike_DeVries]

I have not been to Rock Creek but hear great things about it.  It is not in the most well-traveled area, though, and you need to have X number of ratings to qualify for the Top 100 list versus a much smaller number for the State lists.  I believe this is to ensure that a smaller, more localized base of raters doesn't jack a course's score with local prejudice -- it is seen that the local raters would have a handle on how course A compares with course B in a region, but may not have as good a handle on courses outside of their home region.  Kingsley, Greywalls, and I am sure plenty of other courses, were subjected to similar delays in receiving enough ratings to qualify for the national list, but it sounds like Rock Creek will make it easily once that happens.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

The problem with establishing a base number of raters for a course to even be considered is that the delay in getting recognition in a timely manner undercuts any publication that proclaims itself to be a "core golfer" info source.

Rock Creek, in my mind, is in the category of a Ballyneal -- it's also been opened for quite some time and it's omission is no less a fumble than what GD has done with Kingsley in its overall top 100 assessments.

The other issue is that too many courses once they get on the listing often sit their like Sitting Bull and don't nearly reflect how things can change and how newcomers can move into the groupings. GW tries to provide more room with its self-created formula of "classic" and "modern" which is a bit more elastic than what one sees with GD.

Mike, places that are off the beaten track do require a special effort to see and play. But, any pub that claims to be on top of all things in such matters can't afford to be seen as irrelevant when glaring omissions such as the ones I mentioned do happen.

[jim_lewis]

My quick count indicates that of the 100 modern courses ranked by Golfweek, 58 have opened since 1995. That means that at least 58 (actually even more) of the courses ranked in 1995 have since dropped off in favor of newer courses. Looks like the list is pretty dynamic and recognizes new courses of high quality in a fairly timely manner. 

It is true that fewer courses are being built due to the economy. That same economy may also impact the travel habits of raters, who must pay their own expenses.

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm curious why people keep posting these rankings.  Every year it is the same thing, complain about courses being ranked too high or too low.  All of them have issues and it isn't worth the time spent on it.  Now saying that...

The people that voted for the Dye French Lick course and Harrison Hills as the two best public access courses in Indiana are smoking way too many illegal substances....

[Sean_A]

I think it is impossible to have a composite list because the rater is thinking about the different categories when they vote. A completely separate vote would need to be asked of the rater to quantify how they feel about where specific courses should be ranked.

What no one has mentioned (for the newbies who are less familiar with the origins) is the justification for the separate lists. Huck was just stretching his Digest muscles when he poked fun at GW above, but the reasons for the different lists is more akin to comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The building equipment, land available and other factors such as WWII, make 1960 a sensible demarcation point. The only course I know of that might not fit into the mix is Desert Forest. Since it was built in 1962 but with techniques reminiscent of pre-wars, using mules and carts to sculpt the desert.

BTW Huck, You have a composite list. Your own.

A golf course is a golf course.  It doesn't make a hill of beans of difference when and where it was built in determining how good it is relative to other courses.  This separate list deal by year built is a scam, always has been.  I would be far more interested in seeing the complete list of all courses considered and where they stand.   

Ciao