[Tom Huckaby]

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.

You're more bonkers than I thought if you think I have a list that goes down to 100.  I'm happy if I can get past 3.

And I remain interested in this prestigious magazine comparing all golf courses...last I checked each was still a venue on which to play golf.  Will I get my wish some day?  It would make for very interesting perusal I'm sure.

[Matt_Ward]

The ratings need to allow some "air" time between them. The idea to rate each and every year is delusional because you miss so much and frankly, if the mags continue with the gallup poll approaches they take, you need time for those distinguished observers to get into the field and see what shakes out.

Digest has had its major fumbles too -- expanding their overall to a top 200 would be a help.

[Mark Pritchett]

Matt,

I think you are spot on with expanding the Golf Digest list to 200 courses.  Golf Week should combine their two lists to a single top list of 200 as well.

Mark

[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt,

So what you're saying is that it's GW's fault for not forcing raters to travel thousands of miles to play a very remote course....and to do so ASAP, regardless of your current plans.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

The concept in using raters is vastly overblown given the speed of today's technology today. There are few, if any, missing courses of quality provided you have eyes and ears open.

The mags want "free" advice and the panelists often accentuate the same predictable outcomes.

Scott, when a mag proclaims to be the voice of the "core golfer" then had best be sure to stay ahead of the curve of meaningful course info -- the omission of Rock Creek, to name just one example, demonstrates that.

Magazines can use other models to get the info they need -- the idea that panelists are indispensanble is really an argument only the panelists and those closely associated with them would use.

Today's world has sufficient info capacity to keep on track and not involve the herd of people used now. Just my thoughts ...

[Jud_T]

There may have been some excuse for delay when there were 350 new course openings a year. But now there are what, 50? You would think particularly in an environment where I'd assume golf magazine sales aren't exactly going through the roof that it'd be in every rag's interest to make these lists as up-to-date and impartial as possible....Speaking of which, I'd love to see the stats on new entrants in following years.  Seems to me that only about 10% actually improve their rankings 3-5 years out...

[Greg Tallman]

Matt,

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

If you use that theory then please explain how a course receives a ranking, any ranking, approximately 15 months before accepting a single player??

Calling THAT a flaw... well that would be kind.

[Sean Leary]

Matt,

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

If you use that theory then please explain how a course receives a ranking, any ranking, approximately 15 months before accepting a single player??

Calling THAT a flaw... well that would be kind.

Which course are you talking about? And is it GW rating or another magazine?

[Greg Tallman]

Matt,

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

If you use that theory then please explain how a course receives a ranking, any ranking, approximately 15 months before accepting a single player??

Calling THAT a flaw... well that would be kind.

Which course are you talking about? And is it GW rating or another magazine?

The GW international list placed a course that was in no way playable or open on the list I believe in 2007 while at the same time not including Diamante on the 2010 list when it opened in 2009. Hopefully this is their way of correcting (overcorrecting) an error.

[Sean Leary]

Perhaps their international criteria is different than the US? I just think that if you have to have a minimum number of ratings and you don't get it, you shouldn't be put on just because....

[Greg Tallman]

Perhaps their international criteria is different than the US? I just think that if you have to have a minimum number of ratings and you don't get it, you shouldn't be put on just because....

Sean, with all due respect it is not possible to evaluate a golf course when some of the holes are not grassed. At the same time the same publication leaves off an obvious candidate most likely using the excuse that too few raters had seen the course.

[Mac Plumart]

GolfWeek international list in 2007?  They currently list only the modern, classic, resort, residential, C & M, resort, state, casino, and GB&I (which are brand new), and new courses.  Did they disband a list or am I unaware of some?

[Sean Leary]

Perhaps their international criteria is different than the US? I just think that if you have to have a minimum number of ratings and you don't get it, you shouldn't be put on just because....

Sean, with all due respect it is not possible to evaluate a golf course when some of the holes are not grassed. At the same time the same publication leaves off an obvious candidate most likely using the excuse that too few raters had seen the course.

Greg,

I don't really know why you are getting on me on this I am not a rater, I was just pointing out how it works. I agree a course that isn't finished should not be rated.

[Greg Tallman]

GolfWeek international list in 2007?  They currently list only the modern, classic, resort, residential, C & M, resort, state, casino, and GB&I (which are brand new), and new courses.  Did they disband a list or am I unaware of some?

Mac, apologies but I erroneously picked up on the international term from previous post. To clarify Golfweek publishes a Top 50 for Carribean and Mexico.

[Greg Tallman]

Perhaps their international criteria is different than the US? I just think that if you have to have a minimum number of ratings and you don't get it, you shouldn't be put on just because....

Sean, with all due respect it is not possible to evaluate a golf course when some of the holes are not grassed. At the same time the same publication leaves off an obvious candidate most likely using the excuse that too few raters had seen the course.

Greg,

I don't really know why you are getting on me on this I am not a rater, I was just pointing out how it works. I agree a course that isn't finished should not be rated.

Sean, Perhaps just a matter of the timing of osts not meant to question the previous post. I took one of your posts to defend/provide rationale for the ratings goof I noted. My fault.

[Matt_Ward]

The inconsistency of how things apply is quite amusing -- if it were not so clearly an affront to those places that have opened and then been left off -- the excuse that raters have not been there yet -- is lame.

Of all the courses I have ever played Rock Creek was more than ready to be rated no less than two years ago. For any magazine to make the claim -- excuse me the boast -- that it truly understands core golfers would have made sure to have seen it and then go from there.

[Sean Leary]

Matt,

How can a magazine see a golf course? Your last post doesn't make any sense.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Anything within a magazine -- and the elements left out -- speak to the nature of how the magazine goes about the process in placing crucial info within its pages.

Golfweek proclaims, "For serious golfers only." Help me out -- if you want to attract "serious golfers" then be sure to include those places that merit their attention. Rock Creek was available for assessments no later than the end of the summer perior in 2008 -- why it's not rated is not the fault of the course but for the process employed by the magazine. When you have a blog portal like GCA know more about the course then the magazine itself that speaks volumes for me on their own ignorance and clearly it undercuts the "slogan" they tout about themselves.

The lame excuse that raters did not there is lame in today's ever quick information age. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know from all the info sources that exist what courses appear to be really hot and worthy of a visit to ascertain if that is the case.

Rock Creek has the goods and is absolutely stellar in my mind. I count myself as a "serious golfer" and don't see GW as being on the cutting edge of such info.

[Sean Leary]

So you are saying it sould be on the list even though it doent have enough votes and they should make an exception?

GD has not ranked Nanea for similar reasons. Is GD for serious golfers?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt,

You have yet to say how a magazine is supposed to assign an official numeric rating (1-10) to a course through means other than its raters having played the course.  Is one visit by its architectural editor supposed to do that?  Or are you saying it should just assign a numeric rating by looking at pictures and reading effusive praise on GCA.com?

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

You keep on saying the same thing -- raters were inserted into the process before today's info explosion one sees today. There's no real reason for such a signifcant delay. Scott, wake up just a bit OK -- Rock Creek is in Montana -- it's not in Azerbaijan. The place was fully available starting in late '08 and all of '09 -- the ratings for 2010 don't have it AT ALL.

You also glossed over what I said -- those in the know or those somewhat in the know can get a handle on what courses have the potential "buzz" to be something of importance. A "serious golfer" publication should be on top of such matters -- using the "we didn't have enough raters to see it" excuse doesn't fly for me and likely others as well.

If you have an architectural critic of merit -- you can have him / her be sure to visit the key contenders and should their "esteemed" raters fail to mapquest where the place is located then at least someone of standing can weigh in.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Allow me to help you out with your misunderstanding of what I said ...
 
First, here's what you said, "So you are saying it sould be on the list even though it doent have enough votes and they should make an exception? GD has not ranked Nanea for similar reasons. Is GD for serious golfers?"

Sean, places that generate plenty of "buzz" prior to their opening or sometime after they open need to be seen and played -- if there's not enough raters to do that -- buy the architectural editor a ticket and get him / her to see it and then provide their comments in a timely manner. Under your thinking -- if a place is open for ten or more years and only 1-2 raters played it then it would be NEVER rated. That's rubbish. The bottom line is for GW to claim to be for "serious golfers" only -- they need to be on top of the info that serious golfers demand today.

Rock Creek is a bonafide top 50 course in the USA from all the ones I have ever played. The place was ready for people in late '08 and all of '09 -- if there's a problem it's with any publication that has been slow to the party. In regards to your comment on GD -- I don't give them a free pass and you likely missed my earlier comments when places like Kingsley Club and Black Mesa have been left out of the equation.

[Jerry Kluger]

Scott: You have raised an interesting question - are the ratings better when done by a group of panelists or one architectural editor? Let's say Tom Doak has agreed to be the architectural rater for the magazine - who has more credibility - TD or some anonymous raters?  For that matter Brad Klein writes up reviews for GW and they are only his opinion - the magazine views Brad as having sufficient credibility to give an opinion on a course.  There was a post one time by a golf magazine writer who said that all the reviews are fluff pieces and you should view them as such but I don't believe that Brad believes that as to his reviews. It would have been physically impossible for one person to visit all of the new courses when there were hundreds being opened each year but that is no longer the case.  There is also the issue of access - one person is going to get more access than many are except in the circumstance where the one cannot get any access.  That raises another question which is if a course should be rated if it does not wish to be? 

[Sean Leary]

Matt,

How does that fix the problem??? You need x amount of raters to qualify. You don't get x, you don't qualify. Unless you are remote, or in the Matt Ward Top 50 , then our architecture editor can place it anywhere on the list he sees fit.

The lists are already questioned over the "sphere of influence" the editors have over the final rankings. This would be a disaster.

I think every magazine should wake up and smell the coffee  and make you the only rater and then the lists can be perfect .

[Adam Clayman]

There's one thing I can say for certain when it comes to the ratings. They are not GROUP THINK.

Matt's proposal would allow for all kinds of perceptions of impropriety. At least that what I've been able to gleam from Matt's notion of the perfect panel size.

Matt, Could you please provide a detailed description of how you would set-up the panel and rule the ranking world if you made czar?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()