How do the

[Mac Plumart]

Pat...I think you make some great points.  As does David. 

I think some more study and history lessons are in order for me.  Great thread!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tangentially, courses that were well regarded when they opened in the early part of the 20th century, that are still well regarded today, must have some inherent and enduring values that have transcended the intervening fads and trends, in addition to fending off the continuum of newcomers.

What are those values ?

What differentiates those courses from their original peers and all the golf courses that came after them ?

Mac and others,

If the rating criteria are substantively different, but, produce the same basic result, are the criteria flawed ?
Are the criteria irrelevant ?

Ergo, is the rating process really an emotionial rather than a numerical exercise ?

[Mac Plumart]

Patrick...

to your point, "If the rating criteria are substantively different, but, produce the same basic result, are the criteria flawed ?"

I would say no.  Rather I would say that a great golf course that will stand the test time will rank highly regardless of which criteria you choose to use to rank/rate it.  

To your point, "Are the criteria irrelevant?"

I would have to say it depends.  And it depends on each and every golfers personal preferences.  For instance, Golfweek has the "Walk in the Park" test.  For me, that is a great item to rate as that walk in the park, get away from it all, whatever you want to call it is important to me.  Golf Digest has the "resistance to scoring" and the legacy of regarding difficult golf courses higher than easier ones.  To me, I suppose this is important a little bit...but to my friend who just won the Birmingham National Invitational, I'll bet this criteria is much more important to him.  

This is why I think really understanding what these entities are trying to do with their rankings/ratings are very important, especially when taking into account the individual golfers enjoyment of the game.  But here is the kicker, I think the magazines try to push their Top 100 as THE Top 100...and if what you like doesn't line up with what they like, you will think the lists/rankings/ratings are a bunch of hogwash.  Obviously, the onus is on the golfer...but hardly anyone (except a geek like me) is going to really dig into these rankings.


On your finaly point. "is the rating process really an emotionial rather than a numerical exercise ?"

I think it just might be.  Herbery Warren Wind and Max Behr have both been quoted saying things along the lines that you should pay attention to how a golf course makes you feel...and that is emotional rather than numerical.  Perhaps this is akin to the Crane/Behr debates, which I think really touched on something important.  

I think the rating entities try to do the best they can and I think they provide excellent resources for golfers to find high quality courses that should lead to good golf experiences, especially if the golfer does their due dilegence regarding what they like in a golf course and what the rating entities seem to favor.

But at the end of the day, I think we all play the game for different reasons and we love it for different reasons.  So, I think we will all have our favorite hidden gems that seem to go unnoticed by the masses.  And that is a pretty neat thing to discover.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Maybe I am missing something due to my low IQ, but what is this vitriol or "calling out" that you guys are talking about.  I get the sense that Patrick is looking to perform an analysis I've been doing for about 2 years.  Analyzing the rankings, looking for discrepancies, and investigating those discrepancies. 

What I've found good about doing this exercise, is uncovering the golf rating entity that most matches up with my ideals of a good golf course.  Looking at the list I put up there...if you like Canyata, The Quary at La Quinta, or Rich Harvest...perhaps Golf Digest lines up with your taste.  Golfweek, Kingsley, Wannamoisette, Dunes...Golf Mag. Torrey Pines, Mauna Kea. etc.

Why isn't this a good thing to do?

Conversely, you can avoid the opinions of the entities you don't like.  No harm done...no disrespect...simply different tastes.

I find it especially useful when planning a trip and looking for some new/fun courses to play.  These lists have proven to be good resources for me.

Mac,

Please don't fret.

Michael Whitaker doesn't get it.  He never has.

His conclusion that I want to "call out" raters and/or magazines is so misinformed and misguided that it defies description.

There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.

"Golfweek" took an unusual step when they bifurcated the rankings.
I wonder if Michael asks himself why "Golfweek" took that approach ?

I'd be interested in your statistical findings and your conclusions.

[Adam Clayman]

There was a recent thread on "shot values". The obvious conclusion to that thread is a term (criteria) that has many meanings depending on the individual. I find it very interesting that it gets 2X the value of the other criteria and could be at the root of the major differences in what comprises each list.

[Brent Hutto]

There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.

So you're playing a game of some sort and everyone is supposed to jump in and play along until you decide to reveal your "prudent reason". Sounds like a pretty pathetic attempt at stirring up a shit storm without coming right out and saying it.

Gee, I'm going to start a thread about golf-course rankings. First off, everyone who is a rater please identify yourself. Then I'll tell you what I think...

And then you protest that poor little Pat isn't calling anybody out, he just wants to make a point and needs the raters to be identified so he can do it. Yeah, right.

I am Spartacus!

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.

So you're playing a game of some sort and everyone is supposed to jump in and play along until you decide to reveal your "prudent reason". Sounds like a pretty pathetic attempt at stirring up a shit storm without coming right out and saying it.

Brent,

You're obviously one of the dolts who have no clue with respect to what you're talking about.
No clue as to the intent and purpose of this thread.

Hint # 1.    There's NO intent to stir up a shit storm.
                 That's your misquided conclusion

Gee, I'm going to start a thread about golf-course rankings.
First off, everyone who is a rater please identify yourself.
Then I'll tell you what I      think...


AHA, now ask yourself, "think" .....  about what ?
That's the key isn't it ?

And then you protest that poor little Pat isn't calling anybody out, he just wants to make a point and needs the raters to be identified so he can do it. Yeah, right.

You're so far off base that it's comical.
You're so headed in the wrong direction, so misguided, that I'm embarrased for you.
But, don't get mad because you're stupid and can't figure this out.
Try something new, use your brain and see if you can begin to solve the mystery/puzzle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Golfweek" bifurcates their rankings into modern and classic with the line of demarcation being approximately 1960.

For the classic course list, is it highly unlikely that any club can ascend or descend, significantly in the rankings since it's a closed group with no new courses being added ?  Are the courses in the classic top 100 list destined to remain in their relative position forever ?

Would a restoration or a renovation be the only two or primary two reasons for any movement within that list ?

[Jud_T]

I think Mr. Ward has a point about this...Why not simply have a top 200 list that merges the 2?  Why use different criteria so the lists can't be aggregated?  I guess the good thing about the modern list is that it brings attention to interesting newer architecture that gets overlooked or takes forever to work it's way up the ranks at the other pubs.  The downside is that you get "flavor-of -the-year" clubs that have a bunch of marketing and buzz only to slowly drift down the list into oblivion...Pat makes a good point about the classic list being essentially set in stone, but it's a lot of the same warhorses that clog the lists at the other pubs as well to some extent...There are certainly enough good new courses and interesting old gems that have been brought back to life that the case for a top 200 seems pretty strong IMHO...And "resistance to scoring" has got to go at Digest....

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Pat...

in case you have interest, here are the courses which experience the widest amount of divergence among the rating entities within each ranking classification.  What I mean by "ranking classification" is I put all courses ranked by all of the Big 3 in all of their lists (4 in all if the Top 100 world is included from Golf Magazine) in the Unanimous Gems category, I have another set of courses that are on 3 of the 4 lists, etc, etc.  Kind of confusing/weird, but it helps make the numbers make sense to me. 


Courses which differ by more than 40 spots on the Unanimous Gem list...

Oak Hill East, Maidstone, Somerset


Courses which experience 40 spots or more on divergence on the next few tiers...

Wade Hampton, Pete Dye Golf Club of WV, Kinloch, Olympia Fields North, East Lake, and Milwaukee

Cherry Hills, and Butler


And courses which are regarded as Top 50 or better by one entity and one entity only...

Victoria National, The Club at Blackrock, Canyata, Wannamoisette, The Quary at La Quinta, Rich Harvest Links, Kingsley Club, Shoal Creek



And, to make this more confusing I used a composite 100 Golfweek list.  But like I said we can slice and dice the data any which way, and I like the composite list for these types of contrast and compare lists to make the numbers make sense and try to compare apples to apples.

I don't know if this helps anything...but regardless here it is.

[Anthony Gray]

  Where is Cruden Bay rated in

  Golf Magazine

  Golf Digest

  Golf Weekly

  ARG

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

Thanks,

I think the issue and study of divergence is far more interesting than where courses are in the same relative position.

So the question remains, how do the seperate rating criteria produce both consistency and great divergence ?

Is it the system, or is it the uniqueness of the golf course ?

Got to run to dinner, but, I'll be back.

[Mac Plumart]

Anthony...

Cruden Bay 81st in the world by Golf Mag (doing a little flim-flamming of the numbers yields a 34th ranking among non-US Courses); Golf Digest ranks it the 37th best non-US course, and Golfweek ranks it the 17th best classic golf course of GB&I.

Patrick...

I am interested in this topic as well.  I truly believe that the ranking is totally dependant on the criteria used.  BUT who is to say that human beings can get that right all the time and avoid inherent biases and/or conflicts of interest?  I have choosen to park the last two points to the side for my analysis and seek to see which list fits my style the best.  To do this, I have sought to play golf courses which fall into that last category listed, that is ranked highly by one and only one rating entity, and see what I think.  If I agree or disagree with a course ranking on this "controversial list", then I should like (dislike) other courses that entity ranks controversially.

For instance, Pete Dye Golf Club used to be ranked by only Golfweek (and ranked pretty darn highly as well)...so I played it.  I LOVED it!!  So, Golfweek's work interests me.  Now PDGCofWV is moving up the other lists, so it is less relevant for the exercise.

But other key courses to investigate should be Kingsley, Canyata, Victoria, and Wannamoisett in order to determine which list lines up best with specific golfers taste.  And I think the rating entities try to define their taste (or what they think is needed to make a course great) with their criteria.  Except for Golf Magazine, which simply asks their raters to tell them what is great while using no set criteria. 

However, in the end no one list will line up with everyone's taste.  So, don't we all need to get out and play enough courses to make up their own mind?

[Scott Warren]

Mac, I once asked re: Golf Week's UK Modern and Classic lists if they could be combined in numerical order to make a comprehensive list.

I was told that wasn't possible due to different factors and weightings being used for the two lists.

Is that the same for their US ratings? If so, how is it tht you compile a combination Classic/Modern list?

[Mac Plumart]

Scott...

I've heard the same thing and in fact they do have a few sets of different criteria, so it is not apples to apples.  Which is, almost for sure, the reason they say the lists can't be combined.  Which is, in fact, a valid point.  But I do/did it anyway...just to skinny the list down to 100.

As to how I did it, I just used the numerical rankings of the courses and listed them from the highest to lowest until I had 100.  I did it for the GB&I as well.  But again, there are different criteria used for the classic and modern list...so it isn't a perfect list/idea.  This is why I always try to mention it when I use that particular list.

And, of course, people can take it or leave it.  I recognize the imperfection in it and can respect those who don't like the idea/method, but I like it...so I use it for my own work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

You said, "However, in the end no one list will line up with everyone's taste."

That's true with any subjective test or exercise, but, I'm fascinated by the disparities, and the larger the disparity, the more my curiosity grows relative to that course and the process.

It would be interesting to break the ranking down into its component pieces in order to see how substantive disparities occur. 

[Craig Sweet]

"Rater's panel, is as useful as a fart in a Spacesuit. Perhaps the fart may even generate more amusement than the Raters list.

My opinion is based upon one mans meat is another’s poison, seem appropriate when talking about farts too.

Melvyn"


Jumpin' Jesus! I agree with Melvyn on something!

[Mac Plumart]

Patrick...

I am with you 100% on your last post.  Give me some time to see if that is possible, given the resources that are publicly available.  And, of course, if you've got ideas on how to do the analysis/reserach...let me know.

Craig...see Melvyn has his moments!!!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could there be a connection between this thread and the shadow thread ?

[Mac Plumart]

Please elaborate.

[JR Potts]

Is that a flaw in the rating system, an anomaly, or changing tastes ?

No, I think Mr. Lavin touched on it briefly.  It's the effect of group think.  When you have the head of the organization writing opinion pieces on golf courses, 97% of the members are going to follow that same opinion.  When these raters are all sitting around the feed table after rounds at their gatherings, what do you think is going to happen?  When these raters continue to get their friends invited to rate, who likely share the same thoughts, what do you think is going to happen?  When these raters, at their gatherings, all get to hear from "experts" in the field about great architecture, what do you think is going to happen?

I will attribune PT's fall to the fall of Lehman....people were bearish....and told their friends who controlled the fate.....who then told their friends with equal clout.


We all know what happens thereafter.

[Mac Plumart]

Ryan...

there is no doubt you are right regarding herding and groupthink.  But in the context of Pine Tree, do they welcome raters?  After Pine Tree was mentioned regarding its drop in the rankings, I went to their website.  They seem to pride themselves on their privacy and exclusivity.  If they (or any other course) doesn't welcome or allow raters to play/rate their course, then the course won't be rated/ranked.  And I wonder if that could be the case in this instance.   Just curious and wondering if anyone knows.

[Scott Warren]

Cypress Pt, ANGC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Fishers etc manage to be rated...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

Pine Tree welcomes raters, as does Mountain Ridge and many shadowed courses.

[Jim Franklin]

I am a GD guy, if you are still looking for people on different panels.

I played Pine Tree as a panelist a few years ago and loved it.