Rankings and Friar's Head

[Kevin Pallier]

Golf Digest is not missing the boat on Friar's Head; they just do not have enough panelist visits to qualify for the Top 100. In order to qualify you need 45 visits. In order to qualify in the Best in State category you only need 10 (may have increased to 15).

For mine - the US Golf Digest ranking system is flawed if a great course such as FH needs 45 visits to get on the main list. Surely such a high sample size isn't necessary ?

[Dave Falkner]

Keith and Marc,

Call me dense (as many have, on a variety of subjects) but why do rankings matter? 

The only one I can think of is that they would help when planning a trip so that one doesnt end up on a dog track

[jeffwarne]

I'd put all versions of Sleepy Hollow ahead of Hudson National
I don't dislike Hudson, I just really like Sleepy Hollow (I haven't seen the latest version live)

[Keith OHalloran]

Dave,
The reason I brought it up was twofold.  First I have consistently heard people return from FH and claim that it is the best course they have played or one of the top two on the east end of long island etc.  That being said, I was actually asking what the process was in ranking courses and trying to figure out how it was ranked in the state and no in the top 100.

Second, as I stated earlier, I believe that the rankings can have a direct correlation to people's enjoyment of courses. For example, I went to Bandon, and everyone knew that Pacific Dunes was the highest ranked course. Based on the rankings, everyone wanted extra tee times at Pacific Dunes and coincidentally, each of these golfers who play a lot but do not neccessarily log onto GCA, ranked the course at Bandon in the same order as Golf DIgest. Now could that mean that Golf DIgest was right on the mark? Of course, but could it also mean that average golfers take cues from rankings? Of course. Now, if golfers are taking cues from rankings, in my opinion, there is a need to get it correct.

I guess my point is, if the rankings are flawed for some reason, it matters. And I thought FH was a good course to use to delve into the system

[Matt_Ward]

Guys:

Ratings / ranking, call it what one will, are not perfect or even on target plenty of times.

I do agree with those who have championed Sleepy Hollow -- clearly it's beyond the likes of HN in my mind.

I'd be curious to hear from those guys who have opined that the flat holes at FH on the former potato land left them wanting more.

Keith:

The issue for Digest is that a good number of courses have escaped the top 100. FH is not alone -- where is Kingsley ? Where are others ? Digest used to be the source for such courses -- not anymore in my mind.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt:

I think that when you have a piece of property which has so many different features that people tend to favor the more dramatic features over the less interesting part of the property.  This is true at FH as well as Colorado Golf although at CG the more dramatic part of the course is not necessarily the best architecture. (Let's leave aside the water falls on 16). Even when considering the architecture alone there are going to be some holes which are better than others no matter where they are located.  Numbers 3 and 4 are not great but certainly 5, 6 and 7 are really good and aren't on the most interesting part of the property.  A couple of holes on the lower part of the back are also not outstanding but solid and lead to some really great holes. 

Perhaps one of the reasons for FH not being highly rated is its location on Long Island where there is incredible company and some might call it competition. With respect to GD not getting 45 raters out of 900 on the property, I wonder how any of the ratings panels can be credible and up-to-date with access being so difficult for many of the top courses such as Augusta National, Seminole, etc. I have also wondered how GD justified the need to have all raters with handicaps of 5 or less and they must play from the back tees - try that in a 30 MPH wind at the Ocean Course and what happens when the player's handicap goes up for whatever reason. 

[Jud_T]

Guys:

Ratings / ranking, call it what one will, are not perfect or even on target plenty of times.

I do agree with those who have championed Sleepy Hollow -- clearly it's beyond the likes of HN in my mind.

I'd be curious to hear from those guys who have opined that the flat holes at FH on the former potato land left them wanting more.

Keith:

The issue for Digest is that a good number of courses have escaped the top 100. FH is not alone -- where is Kingsley ? Where are others ? Digest used to be the source for such courses -- not anymore in my mind.

Matt,

Agreed...Correct me if I'm wrong, but until Digest broadens their rater base and drops the "resistance to scoring" category, as well as getting more guys out sooner or reducing the number required to play, they are well behind Golfweek and even perhaps Golf Magazine and provide a somewhat outdated limited view of course rankings...

[Andy Troeger]

I have also wondered how GD justified the need to have all raters with handicaps of 5 or less and they must play from the back tees - try that in a 30 MPH wind at the Ocean Course and what happens when the player's handicap goes up for whatever reason. 

Panelists don't have to play the back tees and are not even encouraged to do so. Panelists are expected to look at the back tees (and forward tees) if they are not playing them. We also are not required to "maintain" a handicap--good thing because I haven't been able to pass as a 5 for a couple years.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim;  On what do you base your statement that the other magazines do not have a minimum number of raters required before a course is listed?  Is it possible that others have been more diligent in seeing FH even if they do so without invoking their rater's privilege?

I do not know what the requirement for either magazine is, but am fairly comfortable that Golf Magazine does not have a 45 visit minimum. I do not believe Golfweek does either, but not 100% sure. I would be shocked to find out if they did.

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

Read what you posted -- however -- smart panelists can sift through the situation rather well -- provided they have their eyes open. It's also possible that people can rate a course highly solely because of the holes that have stellar locations and then minimize the others that are less so. A great example, in my mind, is PB. No doubt the ocean holes are spectacular but PB does not suffer any real drop because of the so-so- interior holes -- although there are few notable ones there.

Jerry, I don't buy the "competition" argument. Sebonack and Atlantic opened in the same area and have been accepted for what they are. Clearly, something is amiss because if one were to simply look at FH's state ratings it's clear that for many panelists it's only the 14th best.

Let me say this -- access is not an issue for the well-connetced raters. The networking within golf allows those who want to play the top tier clubs with choices that can be accessed. It's not just a phone call but if someone is really intent they can do so.

In regards to your last point -- players should play the course from the back tees to judge the totality of the course. No doubt it will overwhelm a number of them but it gives the player -- with the eyes to see and the mind to comprehend -- a fuller appreciation of what the arhitect had in mind.

My issue w Digest is that it's not cutting edge information anymore. The Web's changed plenty of that and frankly I get more solid info from other sources. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

I have to say this -- nearly all of the pubs aren't great resources for club news and what courses are worthwhile playing. You get more solid info on this site than in many other areas.

Digest has had a tendency to focus on the harder courses -- likely a byproduct of the low handicap types who make up a good base of their ratings panel. On the flip side Golfweek has people who are infatuated with quirk and other such related items. My listing of top tier courses is a mix of both.

[Jud_T]

Golfweek has people who are infatuated with quirk and other such related items.

You could make the same argument about the majority of guys on here,  myself included...

[David_Madison]

Another GD panelist and I took a trip up to the NYC area a couple of years ago to play a number of the candidate courses in the area. We started planning the trip at least three months ahead so that we could slot in as many rounds as possible during our stay. Friar's Head was definitely on our target list and we really tried to obtain access but to no avail. Sure we targeted the obvious candidates, but we also made a point to see Sleepy Hollow, Fenway, and Ridgewood. It might seem that with 900 panelists, it shouldn't be too hard to get 45 to a given highly considered course, but if that course only allows panelists as a result of their otherwise being invited by members, the 45 might just not happen.

[Mike Sweeney]

It might seem that with 900 panelists, it shouldn't be too hard to get 45 to a given highly considered course, but if that course only allows panelists as a result of their otherwise being invited by members, the 45 might just not happen.

If they let Mayday Malone on .......... 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42027.0/

[JC Jones]

Sorry Mr. Cummings. I guess I did not read it in TCG. I read it on this site in a thread about FH. On June 18, 2009, JC Jones wrote..."Still, to be the ONLY course that he has seen in the last 13 years that is a 9, pretty impressive."  I have yet to have a reason to question JC's veracity. If you feel that I should not rely on this, let me know.  

I wonder where JC Jones got this info (it wasn't from The Guide).  Other than the TCG I don't know where Tom Doak published (even on gca) actually Doak ratings....  It's not something he does often, or at all.  I could be wrong..

Jonathan,

from Tom's last featured interview by our fearless leader:

18. Your frankness in the Confidential Guide is obviously still appreciated to this day. Since the publication of the book, what is the best course you have seen?

Keeping our own courses out of the equation, I would say the only course I’ve seen which I think is a clear 9 is Friars Head.  There are several more, all modern designs, which are an 8 — you could guess what most of those are, they’re the same courses that everyone on Golf Club Atlas routinely gives a 9 or 10 on their own version of the Doak scale.  But if you look at my other 9’s — places like Prairie Dunes, Pebble Beach, Royal County Down, and Oakmont — I just don’t think there are many modern courses which can be seen as their equals.  Now, I had great fun seeing Brora in Scotland, or Plymouth Golf Club in Mass., but I couldn’t rate them anywhere near that highly.

A wolverine backing a Spartan up....gotta love it.   My veracity remains in tact