Who is qualified to rate golf courses?

[Pete Lavallee]

question for you is, what kind of whisky shall we have in our bags at Belvedere?

If you haven't tried Red Breast Irish whiskey, you've done yourself a great disservice.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

To quote one of my football couches, "none of you F______"

[Peter Pallotta]

Or, for a slightly more historical perspective, as referenced in Tom Macwood's enjoyable essay, "The World's Finest Test", in 1939 the short-lived National Golf Review magazine convened a panel of experts to identify and essentially rank the best courses in the world.

The panel (or 'jury')? How's this: Lady Heathcoat-Amory (nee Miss Joyce Wethered); Mrs. E. H. Vare (nee Miss Glenna Collett); Edward, Duke of Windsor; Robert T. Jones, Jr.; Walter Hagen; Arnaud Massy; Joe Kirkwood; Gene Sarazen; Percy Alliss; Tom Simpson; C. H. Alison; Robert Trent Jones; D. Scott Chisholm; Hans Samek; Bernard Darwin; Grantland Rice; and William Richardson.

The 'rankings'? In parts, very interesting:

1. St.Andrews, Scotland      
2. Cypress Point, California      
3. Pine Valley, N.J.      
4. Pebble Beach, California      
5. Sandwich, England      
6. National Links, N.Y.      
7. Hirono, Japan      
8. Banff Springs, Canada      
9. Royal Melbourne, Australia      
10. Foulpointe, Madagascar      
11. Augusta Naional, Georgia      
12. Timber Point, N.Y.      
13. Oakmont, Penn.      
14. Hoylake, England      
15. Newcastle Co. Down, Ire.      
16. Westward Ho!, England      
17. Merion, Penn      
18. Riviera, California      
19. Sunningdale, England      
20. Bel-Air, California      
21. Shinnecock Hills, N.Y      
22. Portrush, Ireland      
23. Laksers, Illinois      
24. CC of Havana, Cuba      
25. Humewood, S.Africa      
26. Seminole, Florida
27. Rye, England
28. Knocke, Belgium
29. Yale, Conn
30. Gleneagles, Scotland
31. Le Touquet, France
32. Winged Foot, N.Y.
33. Pasatiempo, California
34. Muirfield, Scotland
35. Walton Heath, England
36. Jasper Park, Canada
37. Portmarnock, Ireland
38. Pinehurst No.2, N.C.
39. Prestwick, Scotland
40. Birkdale, England
41. Lido, N.Y.
42. Ganton, England
43. Durban, S.Africa
44. Oyster Harbors, Mass.
45. Ponte Vedra, Florida
46. North Berwick, Scotland
47. San Francisco, California
48. St.Georges Hill, England
49. Garden City, N.Y.
50. Deal, England
51. Kawana, Japan
52. Engineers, N.Y
53. Swinley Forest, England
54. Brookline, Mass.
55. Saunton, England
56. Bethpage, N.Y.
57. Addington, England
58. Lakeside, California
59. Hollywood, N.J.
60. Woking, England
61. Wildhoeve, Holland
62. Royal York, Canada
63. Oakland Hills, Michigan
64. Morfontaine, France
65. Brancaster, England
66. Pulborough, England
67. Manoir Richelieu, Canada
68. Royal Adelaide, Australia
69. Hamburg-Falkenstein, Germany
70. Olympia Fields #4, Illinois
71. Chiberta, France
72. Lawsonia, Wisconsin
73. Los Angeles, California
74. Maidstone, N.Y.
76. Carnoustie, Scotland
77. Burnham, England
78. Scioto, Ohio
79. Capilano, Canada
80. Hot Springs, Virginia
81. Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon
82. Ballybunion, Ireland
83. Porthcawl, Wales
84. Liphook, England
85. Knoll, N.J.
86. Tokyo-Asaka, Japan
87. Maccauvlei, S.Africa
88. Kingston Heath, Australia
89. Chicago, Illinois
90. Sea Island, Georgia
91. Alwoodley, England
92. Eastward Ho, Mass.
93. Mid Ocean, Bermuda
94. Ville de Delat, Indo China
95. Zandvoort, Holland
96. Five Farms, Maryland
97. Turnberry, Scotland
98. Spa, Belgium
99. Fishers Island, N.Y.
100 a.Royal Worlington, England
      b.Prarie Dunes, Kansas

[Matt_Ward]

PPallotta:

Years ago Digest had a small national panel -- bolstered by more numerous people at the state level. I always wondered then -- and even now -- how such a "star listing" ensures that remote and relatively obscure places can be played. I often think that when "star" people are involved you get a select reinforcing of the same courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

And so just for fun, here's the list of what a bunch of professional golfers, architects and writers thought were the best American courses in 1936:

1. Cypress Point, California      
2. Pine Valley, N.J.      
3. Pebble Beach, California      
4. National Links, N.Y.      
5. Augusta National, Georgia      
6. Timber Point, N.Y.      
7. Oakmont, Penn.      
8. Merion, Penn      
9. Riviera, California      
10. Bel-Air, California      

11-20
Shinnecock Hills, N.Y      
Laksers, Illinois      
Seminole, Florida
Yale, Conn
Winged Foot, N.Y.
Pasatiempo, California
Pinehurst No.2, N.C.
Lido, N.Y.
Oyster Harbors, Mass.
Ponte Vedra, Florida

21-30
San Francisco, California
Garden City, N.Y.
Engineers, N.Y
Brookline, Mass.
Bethpage, N.Y.
Lakeside, California
Hollywood, N.J.
Oakland Hills, Michigan
Olympia Fields #4, Illinois
Lawsonia, Wisconsin

31-40
Los Angeles, California
Maidstone, N.Y.
Scioto, Ohio
Hot Springs, Virginia
Knoll, N.J.
Chicago, Illinois
Sea Island, Georgia
Eastward Ho, Mass.
Five Farms, Maryland
Fishers Island, N.Y.

41
Prarie Dunes, Kansas

[Peter Pallotta]

PPallotta:

Years ago Digest had a small national panel -- bolstered by more numerous people at the state level. I always wondered then -- and even now -- how such a "star listing" ensures that remote and relatively obscure places can be played. I often think that when "star" people are involved you get a select reinforcing of the same courses.

I wouldn't know, Matt - perhaps you're right.  But it's interesting how 'global' that list was...and I wonder if the "same courses" you reference were the same "same courses" back then?

[Matt_Ward]

PPallotta

Glad to see The Knoll mentioned -- one of the forgotten courses. People should see it today -- although it's still being improved throught he involvement of George Bahto.

When you say "global" it doesn't mean much to me because the same "global" courses are the main ones that get seen and played and therefore the reinforcing process goes into full force. I don't see some of these people deciding to forego The Old Course and trek

You'd be surprised to know -- or maybe not so surprised -- that Whitten and Klein literally beg raters to play courses not among the chosen few. Frankly, I think it would be good for raters to be assigned courses through a blind draw -- and not just within one's immediate area / neck of the woods. You'd be surprised to know that groupies of certain architects have a tendency to provide high marks to the same architects and therefore seek out their work and likely ignore the works of others.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

If you REALLY TRUSTED the stars on the "star panel", you could drastically reduce the minimum number of votes that a course needed to make the list, because if Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones and the Duke of Windsor all voted for someplace, you could rest assured it wasn't about whether they were comped or not!  And then, most of the courses you spend so much time worrying about would have a reasonable chance -- although I still have no plans to visit Red Ledges in the next decade.

But, when you insist on 10 or 20 (or 45!) panelists seeing a place like Red Ledges before it is eligible to make the list, well, it's going to take a long time for that to happen.  Really, it's not ever going to happen, unless it is so good that some raters convince others to make the trip [or they schedule a rater's meeting there ].  In cases like that you'd be better off with the small panel and fewer minimum votes.

When I was running the GOLF Magazine rankings, I would try to get panelists to go see the courses that had 3-7 good votes so far.  It was tough to do, but the Hidden Gems list we ran helped a bit.  About 40-50% of those courses eventually wound up on the main list, and the other 50% fell by the wayside.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The issue of the star syndrome is a simple one -- people unless prompted to do otherwise -- congregate at the same places. It happens then -- it happens now.

I have no issue with less people -- but if anyone believed that Sam Snead when he was on the national panel for Digest years ago was going to trek to the Dakotas to play some really fine course -- then you believe that leprechans are real.

The issue is getting people out to see the different courses that few ever get to. Sure, if the vote total were reduced it would help but the real issue is even with a lesser total -- the same high profile places garner the most praise. Think of them like Alabama and SoCal in Collegiate football to the TCU's and Boise State teams.

Tom, too bad you won't be visiting Red Ledges -- never know what you might be missing -- ditto for those raters who see UT as some sort of backward place to play golf. Your idea on prompting people where 3-7 votes existed is a good one -- but the aggregate style of group think will only permit a very small number of the "forgotten" courses to ever really rise up - throw in a somewhat remote location and the odds are even tougher.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

I agree with you that "group think" is alive and well in the rankings.  And you are right about Sam Snead, or some of the people on the GOLF Magazine panel.  They are not going to Red Mike, North Dakota.  [By the way, is it still open?  And would they need to go, now that you have dumped it from your list of must-sees in favor of Red Ledges?]

As an aside, when GOLF DIGEST had their national panel years ago, the process was MUCH different ... they took feedback from all their "other" panelists, and then the "national panel" sat in a smoke-filled room at the U.S. Open and decided upon changes to the list, based on input from the peons and on their own biases.  It was only when GOLF Magazine got serious about their list and rated the courses in order, that DIGEST suddenly felt the need to have a load of data to back up their rankings, and to have their own #1.

However, I think you are severely overestimating the odds that if some of these courses you like had twenty votes, the other 19 guys would agree with your opinion of them.  Without the group think factor, there might be FEWER out-of-the-way courses in the lists, because everyone has their own favorites and hardly any of those favorites would line up.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Don't misunderstand me about Red Mike -- I liked the course but it's cuddled by a few because of the remote factor -- the architecture is good -- once you get to the 7th tee. Is it special enough to merit a trek of several hundred miles to see. No.

Red Ledges is one worthwhile to see. No doubt those who don't much cater to what JN does will not be impressed to the max - but I think Jack gained from his association with you and while he no doubt cannot change his core elements -- the overall course is far more than just a developer's desire to sell houses in a somewhat remote location.

I am aware of how GD used to do things -- it was good to see Golf Mag raise the bar through your involvement to make things better at least in terms of approach and overall feedback.

Tom, I have no illusion that some -- maybe many more -- won't see eye-to-eye with me on a range of courses. On the flip side -- few people have traveled as extensively as I have for well over 30 years to the various locations. The sample size does matter -- being able to size up how certain courses match up against one another. Some people think that if a course is great for a given area -- it is therefore able to be rated nationally. That, as you likely know, can be a major overreach on their part.

Groupthink robs the opportunity for the unknown and less illustrated courses from getting the attention. So much of the process is geared towards the elite top few layouts. And many of them get their spot in the ratings not because of the architecture but because of the Tv exposure from staging tournamnets and the like. Aggregate ratings nothing more than a hodge podge of numbers crunched together. Frankly, from all the people I have ever met who were raters -- I would dare say no more than 10-15% are qualified. The rest are just enjoying the moment.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I appreciate your interest in the subject, and do not mean to imply that you are any worse than anyone else here in thinking that the magazines are not doing their jobs in getting more people to more out-of-the-way courses.  And I am very sympathetic to that, since I have designed at least one ore course that I think should be ranked highly, but is too far out of the way to be included to date. 

But, there is no easy consensus on which of those courses ought to make the lists.  So you can either send a bunch more guys there (many of whom don't know their head from their opposite end), or you can just take recommendations like Red Ledges and Rock Creek with a grain of salt depending on who has told you, and wait until more people go to see them. 

Yes, the latter approach means that some courses are not recognized as fast as they should be.  But it also means that other courses are not lauded prematurely when they should not be.  Just look at all of the newer courses which have made one list or another and then fallen back!  There is plenty of group-think going on at this level too ... i.e., Tom Fazio has several courses in the top 100, and I like this new course better than half of those, so it MUST BE a top 100 course!

Of course, developers and architects would prefer that the magazines rush to put new courses into the lists, even if they don't belong, because once you've gotten a ranking it is yours to advertise forever.  [High Pointe is closed for business, but I could still put up a billboard which read "Top 100 course in America -- GOLF Magazine".] 

We both know that using the word "journalism" for a golf magazine is pretty silly, but by any standard of journalism, it would be better to take the slower route to recognizing courses, instead of pasting them into the rankings as soon as possible, and not caring how many of them fell out later.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Believe it or not -- in today's info-quick-sharing world one doesn't need the vast army of people to rate courses. That was true years ago -- not now. Word spreads very fast and I have always considered myself an Indiana Jones type -- if something is out there that merits real attention I'll do my utmost to see / play it.

Information today is quicker and usually the sheer unknowns are not totally invisible. The problem is the aggregate style voting process -- getting the herd to get off their lazy collective asses and into the hinterlands.

I agree w you 100% -- we don't need the onslaught of BS about all these course lists. Good ratings take time -- they take also a bit of spacing to allow for some perspective and context on what a course provides. The rush to judgement only allows for the inane see-saw you have courses entering quickly and leaving just as fast.

[Craig Sweet]

What purpose does rating a course serve?

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

People have been doing lists for as long as the printed word has been appearing.

People also want to know where the best of anything is located -- golf courses are no different than movies, restaurants, vacation spots and on and on it goes.

No doubt it's subjective and there will always been room for disagreement -- the issue is how extensive the homework is by the people who claim to be raters -- in my experience, few have that element before articulating what they believe is really worthwhile to see.
 
We only have limited time on this planet -- if info can be passed along that highlights where the quality golf experiences are why not take advantage of it ?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Craig:

People have been doing lists for as long as the printed word has been appearing.

People also want to know where the best of anything is located -- golf courses are no different than movies, restaurants, vacation spots and on and on it goes.

No doubt it's subjective and there will always been room for disagreement -- the issue is how extensive the homework is by the people who claim to be raters -- in my experience, few have that element before articulating what they believe is really worthwhile to see.
 
We only have limited time on this planet -- if info can be passed along that highlights where the quality golf experiences are why not take advantage of it ?

Craig - pretty solid post!

[Craig Sweet]

Matt, I think its a nice little scam....and from what I can tell it serves no purpose what so ever. Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon?  Heck no!  I have friends that can tell me that and in the last ten years you could not pick up a magazine...from People to Playboy, that did not hype the course....and to be honest, if I were a golf course architect I would be offended that some guy in knee highs, burmuda's,  and a clip board was rating my creation based on his magazines criteria of how many bunkers were too many, or how the views were from the tee areas.

I think its a lot of masturbation....actually, more like a circle jerk.  But hey, it seems that now days we need someone to tell us what to like and not like....so have at it hoss!

[Mac Plumart]

Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon?

I am reading Dream Golf right now and I think it states pretty clearly that some of the first people to play Bandon were writers and golf course raters.  So, I think your answer is "yes".

And I think that is a great point that Matt keeps bringing up...that raters need to get out there and see every golf course they possibly can to verify, discover, and uncover quality golf courses.  I believe Tom Doak was a rater/ratings editor and he discovered, uncovered, re-discovered Crystal Downs and, I think, The National Golf Links of America...and probably a few more than that.  I find that to be valuable.

Do all raters represent the magazines they work for well?  Obviously not.  Some seem to tell John Kavanaugh all about the in-house dirty laundry.  Some seem to be nothing but "access whores".  Some seem to be looking for nothing but freebies.  However, I hope a few are doing some real work and taking their job seriously.  And, furthermore, I hope even more raters read this thread and take the job more seriously and start getting more scuttlebutt started about how well they behave and how well they do their job.

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

Believe what you will -- you say scam -- OK -- if that's your take then embrace it.

Craig, few people get to play a wide smattering of courses -- many of them simply don't know better and therefore miss out on the available time they do have to play courses of note.

I can tell you this for sure -- if there was no interest the mags would not be using them. People enjoy seeing lists of all different types. Golf course lists do generate eye-ball viewership. Frankly, many of your friends received the lowdown on plenty of places -- prior to them leaving to play there -- few people serve as a Louis & Clark and get to blaze new trails without getting the info from elsewhere. That's why people tune in to GCA too.

You grossly simplify what a solid rating can do -- I don't see eye-to-eye with many of the things the top tier mags do but generating healthy discussion on what constitutes quality golf design is always interesting to me.

Let me mention that often times the view of the unaffiliated person can be quite healthy and even more attune to what is available to play. But if you think that ratings are a "circle jerk" then knock yourself out and believe what you will.

[Jim Nugent]

Matt, I think its a nice little scam....and from what I can tell it serves no purpose what so ever. Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon?  Heck no!  I have friends that can tell me that and in the last ten years you could not pick up a magazine...from People to Playboy, that did not hype the course.

A lot of the rankings are about marketing and selling magazines.  But it seems to me you ARE relying on raters.  That's what your friends do.  That's what the magazine hype does. 

Now maybe the question is, does structuring/formalizing the process in the way the rankings services have, make it more accurate or valuable?  Probably depends on you and your friends. 

Overall, I agree completely with Matt's main point.  Maybe I even broaden it a bit:  you can't rank courses in any category if you haven't seen virtually all the top candidates.  Few people have done so.  Especially on the national or world level.   

But I also wonder how different the rankings would turn out, if we could find raters with that much experience.  At the top end, as I pointed out before, our GCA rankings have virtually all the same courses as GM.  Matt, do your world or national top 20 lists differ much from the GCA rankings? 

[Jud_T]

 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

The short answer to your question is that there are some differences -- more based on me trying to include different types of courses among my "best" -- I agree with Tom Doak when he listed his best 31 in CG because it allowed him to include courses of different design types / locations, routings, hole types, and of course different architects.

Jim, it's so crucial to be ACTIVE in order to remain current. My world list doesn't include any courses from Australia or NZ. Ditto for China. Never been to either of those places.

Getting a world list is easier today because of the onslaiught of information but nothing beats the personal touch.

I did mention to Tom -- and likely others here on this site -- that bonafide ratings need to be spaced out to allow for changes and for some real perspective. The mags have gone beserk in having such updates every year or two and frankly all that does is generally reinforce the same courses -- the groupthink approach through an aggregate system has tendency to simply collect votes because the mags embrace the inane belief that all raters are equal and that all their votes are equal. That works in electoral politics but not in really assessing courses through the perspective of someone who has a great deal more to provide and offer whencourses are studied and reviewed. Just my take on it.

[Dan Boerger]

You know ... Golf course ranking is a LOT like wine rankings.

There is absolutely a market out there for people that want information -- any information -- on where they might best spend their hard earned money and limited time playing golf. To ignore this market is just plain bad business sense for a magazine. Most golfer are hardly as critical as this lot is concerning "relative" rankings.

Like high-end wine that has very limited release, it's my observation that courses that are often more difficult to get on frequently get less critical review. (Like bringing the kids to Disney --- darn it, we're going to have a good time!)

When the time comes to saddle up and go play the course(s) with your buddies, you can be sure someone is going to ask why such-and-such a place was selected. Be it word-of-mouth or published material, a ranking was almost certainly crucial to that decision.

[Craig Sweet]

I think initially 99% of play on a new course is because the PR department got an article in a regional paper, or a spot on TV and someone in the "gang" sees it and suggest the gang go play it next week. 

Would the Influence of the symbiotic relationship between the golf course PR department and the magazine be any different withhout the rater? I dont think so...

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

C'mon -- wake up please.

People are quite adept in sifting through a PR release and the actual comments from people who have no dog in the fight.

Frankly, try to realize this -- other sources are also involved -- GCA being one of them. Even though the key posters are not always raters -- the info provided can be quite useful.