Who is qualified to rate golf courses?

[Sean_A]

I used to think I wasn't, then after a few months I thought I was, and now I know I'm not.  Why? Because I've read on here the reviews and/insights of folks like Sean Arble and Scott Warren and Matt Ward and SL Solow and Adam Clayman and John Kavanaugh and George Freeman (and many many others) and I can see how their experience (in the playing of many many courses) and of their gca-related thought processes (from reading so much) infuse their reviews/insights with depth and nuance....and it is no modesty on my part to say "I ain't got what they got".

Peter

 

Pietro

With no disrespect intended - cobblers.  All I or anyone does is play/look at courses and offer an opinion.  That opinion is worth only as much as anybody chooses to value it.  However, on a very real level I know very few people (myself far from included) who are really qualified to offer opinions on pure architecture because very few people know what it takes to get stuff in the ground on a specific project, but at the end of the day what it takes get stuff in the ground isn't all that interesting me - not compared to the final product anyway.  My nose follows a few guys on this site and they aren't archies.  I don't know why that is, maybe archies have a different, more work oriented/practical approach to looking at courses which doesn't often appeal to me.  I know as soon as I hear an archie go on about safety issues I generally switch off and think most of it is bollocks and none of it can certainly replace common sense. 

Ciao 

[PCCraig]

Pete:

On the surface one would think that such people do in fact travel frequently -- don't know if they are in the air as much as the Clooney character though. Keep in mind this -- many of these people have stature in the industry and can play many places but do they really get to them or is it merely a tiny fraction thereof? I can't say for certain. One other thing -- I really don't think that archies should be on panels because they might have bias against a competitor or simply promote their own work -- likely they can't because of clear conflict of interest issues but crashing the party against another archie is not way off base.

Pete, one of the things you have to understand -- a number of these folks have big time names but I don't know if they really go out of their way to play other courses somewhat off the beaten path. I can tell you this -- for a period of 15 years I routinely rated no less than 40-50 new courses for Digest each year -- some of them were far from the likes of a Sand Hills I can tell you that. I mean how much time does Luke Donald really provide beyond his tour experiences? I can tell you that Nicklaus himself admitted to really not searching out new courses just for the thrill of it. Ditto for Jim Furyk and Sergio Garcia ?

I never said anything bad about the Golf Mag listing -- I just believe too many panelists have a tendency to only seek out the usual suspects and therefore fail to really see so many other courses -- Doak opened the eyes of many with his CG book on the really fascinating courses that get so little attention. Pete, I don't know how many courses these folks play and if they really update their findings with return visits and the like. Sometimes people just believe that PV shall always be at the top no matter what happens. It's amazing the range of courses that are out there now -- sometimes those with the titles and the big time profiles only play the same kind of courses time after time. I can be wrong with that but that's my sense.

This may shock you but Luke Donald gets around to a good amount of non-tour courses and is pretty knowledgeable on quality GCA.

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

I don't know how much travel the people you mention actually do and frankly if they even venture off the beaten paths to play the lesser-known courses. You automatically assume each of them does and is akin to the Clooney "Up in the Air" character. In regards to your ignorant statement (with all due respect) -- there is some really solid golf in Utah that can make the top 100 USA listing in my mind. TF's Glenwild is a gem -- ditto for what JN did at Red Ledges. Far too often people who make broad general comments stick to the highway of predictable returns. There's plenty in the mountain time zone in the USA now to be real contenders -- and I mean more than just Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Rock Creek, to name the usual three cited.

In regards to global coverage -- I concur with plenty of those who believe too many of the international layouts -- save for the UK and Ireland get more brownie points because of their remoteness. I have to qualify my last comment in not having been to Aussie and NZ land just yet. That will soon be rectified. I think on balance -- the USA has the best and most deepest roster of top tier courses with the UK and Ireland just behind.

Pete, if you enjoy aggregate ratings then knock yourself out and enjoy. I agree w Jim S that having individual lists would work even better. The NY Times does it with its top movie listing and what comes from theater. Not just one report but a few from people who might see certain things a bit differently. I do believe a Whitten and Klein list alone would make for some interesting analysis.

Pete, last comment -- much of the golf establishment hews to the usual suspects -- places like Black Mesa often are ignored because many people erroneously conclude that no superior golf could EVER be possible in NM. I have come to believe quite the opposite -- that far too many of the classic courses are held too high because of nothing more than past votes.

Jud:

Good idea -- but don't drink it too fast !!!

Jud, have you thought about rating the top 25 or so courses in your neck of the woods ?

Be interesting to see it -- in groupings of five so you would not have to place each course in some sort of silly numercial order.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

My statement stands -- most tour pros don't go out of their way to play non-tourney related courses. If Donald is an exception -- so be it -- for him. Most that I have ever spoken to don't. A classic case is how few people ever played Bethpage Black prior to the '02 event -- ditto the same thing prior to the '86 US Open at Shinnecock.

You can only imagine how the "lesser" known courses get even less looks than those I just mentioned.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".

Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously.  But it does tell you that a course which ranks 22nd is closer to the top twenty than the "fourth ten" the silly way GOLF DIGEST used to do it, where it was artificially hyped "big news" when a course moved up from 21st to 20th.

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

Since I'm sooooo ignorant please refresh my memory, how many top 100 lists, other than your own, have Glenwild and Red Ledges made so far!

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

OK -- smart guy -- who many panelists (Golf Mag specifically) have gone to the mountain time zone and actually played anything more than a select grouping of coursers in and around Denver and the likes of Sand Hills, Ballynell and Rock Creek -- I'm assuming they have been to Deer Lodge but I would not bet the ranch on that one.

How many top tier panelists have even been to NM ?

They might have confused it with Mexico instead.

Pete, I'm not trying to break your balls but the lists generally follow the same formula. I have issue with the fact a number of NYC-area courses are rated highly -- simply because they always have been and often times glom on to what their more famous neighbors are about.

I've played no less than 75+ of TF and JN courses -- I really enjoyed both Glenwild and Red Ledges. But I stand by what I said - most of tjhe top tier panelists only cherry-pick off the usuals suspects and then reinforce their position time after time after time. Just my opinion for what it matters. Thanks ...

[Pete Lavallee]

But Matt, you didn't answer my question; if I wanted pontification I'd have gone to confession or my Mom's house.

Are Glenwild or Red Ledges on any Top 100 lists? If not, there realy was no need to go to Utah, plain and simple.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Who is qualified to rate golf courses - easy those who have had a full frontal lobotomy - and hates golfers

Melvyn
 

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Is there some unwritten rule of GCA.com that every thread has to be a nasty bitchfest.  this place has gotten downright surly in the past couple of years.

to get to the topic at hand, i think the person that said "the better question is who isn't qualified to rate golf courses?" hit the nail on the head.  aren't golf courses like art... the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  the trick is to have raters that have a passion for golf, a working knowledge of what things to look for in good construction, a sense of strategic quality, and the time to play a variety of different places.  

i get that strong ratings can lead to prestige and added revenue so they have a lot of political power.  i also get that they are good for discussion fodder.  but... true passionate golfers generally know what separates a good golf course from a bad... and if someone disagrees they generally can at least back their opinion up with solid facts or at least worthwhile, respected opinion.

i just can't comprehend how some of you expect these "perfect" rankings based on some quantitative model.  take them with a grain of salt.  if nothing else, they narrow down an entire globe of golf into those that are worth a special trip to play.  why not just leave it at that?

[Eric Smith]

I felt the same way when I found out the identities of a few people who are magazine raters. My already thin faith in the lists was eroded completely.

Who is qualified to rate golf courses? Far fewer people than are tasked with the duty, in my opinion.

Scott:

Aren't there a whole helluva lot of panelists? Why is it that these few people being raters has eroded your faith in the lists?

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Who is qualified to rate golf courses - easy those who have had a full frontal lobotomy - and hates golfers

Melvyn
 

Melvyn,

Certainly you have some favorite golf courses... and have your own ways of rating them in that frontal lobe of yours.  Does that qualify you as one in need of lobotomy?  Wait, don't answer that...

[Brad Klein]

Pete Lavallee,

Red Ledges is No. 57 on the Golfweek's Best Residential List for 2010 and No. 7 on the Golfweek's Best New List for 2009-2010.

I've had to deal with the question of "what makes for a good rater?" a lot over the last 15 years. Among the things I have found is that there's no correlation between playing ability and openness to judge golf courses; certainty and confidence of opinion is actually counter-productive, as well; an ability to travel and a curiosity about seeing as many different golf courses are indispensable; so, too, a commitment to studying the widely recognized classics; and anyone who does not read books on the subject is unnecessarily handicapping themselves. 

[Andy Troeger]

I think Jay K. nailed this one pretty well especially in his second paragraph. Rating golf courses is a subjective exercise that's never going to be perfected.  You could take 100 people from this site to 50 great courses and tell them to rank them and I'd be stunned if any two lists were the exactly the same (or even that close). Its hard enough to get people on this site to agree on the criteria for determining a great course, let alone which courses do the best job at fitting those criteria. It makes for fun discussion that wouldn't exist of there was a consensus.

The best thing about rating golf courses for me is the variety of what's out there.  My number of courses played per year has declined this year for the 3rd consecutive year (from a high of 52 in 2007 to 31 this year), but I played in 11 states and got to see a lot of different styles and time periods. Maybe after graduate school I'll make it abroad to expand my horizons a bit more!

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

No list will be exactly the same -- you created a straw man that no one disputes. Doak himself said that even in CG he doubts that agreement would be no better than 85-90% -- with the rest being "unavoidable." Preferences and styles will no doubt produce a varying result -- but on the whole -- just as people rate the top movies and restaurants -- the best will, for the most part, be recognized.

I believe a group rating of courses in settings of ten is much more workable. The issue is for people to do what you mentioned -- seizing the opportunity to travel (11 states in your case this year) and to have what Brad Klein mentioned as a desire to seeing as many different states and sampling what is there. I do agree with his assertion that "certainty" can be counterproductive -- far too often ironically it is that "certainty" that has allowed some of the fattest cows to remain on the prime grazing ground.

Pete:

You must have simply responded without reading what I posted -- many panelists need mapquest to find UT and a state called NM. They think golf rarely exists for the select predictable ones seen over and over again -- as i said the NYC-metro area has a great many top tier courses but the area also has a number of overrated peaches as well.. Pete, if you don't want a straight answer -- go to the same location and breathe in the same BS air because as I said before -- a number of the so-called bulletproof courses that are routinely rated -- get their mileage not from their own octane but from sucking the gas out of the muscle engine courses that are nearby to their address.

If you don't like my thoughts -- disagree with them. But I stand by what I said -- I've played no less than 75+ TF and JN courses respectively. Just my opinion that's all. Glenwild and Red Ledges would make my personal top 100 USA listing -- before throwing my comments under the bus how bout you venture there to play them and see firsthand. 


Tom D:

"I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".[/b"

"]Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously."

Tom, Surely you jest.

Ratings by GD -- at least when they were the sole dominant voice -- were taken seriously. Very seriously throughout the golf industry. Because of the stature and voice GD once commanded -- and even to this day but with less monopoly and credibility -- the placement of courses through the considerable platform they have does influence a good many people.

Yes, you are so aboluetly right  -- it makles perfect sense to rate a courser #1 like it was something akin to the AP collegiate football wire . Sure -- like PV is somehow better than Oakmont or Cypress Point. Having courses in groupings is a bit more intellectually honest than going through the numerical ratings which are self-induced publicity themes GD deliberately inserted to create "news."

[Scott Warren]

Matt,

On one hand you belittle numerical lists and yet yesterday in the Dormie Club thread you asked Adam Messix for his C&C Top 10 in order...

As is often the case your arguments are all over the place.

[Carl Rogers]

About a dozen posts back, there was the list of Golf Magazine Course Raters.
Comments:
1. I can see why there is the problem of the average of the average.  How could Arthur Hills, Arnie & Pete agree on anything when it comes to Golf Design?
2. Way too many high profile people.  A Rater with a vote needs to be under the radar.
3. The human race's attempt to measure what cannot be measured is destined to fail.

[Adam Clayman]

I was actually playing golf with someone when they got the call they were accepted as a GolfWeek rater. You just never know when you go out in public who you are standing next to, could be a suicide bomber, a paroled rapist, a pedophile, or....a golfweek rater!

Is this the "new" Dale Carnegie method?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha, ha - good one, Adam.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

 
Tom D:

"I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".[/b"

"]Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously."

Tom, Surely you jest.

Ratings by GD -- at least when they were the sole dominant voice -- were taken seriously. Very seriously throughout the golf industry. Because of the stature and voice GD once commanded -- and even to this day but with less monopoly and credibility -- the placement of courses through the considerable platform they have does influence a good many people.

Yes, you are so aboluetly right  -- it makles perfect sense to rate a courser #1 like it was something akin to the AP collegiate football wire . Sure -- like PV is somehow better than Oakmont or Cypress Point. Having courses in groupings is a bit more intellectually honest than going through the numerical ratings which are self-induced publicity themes GD deliberately inserted to create "news."

Matt:

I will let you tell me your opinion of golf courses.  But, you are in no position to lecture me (or anyone else I know) on INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, so I will just ignore you there.

Groups of ten are really no more relevant than the numbers 1-100.  They are both artificial constructs which make the exercise sound more objective than it can possibly be.  BUT, if you're going to go to all the trouble of making people vote on all this stuff, I think you might as well compile the numbers completely, instead of just making arbitrary cut-offs.  In fact, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Great comment.


Tom:

Let's be clear -- I don't see how rating courses like collegiate football teams makes any sense. I understand why GD led the parade -- it makes for good copy to say some course is #1 and then two years later have another #1. I can't for the life of me see what the real differences are between such heavyweights as places like Merion / East and Oakmont. A solid ten in both cases and for anyone to say one is better than the other is likely tied to a personal preference.

When you have groupings of ten you are better able to fit courses to particular areas of emphasis. Sure, one could do it just with a grouping of 100 and leave it at that. I don't think that provides a sufficient level of differentiation and that's something that can be broken down a bit more. No doubt any grouping will have a starting and end point. When GD had its ton ten listing it went through that for the first 50 courses -- the remainder weere simply lumped into a "second 50."

Tom, don't get a knot in your shorts -- my comment on "intellectuasl honesty" was not geared towards you but a system that GD eventually changed to include such collegiate football ratings. It was nothing more than attempt to create "news" with every ratings when in all reality places like Oakmont, Merion, CP, PV, et all of that type, are all within a whisker of one another.

Scott:

Fair question -- but far from your erroneous statement that my "arguments are all over the place."

Here's why ...

The difference in my asking Adam is that he is a lone individual -- I wanted to know how he might be able to diffentiate between the key courses he has played from the C&C portfolio of one's he has played. Getting him to analyze each and for him to see what he personally liked better than another is quite helpful for me in better understanding his overall feelings on a given course.

This is a bit different than when aggregate lists are provided by an assortment of people when pooled together. I believe the aggregate approach works best when divided into set groupings -- such as what GD did previously with its top ten ratings from a "first ten" to a "fifth ten" and then a "second fifty."

Hope this clariification helps with any misunderstanding you might have had.

[Lou_Duran]

Oh God, not another "what's wrong with ratings and raters" thread!  It is not rocket science, though the theories and the process behind them probably have as much of a factual or "scientific" basis as a number of multi-billion dollar policies we're pursuing.

Take the rankings for what they are, subjective lists of wonderful golf courses derived from the considered opinions of imperfect golf enthusiasts.  On the whole, if used to suggest where we might direct our limited resources for playing golf, most of us will be well-satisfied with the results.  I've consulted the various rankings when travelling for as long as I can remember and have only been disappointed once; a far superior average than my experience with theatre, movie, food, wine, books, electronics, etc. recommendations by other critics.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
To me the problem with your thinking is that you're still creating an arbitrary cut-off, its just in groups of ten instead of one. If you really want to separate courses it would make sense to do it by quality groupings, regardless of the size of the group. If there are 12 courses that deserve a "10" and 15 courses that deserve a "9" then lump those courses together. Otherwise course #20 and #21 could receive almost identical numerical evaluations but be placed in different groupings because that's where the cut fell. Systems work better if you work with the data instead of competing with it to achieve round numbers.

Personally, I think ordering courses is fine as long as the magazines provide the actual ratings received (9.43 vs 8.75). That allows the reader to see whether there's really any difference between #1 and #2 or #43 and #44. Despite your argument about PV and Oakmont, there's often a much greater separation at the top then the middle of the list where you might have 20 courses separated by half a point. All of these courses at the top or even bottom of top 100 lists are generally excellent, its the details and also personal preference that often create the separation.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Hello -- yes it's arbitrary - so is any number system one uses. I don't see how a collegiate football rating system works well. It was self-created by Digest and then all the other pubs followed the pied-piper approach so that every year or two you can create "news" that such and such course fell one position or another moved into the top spot -- see the fanfare that the ascension of ANGC to the top spot caused. In regards to the system you mentioned -- you can very well have them assigned a certain letter or number grade and go from there. But frankly the concept of "groupings" -- whether by an assigned number or a heading of say ten courses -- works better than having such a silly and preposterous notion that there is only one #1 course in the land.

I like the groupings because at some point there will be a cut-off -- the original Digest approach worked well in my mind.

Andy, let me state again aggregate ratings are meaningless -- they simply push numbers together and then ipso facto like some sort of cheap magician's trick we get the RESULT. There is no ryhme, reason or detailed analysis - it's just throw courses into the air -- have people vote without any meaningful wherewithal to cross compare from a similar pool of courses played. For example, if person A plays Oakmoint and person B plays Merion and neither has played both -- you have to assume that these respective people can apply the numbers in some sort of consistent fashion. That won't be an issue for the top top courses -- but it does becomes more of a problem the further from the top you slide down.

We do agree a well-researched listing will likely contain many fine courses but there are few raters who have the wherewithal to see the totality -- they often can only approach the process from a limited side of things. That's what made Doak's CG book so fascinating -- a clear and consistent analysis - albeit from his perspective -- but one that was well thought out and not polluted with the aggregate style that is nothing more than a hodge podge of this and that.

[Adam Clayman]

Kelly, He wrote the book "How to win friends and influence people".