[JESII]

Matt,

I figured the lack of national coverage would be the first problem but I think a better value would be you listing your Metropolitan Section top 50 with ample commentary.

I'm sure there's a guy just like you in the Dallas / Fort Worth area who could do the same thing.

That would interest me.

[Carl Rogers]

Let's invent a new category of person and call them "Master Raters".  Only these people get to vote.

Something useful to the "Master Raters" would be to designate other people as "Scouts" to help ferret out lesser known, the off the beaten track course that deserve greater attention by the real raters.

The "Master Raters" cannot be everywhere all the time.

I think the sub category of "Hidden Gem" is a very good idea.

[JMEvensky]

I'm sure there's a guy just like you in the Dallas / Fort Worth area
 

God forbid .

[JESII]

I forgot to type my follow up to that lead in...can you imagine the size font that guy would use to tell us all to get off our asses and do some heavy lifting?

[JMEvensky]

I forgot to type my follow up to that lead in...can you imagine the size font that guy would use to tell us all to get off our asses and do some heavy lifting?

As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns.

[Jud_T]

Jim / George:
 I'd prefer frankly if Whitten did Digest alone -- or have a much smaller grouping of people who have really played the key contenders.

Excellent point.  This is what makes the Confidential Guide, the Wine Advocate and Roger Ebert's column so powerful.  Each guy has his own personal biases, which happen to be somewhat in line with my own, and I can therefore trust their reviews a LOT more than the agregate magazine rankings....

[JESII]

"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."


Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?

[Jud_T]

Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?

No because I'd rather have 1 guy, whoever it is, warts an all rating courses.  Then, whether you are 100% in agreement or 100% opposed, you know where you stand and it's a lot easier to know what to make of it as opposed to the current Golf Digest System which tells me, for instance, that Rich Harvest Farms is the 46th best course in the country, upon which like a schmuck (and to help out a friend's charity) I shell out a small fortune for a foursome, bring in a bunch of ringers, only for all of us, to a man, to walk off scratching our heads as to what all the fuss was about....

[JESII]

Sorry Jud, I was responding to Jeff up above and you snuck in with a comment between...I've edited mine to clarify. By the way, I agree with you on this subject.

[JMEvensky]

"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."


Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?

Who's the one?

[Scott Warren]

When my wife (then girlfriend) first landed a job at a big daily paper, one of her jobs was to visit some of the city's galleries each week and compile a column of the best exhibits with a bit of info about them, the work on show etc.

My mum was amazed when she found out.

"I didn't know you had a strong interest in art?" she said.

"I don't," my missus replied. "Well, I like it, but I have no particular knowledge about it."

"But I plan my gallery visits on the strength of what looks good in that column. I always thought it was written by an expert!"

"No, some of the other people who have done it said if they are really busy they just ring the gallery, they don't even go out to visit."

By this stage my mum's illusion was shattered! - some newcomer journo with no particular knowledge was advising a few hundred thousand readers every weekend which galleries they should see - pretty ridiculous, she thought.

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.

[JESII]

"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."


Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?

Who's the one?

Who knows, but God help him...and the rest of us if he finds out...

[PCCraig]

The better question would be who isn't qualified.

[Peter Pallotta]

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

 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

A national perspective is possible -- it's the approach and methodology that is often the issue. GD went with the Gallup / Zagat style in doing things and as a result you get a hodge-podge of really nothing that is truly significant. Getting the first 25-50 top courses isn't usually an issue but you can see the breakdowns in "consensus ratings" when you start with the courses between say #50 and #100.

Jim, a national approach can be done. I have said previously here on GCA that I frequently dialogue with about 10-15 people, a number of them don't lurk or write on GCA but they travel quite frequently and understand the game very well from a design side of things. I generally gain much from them when assessing trends nationwide. The same could be done with a newer approach to how national ratings are done.

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

Here's a list of the 100 raters for Golf Magazine, it looks like just vwhat you are asking for. Surely these folks get around. Are you saying that this Ran Morrisett guy doesn't see enough golf courses outside of NC to value his opinion?

The 100 members of the panel


George Bedard, Canada

Judy Bell, Colorado

Prakash Bhandari, India

Michael Bonallack, Scotland

Niall M. Cameron, Bahamas

Malcolm Campbell, Scotland

Steve Carr, England

Paul D. Caruso, Jr., Montana

Bob Charles, New Zealand

David M. Clarke, New York

Tom Clasby, California

Tom Crow, California

Robert E. Cupp, Georgia

Bob Currey, Massachusetts

Gordon Dalgleish, Georgia

Michael R. Davis, New Jersey

John R. Dempsey, North Carolina

Tom Doak, Michigan

Luke Donald, England

Joann Dost, California

James J. Dunne III, New York

Pete Dye, Florida

David B. Fay, New Jersey

Jim Finegan, Pennsylvania

Marvin A. French, Arizona

Dana Fry, Ohio

Jim Furyk, Florida

Gary A. Galyean, Florida

Sergio Garcia, Spain

Christopher Goodwin, Canada

Kendra Graham, New Jersey

John Harris, Minnesota

Gary Hart, Arizona

Philippe P. Hermann, Switzerland

Alan Heuer, New York

Arthur Hills, Ohio

Richard Hills, England

Bill Hogan, Texas

John Hopkins, Wales

Tony Jacklin, England

Peter Jacobsen, Oregon

Terry Jastrow, California

Rees Jones, New Jersey

Bill Jones III, Georgia

Sunil Kappagoda, Connecticut

Taizo Kawata, Japan

James Keegan, Colorado

Ortwin Klang, Germany

Norman Klaparda, California

Samm Klaparda, California

Mike Klemme, Oklahoma

Herbert V. Kohler, Jr., Wisconsin

Laurence C. Lambrecht, Rhode Island

Jeffrey Lewis, New York

David Mackintosh, Argentina

Joe Marengi, Texas

Peter G. Mathieson, England

Thomas McBroom, Canada

Peter McEvoy, England

Thomas J. Meeks, Indiana

Brian Morgan, Scotland

Ran Morrissett, North Carolina

Jay Mottola, New York

Jack Nicklaus, Florida

Frank Nobilo, New Zealand

David S. Nolan, New York

Michael O'Bryon, Florida

Kazuyuki Ohashi, Japan

Kazunori Ohtsuka, Japan

Peter Oosterhuis, Arizona

Arnold Palmer, Pennsylvania

John Paramor, England

Harrie P.W. Perkins, Texas

Hal Phillips, Maine

Gary Player, South Africa

Tom Ramsey, Australia

Luke Reese, Illinois

Ron Riemer, Illinois

Cabell Robinson, Spain

Justin Rose, England

Michael C. Roseto, New Jersey

Lorne Rubenstein, Canada

Pat Ruddy, Ireland

Mitsutaka Sado, Japan

Isao Sato, Japan

Bill Shean, Illinois

David V. Smith, California

Annika Sorenstam, Sweden

Donald Steel, England

George Sweda, Ohio

Charles H. Tadge, Ohio

Oliver A. Thompson, Ohio

Sho Tobari, Japan

Daniel C. Ulmer, Jr., Kentucky

Fred Vuich, Pennsylvania

Karrie Webb, Australia

Tom Weiskopf, Arizona

Christopher P. Wightman, New Jersey

Michael Wolveridge, Australia

Walter Woods, Scotland

I realize that you rated for both Golf Digest and Golf Week, but you make it seem like the Golf Magazine rating don't even exist! Isn't this the format you clamour for, that includes the all important heavy lifting?

[Matt_Ward]

One other thing to quickly mention -- I'd like to see the ratings really feature groups of courses -- say the top ten -- rather than the silly AP college football approach. Pine Valley is a great course -- but it's not really better than Shinnecock or CP. In my mind, they are all on the same level. GD used to do it that way and frankly it's smarter because it realizes that whatever differences there are between courses the spread of an Oakmont versus a Merion is usually tied to the tiniest of differences and personal preferences.

[Sean Leary]

One other thing to quickly mention -- I'd like to see the ratings really feature groups of courses -- say the top ten -- rather than the silly AP college football approach. Pine Valley is a great course -- but it's not really better than Shinnecock or CP. In my mind, they are all on the same level. GD used to do it that way and frankly it's smarter because it realizes that whatever differences there are between courses the spread of an Oakmont versus a Merion is usually tied to the tiniest of differences and personal preferences.

I agree with this totally...

[Matt_Ward]

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.

[Adam Clayman]

Pete, That must be an old list. There are several long time posters here that are now on the panel. Ben, Tuco, and Joe Andriole, that I know of.

Plus, Don't they have a separate panel for their places you can play list?

[Pete Lavallee]

Adam,

I just pasted that from their website. Perhaps GMBF will make an appearance and straighten us out!

[JESII]

Pete,

Maybe I'm missing something, but what I was endorsing was a personal list from a single panelist. The notion that these lists are fact is silly, they are just aggregated opinions. Have Ran write a piece on his top 10 courses over the past year in order...something like that.

Getting a national top 100 list from a single panelist does seem like a pretty big stretch though...it would seem to take years to complete.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

It doesn't take years -- frankly the key players don't change that much so quickly. No doubt golf courses are living entities and as we have seen there are things done to them that can be a major disaster. A national listing from a single source is not impossible but it would likely only come from those who have rather extensive visits to all the key spots for golf in the USA.

Someone like Whitten could do one. No doubt Brad Klein could as well. There are a few others I believe that can do one as well.

Be curious to see what the differences would be and what areas are emphasized.

[Jud_T]

Frankly that list is a bit depressing...Way too many tour players IMHO.  I only see one average hacker I know of on the list and his opinion may not be the most impartial either....I'm taking my bottle of scotch and Confidential Guide and going home....

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too! You complained of regional bias and lack of global coverage for GD and GW. The panel for Golf contains nothing but well traveled golfers; how will their ranking differ from a panel of just 10 of them vice 100? There is absolutely no need for them to beat the bushes in Utah because guess what: there are no US or World Top 100 courses there! If there were there would surely be a buzz and panelists would go check it out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()