[Andy Troeger]

Jay,
You are opening up a big can of worms with that one!    I'd suggest just going back to any old Golf Digest threads (every two years, 2009, 2007, etc.) around April/May, and you'll find plenty of examples! The other two have their share as well, but don't seem to create as many passionate responses.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Jay,
You are opening up a big can of worms with that one! 

indeed.  i find its easier to be critical when people speak in generality and create straw men to fight.  lets get specific, and see if these angry folks deserve to be listened to at all.

[Mac Plumart]

Andy...

You've totally nailed it.  To understand each entities rankings, you must study and comprehend the criteria used to rank them.  Tom Doak did a great job or writing about his preferences in the Confidential Guide.  Golfweek has a total transparent process, which you can download and read on their Raters Handbook.  Golf Digest clearly publishes their criteria as well.  I find the "Walk in the Park" and the "Resistance to Scoring" to be the two defining characteristics of these two entities.  

You MUST understand the criteria used to understand the rankings process.  IMO.



Jay...

I agree with the sentiment of your post.  In fact, I've been working on something similiar to what you are saying for a few years now.  Here is a link to my "controversial course" list.  Each course is ranked by one and only one of the Big 3 rating entities.

http://www.mrpgolf.com/controversial.html

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Good stuff Mac.  Thats a fairly small amount of single entries considering that we're talking three unique lists of 100.

Given the amount of golf courses in the US, I think that its remarkable how similar the lists are in the end.  Obviously, you can pick up on (minor) biases of each magazine, but most of those biases can be explained by the rankings criteria.

In fact, your data really solidifies my question to the critics.  Where are the glaring ommissions or flaws in the system? 

[Matt_Ward]

I chuckle when I read about the so-called perfect profile of what a rater should be. What's so funny is how conformity and personality type are set down as a clear dictate to follow -- usually from the highest of high commands. Anything or anyone that deviates from such a proscribed and acceptable mechanism is then viewed in a negative light. Fascinating. Nothing like edicts to mandate such regimented behavior.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You make a valid point -- GD lays out the criteria that irs raters should follow.

However, I do agree w Sean -- the routing element for me is the 2nd most important element -- after the land the course occupies. How well were all the features used for the routing of the holes and does the course -- because of that routing -- look like it's always been there.

If there's any place that GD could really revamp its role -- it's in the criteria used.

[Phil McDade]

For those of you guys so critical of the rating game and the people that do it, I'm curious which magazine rankings you deem to be FATALLY flawed?  I'm not talking about course A is #20 but you think they deserve to be #18.  I'm talking rankings that have courses that obviously deserve to be in the top 60 or so and don't make the list at all.  Or courses that deserve top 20 billing but only barely slipped into the top 100.  Isn't the point to identify the best of the best, and doesn't a large panel provide a large enough sample size of course visits to correct any one raters mistake?

For all the angst you guys are throwing around, how about some concrete examples of obvoius ommissions or mistakes that would automatically kill the credibility of the magazine in question?  I'm sure there are raters that do it for the free access, but some of you guys are suggesting that the entire exercise is corrupt and pointless.  Talk about prejudice..

Jay:

Here's one:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-05/wisconsin

To not have Lawsonia on the list of top-10 courses in Wisconsin -- compared to the likes of Sentry World -- is really a joke; there's no other word to describe an attempt at a serious rating that excludes Lawsonia in Wisconsin. I don't know that the process is corrupt, but any ranking of Wisconsin's best courses that doesn't include Lawsonia among the top 10 is pointless.

[Ken Fry]

Andy:

You make a valid point -- GD lays out the criteria that irs raters should follow.

However, I do agree w Sean -- the routing element for me is the 2nd most important element -- after the land the course occupies. How well were all the features used for the routing of the holes and does the course -- because of that routing -- look like it's always been there.

If there's any place that GD could really revamp its role -- it's in the criteria used.

Matt,

I agree with you about the importance of the routing.  Incorporating that as a criteria for panelists to consider could be a slippery slope.

Architects considered by many to be experts in routing courses, both past and present, spend so many hours on property.  One aspect the casual observer will never know are the constraints placed on the architect affecting what may be his ideal routing.  Compromises may have to occur.

A panelist on one or two trips around a course may be able to speculate what the architect's intent is, but will never know the constraints unless the reviewer has inside knowledge of the project.

I'm not going to question or critique Bill Coore on his routings for what, at least to me, are obvious reasons....

Ken

[Lou_Duran]

Architects considered by many to be experts in routing courses, both past and present, spend so many hours on property.  One aspect the casual observer will never know are the constraints placed on the architect affecting what may be his ideal routing.  Compromises may have to occur.

I would argue that the architect's intent nor the difficulties, advantages, peculiarities of the site, the budget, etc. have any bearing on how a golf course should be evaluated.  The rating should be on what's on the ground relative to all other candidates.  If one is rating the architect, then these issues are relevant.

Matt,

The routing is extremely important in my opinion, but I doubt that there is a very consistent definition among raters on what constitutes a routing.  To some it is essentially the length and difficulty of the walks from a green to the subsequent tee.  To others it includes mixing in variety by par type, direction of the hole, shot requirements, flow, wind effects, access to conveniences (toilets, shelters, F & B), etc.  One advantage of GW's classic and modern segmentation is that it doesn't penalize the latter inordinately for the economic, legal, and environmental factors which make these routings less tidy.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.

[John Kavanaugh]

Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.

Jay,

Under ther current ownership Dismal River is clearly a top 100 modern course. How can you explain away the antiquated magazine system that holds the faults of past owners against what lays on the ground today?

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I absolutely agree that the routing is important. I'm hoping Sean will play along and try to answer the question though before I say more.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
How does routing presume to fit into the Digest categories that currently count: Shot values, Design variety, Resistance to scoring, Conditioning, Memorability, Aesthetics, Ambiance?  The following two are rated but don't currently count: Playability and Walkability.

Its actually a bit of a trick question that would make more sense if I included the definitions of the categories, but I want to see your response first  

Andy

I don't know how routing is fit in.  But, if we are gonna talk about the ranking of golf courses, then we must be able to insightfully comment on the routing to scratch at the concept of architecture which should then reveal why course A is better than course B, no?  Otherwise, we aren't really talking about the best courses from #1 down to whatever.  We are talking about what are the best courses to play and that is so far from objective that its laughable.

Lou

Perhaps you are right.  It certainly makes life easier on me if I can just say most of the important stuff about a course is really only good for comparing archies.  I know I have very little time for all the ins and outs of courses and really only care about what the course is as a finished product.  I can accept that a course can have superb architecture, but still only be a middling good course.  Still, I am drawn to those courses which are intriguing despite the lack of intriguing terrain and I think that bis in then main dwon to superior architecture.  


Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I do think there are golfers (and probably raters as subset of those population) that look at golf courses as a collection of holes. For that group, the routing really isn't that critical.  For most that participate here and certainly all those that value walking, routing is exceedingly important.  However, just the fact that there is that discrepancy is noteworthy because I don't believe it existed 50 years ago. That's been discussed before, however.

I think routing actually can and should be considered in three categories, although only two that count currently:
MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18? I think the collective continuity includes routing, especially if holes feel like they don't belong.

AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game? If you consider that the traditional values of the game include routing a course and walking it then I think that's a reasonable inclusion.

The third is walkability for obvious reasons.

However, I still don't think its the job of raters to determine whether the routing is the best use of the land, or whether it could have better, etc. It really comes down to what is there and what quality it merits.

[Lou_Duran]

Andy

I don't know how routing is fit in.  But, if we are gonna talk about the ranking of golf courses, then we must be able to insightfully comment on the routing to scratch at the concept of architecture which should then reveal why course A is better than course B, no? Otherwise, we aren't really talking about the best courses from #1 down to whatever.  We are talking about what are the best courses to play and that is so far from objective that its laughable.Ciao

You mean that we are NOT ranking courses on how they play?  Are courses just museum pieces?  Sounds like something from  the Dan King school of gca appreciation.  It does make for a much faster and affordable way of enjoying golf.

Can a course with a great routing but indifferent green complexes and uninspired hazards be considered outstanding?  I think not.

[Scott Warren]

Jud T:

even the ocean views that don't come into play...

You're in the Mucci school of "setting doesn't count", then? You'd enjoy Kingsley just as much if it were routed through a junkyard?

[Mac Plumart]

John K...

Now you are playing the game!!

What would you rate Dismal on the Golfweek scale?  I am sure you've already downloaded the Rater's Handbook, but in case you haven't it is available on the website you posted above.  In eithe case, what are Dismal's strengths and weaknesses?  You say it is "clearly" a Top 100 Modern course.  What course(s) should it kick off the list?


Sean...

You have a really interesting take on rating the architecture given the land it is on.  But aren't there so many more unknowable facets to this that we can't even begin to comprehend what was expected and/or even do-able from an architecture stand point?  Legal, environmental, mandates from the owner, etc.

Either way, I do appreciate your attempting to evaluate the job of the architect rather than the actual finished product...but I really think the lists try to capture the latter.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

The sad reality is that too much of GD's focus sldie away from the main frame to the touchy feely issues. Routing to me is how well the architect is able to best use the available elements that the land occupies. That means every nook and cranny of the subject property -- one of the best descriptions is does the course look like it has been there for quite some time.

No doubt the spacing element is an important one - but I think that part of the equation gets a bit too much attention -- I try to gear my attention to the pacing of the holes -- how does the architect move from one part of the property to the other -- and doing so in a way that is not so abrasive or clearly adding inferior holes to the mixture in order to do so.

Lou - let me put it this way -- the quality of the land itself represents no less than 50-60% of the equation in my mind. The routing plays about 25% of that equation -- the rest then comes to the quality of the shots needed in order to play the course well. Get great land and a solid rating and you have a superlative course in 90%+ of the time in my mind.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mac,

I told you at Sand Hills that one of the things I like about my independence is that I don't have to give courses numbers. I will say that I like Dismal more than Victoria National so that clearly puts Dismal as modern top 100.

[Mac Plumart]

Fair enough. 

You know I like it a lot too.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

I appreciate the response to my question on specifics.  I'm not familiar with Dismal River other than what I've seen on here.  I guess my questions are 1) how has it changed under current ownership... and 2) in your opinion would it be in the top 75 modern or the last 25?

[Matt_Ward]

Jay:

When people are asked about certain courses it's entirely possible that a layout may indeed be among the top 50 courses for that person. However, it would be important to know how many JN courses that person has played too. Getting some perspective does help clear things up considerably.

[Mac Plumart]

Jay...

I can't really answer either of your questions, but John said he liked it better than Victoria Nat'l...which I believe is ranked 67th.

Also, here is a fairly recent thread on Dismal.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45674.0.html

[Adam Clayman]

Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.

Jay,

Under ther current ownership Dismal River is clearly a top 100 modern course. How can you explain away the antiquated magazine system that holds the faults of past owners against what lays on the ground today?

John, How do you propose to get all of those panelists back to DR, in this short of a timeframe?

If DR belongs, it will happen, but, after such an atrocious start, its really hard to un-ring that bell.

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

That is why no one uses a phone book any longer. I think the world has moved on from what I called antiquated magazine rankings in my initial post about Dismal. The same thing happened in reverse with Apache Stronghold.  Sometimes editorial decisions override the numbers of days gone by. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()