[Stewart Naugler]

John- I've cashed plenty of checks from top 100 clubs and I don't need your approval to state my opinion. I have nothing negative to say about the conditioning of either course but you can't say Rich Harvest is that good from a design stand point. The jury is still out on Canyata for me...

[Jason Goss]

And no Knollwood or Exmoor....but Evanston?  Sure.

Just an honest question - did Evanston host a raters event during the last few years?

Exmoor should be on this list now.  The renovations are outstanding.  All I can think of is there is a LOT more tree work to be done.

[Jason Goss]

Never heard of #100, Vesper Country Club, a Ross course in Mass?   Learn something everyday...

Newly renovated Ross.  My college room mate Chris Morris is the Superintendent.  No one more dedicated to his craft.  Congrats again Chris. Keep up the good work! 

[Stewart Naugler]

I've heard great things about both Exmoor and Vesper. A friend of mine did an internship at Vesper and said Chris is a first class superintendent.

[Brad Isaacs]

I am amazed and entertained. I have my favorites and shockingly they did ok. (see Ballyneal, Desert Forrest) but some of the courses proposed? Wow, I think I have more respect for BK now than before for having to deal with all of this.

Erin Hills really??

[John Kavanaugh]

Brad,

Next year can we get the individual rater ballots?  Do you understand given modern marketing techniques the value those ballots have? Even without using actual names I would love to see how the Illinois raters rank courses vs the raters from both coasts.  Are you guys way ahead of me and already target marketing to people.  Does my electronic copy of Golfweek have the same ads as every copy throughout the world?
 - John Kavanaugh


Hey Kavanaugh, how do you propose he post thousands of ballots? Are you going to demand the names?
Why don't you start your own rater group and show everyone how it should be done? It can't be that hard can it?
How is the view from the cheap seats?

Ralph,

I know you love to go retro on the clubs but I dumped my Comodore 64 years ago. These days even my key fob can handle a database with thousands of entries.  I would never expect Golfweek to give such valuable information away.  It must be my Illinois blood that knows when you got gold you sell it baby.

In all seriousness, who wouldn't want to click on a raters name and see how they have voted every club they have visited?  I'm sure Golfweek owns this information and has every right to sell it to whomever they choose. I'm just trying to help them out by indicating a new profit center they may have overlooked.  Full page magazine ads covering the entire county are no longer going to pay the bills.  What are you scared of?

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin Lynch,

I'm not about to get into a discussion on the merits of any one golf course. You have a different estimate of the place than our raters did. Unfortunately, I have not written a Raters Notebook on Ballyhack so I can't point you to a detailed explanation of my own judgments.

Brad,

I wasn't necessarily looking to have a "qualitative discussion" of the course.  Rather, I was looking to understand it more from a "quantitative" perspective.  I was wondering if you could report the "averages" that Ballyhack received in the various categories you may use as a guide (e.g. Variety & Memorability of Par 3s/4s/5s, Natural Setting and Design Plan, Conditioning, etc.).

I suspect that Ballyhack may have hurt by the "walkability" factor (especially if that was most important to the raters who visited), but I'd be curious to see what other factors may have weighed it down (simply from a quantitative perspective).

I understand that you may not want to go through that exercise for every course that didn't "make the cut".  However, given the strong sentiments about the course from Ran & others here, it seems natural that people here would want to understand the ranking more (at least from a quantitative perspective).

Best regards,
Kevin

[Adam Clayman]

Kevin, I won't pretend to speak for Dr. Klein, but, there is one assumption I inferred from your post that needs to be corrected.

Golf Digest uses it's categories differently than GolfWeek. So, getting averages of the different criteria is likely not possible because it's not germane to the overall score.

Having seen these rating threads for over a decade now, I can assure you that courses that are worthy will eventually find their way onto the list.

It takes time, but in the end, it will work out. Greywalls is a great example of this slow process. It's taken years for the course to get the recognition it deserves.

[Matthew MacKay]

A couple of notable omissions (in my mind, anyway) from the classic top 200 are Forsgate (I'd have it in the top 100) and Columbia CC. I'm sure there are plenty of very good ones that slip by the radar...curious to hear some others mentioned.

[Kevin Lynch]

Adam,

I think I understand what you mean.  From reading some of the other threads, I inferred that the courses receive a rating in each of the "categories." However, the overall rating is not a simple mathematical average of each category, as each rater may weight the importance of each category differently, and really just comes up with their own Overall Rating at the end.  (Is that correct?)

I was just curious which categories have been deemed "weaknesses" for Ballyhack.  Even though it's not going to prove out as a straight mathematical function, I'd assume there's some correlation between weaknesses in individual categories and the overall.

Also, I would just be curious about the "beta" of the overall rankings for Ballyhack.  Is the 6.3 rating because of a high concentration of 7s and 6s, or are there a number of 7/8s offset by some outlier 4s/5s? I'd be curious if Ballyhack is one of the "polarizing" courses with a wide range of ratings.

This type of polarization is why I completely understand a course like Tobacco Road not getting high "averages."  For every 3 people who love it (like me), there is probably one person who hates it.  I just didn't see those types of polarizing or controversial features at Ballyhack, so I really want to get a deeper appreciation of the ratings.

[Mike Hendren]

A couple of notable omissions (in my mind, anyway) from the classic top 200 are Forsgate...

+1

[Scott Weersing]

I was surprised that Rustic Canyon, no. 145, has fallen so far. The course is still the same when it was rated no. 100 at 6.68 in 2007, and 6.74 in 2008 which placed it 99th.

They made some improvements, such as eliminating the high fences around the driving range. But I guess there are 40 new courses that have opened since 2008 to bump Rustic back to no. 145.

I am surprised that Old Macdonald debuted as high as no. 3. Bandon Trails debuted at no. 17 back in 2006.

[Mac Plumart]

In regards to Rich Harvest being rated by Golf Digest and not by Golfweek or Golf Mag, couldn't it simply come down to the categories used for rating?  I've heard that Rich Harvest is hard as hell.  Golf Digest has a category entitled "Resistence to scoring" and another one titled "Shot Values".  Golfweek does not have these categories...nor does Golf Magazine, but they don't have any categories at all.

In this vein, maybe a low handicapper looking to test his game might prefer the Golf Digest list (with roots in the Top 100 most difficult courses list) vs. the Golfweek "Walk in the Park", natural, good routing courses.

[Adam Clayman]

Adam,

I think I understand what you mean.  From reading some of the other threads, I inferred that the courses receive a rating in each of the "categories." However, the overall rating is not a simple mathematical average of each category, as each rater may weight the importance of each category differently, and really just comes up with their own Overall Rating at the end.  (Is that correct?)

I was just curious which categories have been deemed "weaknesses" for Ballyhack.  Even though it's not going to prove out as a straight mathematical function, I'd assume there's some correlation between weaknesses in individual categories and the overall.

Also, I would just be curious about the "beta" of the overall rankings for Ballyhack.  Is the 6.3 rating because of a high concentration of 7s and 6s, or are there a number of 7/8s offset by some outlier 4s/5s? I'd be curious if Ballyhack is one of the "polarizing" courses with a wide range of ratings.

This type of polarization is why I completely understand a course like Tobacco Road not getting high "averages."  For every 3 people who love it (like me), there is probably one person who hates it.  I just didn't see those types of polarizing or controversial features at Ballyhack, so I really want to get a deeper appreciation of the ratings.

Kevin, You have it correct, The overall is an independent number. The criteria, as I understand it, is used primarily to look deeper into the evaluation, when reviewing someone's votes.

It is entirely possible to have a low number on any criteria and high overall. An example of this would be conditioning. The course might have had an issue where the conditioning was sub par but the design is much better than that. I've always thought it important to look past the conditions because the day that I play it, is but the smallest of snapshots. Whereas the design and even it's bones, are much more important to the evaluation, long term.

[Brad Klein]

Mac, the emperor doesn't have any clothes, but he sure has a lot of nice old cars.

[Jason Topp]

Although it would be impossible to determine the bump a course gets for having a famous designer, I think it is a pretty significant bump, at least in Minnesota.

. . . or it could be home course bias on my part.

[Andy Troeger]

Speaking of Minnesota...where is the Quarry at Giants Ridge? Looks amazing in photos...which is about as much as I know about it.

[Matt_Ward]

Matt M:

Agree w you on Forsgate. Given the other Northeast courses that made the listing -- I see no reason why it could not have garnered a spot.

[Ken Fry]

It's always entertaining to see the inevitable pissing match that occurs when new "best of" lists come out.

Brad Klein, you are a gentleman to chime in to such as thread given your involvement.  Everyone's a critic....

I was surprised to see Ballyhack not getting much love.  Despite the walking factor, I think very highly of the course.

Erin Hills at 189???  Another well known architecture critic won't take too kindly to that.....

Old MacDonald debuts at #3?!?  Wow.

Kingsley Club takes a big drop and Arcadia Bluffs makes a big jump....  Hmmmm.....

Cog Hill drops way down.

Dye Course at French Lick waayyy down.  Have to question difficulty and price maybe??

Everyone has their own tastes and will find a lot to agree and disagree with on the major "best of" lists.  I like the additional 100 course list.  Anything to get the spring buzz going, PLEASE!!!

Ken

[Kevin Lynch]

It's always entertaining to see the inevitable pissing match that occurs when new "best of" lists come out.

Brad Klein, you are a gentleman to chime in to such as thread given your involvement.  Everyone's a critic....

I was surprised to see Ballyhack not getting much love.  Despite the walking factor, I think very highly of the course.

Everyone has their own tastes and will find a lot to agree and disagree with on the major "best of" lists.  I like the additional 100 course list.  Anything to get the spring buzz going, PLEASE!!!

Ken

Again, just to be clear - I'm not trying to assail Brad and his methodology.  I regret using more inflammatory comments in my initial posts here (e.g. travesty / "no clubhouse" theory).  I'm past those thoughts.

At the end of the day, I'm sure the ranking "is what it is" based on who submitted ratings.  Ultimately, I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of why Ballyhack can't seem to crack the Top 200 (by trying to see if it's a function of high volatility in ratings or a particular category that is hurting).

In a way, by expanding the list to 200, Brad really opened up the level of questioning.  If Ballyhack had been excluded from a Top 100 list, I might have just chalked it up to being a new course and assumed it "just missed the cut."

But when the published list is expanded to 200, the exclusion takes on a whole new life.

[Brad Klein]

Kevin,

Ballyhack wasn't excluded. it's just didn't qualify in terms of high enough votes. And I have to remind you that the 6.3 you refer to was last year's votes and is not the current value.

[Mac Plumart]

I always find it interesting and educational to have discussions like this one on Ballyhack.  Many of you seem to support Ballyhack as being a top tier course, while the Golfweek panel didn't rate it high enough to make their lists.  I have no idea who is "right", as I haven't played it.  However, I am intrigued enough to reserach it a little bit. 

Here are some pictures, from this site, of Ballyhack compared to similiar pictures from other courses that did make the GW Top 100/200.  I have no idea if it helps prove anyone's case...but nevertheless, I like looking at the pictures!

Ballyhack


Bandon Dunes


Ballyhack


Ballyneal


Ballyhack


Chechessee Creek


Ballyhack


Grandfather Mountain

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

Ballyhack wasn't excluded. it's just didn't qualify in terms of high enough votes. And I have to remind you that the 6.3 you refer to was last year's votes and is not the current value.

Brad,

I think we mean the same thing.  I used the term "excluded" the same as "didn't rate high enough." I wasn't under the impression that there weren't the required 15 ratings (as you clarified that in reply #33).

And I understand that the 6.3 I quoted was the "2010 New Course" rating, but since the 2011 #200 cutoff was around 6.4, I'm assuming the 2011 rating is in the same ballpark (but, if it's actually dropped below the 6.3 from 2010, my curiosity is even higher).

All I'm trying to understand is the disconnect between the reviews it has received here and its "sub-200" GW rating.  Was it due to a "polarazing effect" with a wide range of ratings?  Was there one particular category in which Ballyhack consistently rated low?  I'm really at a loss to understand how this course could be deemed lesser than some of the names I see.

[Matt_Ward]

Kevin:

How high would you personally rate Ballyhack ?

Are you saying it should be a top 100 modern ?

And if so -- how high in that grouping ?

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin:

How high would you personally rate Ballyhack ?

Are you saying it should be a top 100 modern ?

And if so -- how high in that grouping ?

Matt,

Without attending any "rater camp" or knowing the exact "scale" that Brad uses to guide his raters, it would be difficult for me to put an exact number on the rating.  Also, having not played 90% of the courses in the Top 200, I couldn't state a definitive position in the ranking.

However, I'm basing my questions on a few items:

1)  I have played 4 of the Top 40 courses, and think Ballyhack is on par or better than all of them.  So, if those courses are deemed to be in the 7.5-8.5 range, I feel pretty comfortable in saying I think the "sub-6.4" rating for Ballyhack is low.

2)  Acknowledging my own limitations, I also take into account the strong endorsement made by Ran in his Course Profile, as well as several others here.  THis gave me some reason to believe my impressions weren't due to being "star-struck" by limited exposure.

Using my "gut feel" and the comments of others, I was expecting Ballyhack to appear somewhere in the middle of the Top 100 list.

Like I said, I may not have even questioned Ballyhack's exclusion from the Top 100, given how new it is and the fact that its difficulty may have soured a few.  But to see it not even make the Top 200 was such a disconnect from my experience that I wanted to understand what is missing.  That's why I'm asking for some elaboration on the underlying numbers (either in particular categories or in the volatility of ratings).

Hope that answers your question.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()