News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #75 on: April 01, 2011, 12:28:44 PM »
Tom - You dont understand at all. Your reply about 540 being better than 450 is absolutely not what I meant.

I look forward to seeng your next 17 hole course.

A proper golf course is 18 holes. Its a fact that that is a round and whilst a lesser number plus could be a round, lesser holes would be a starting disadvantage. Your replies and others have misunderstood, but its hard to explain it on here, I was trying a step by step.

There is plenty of fact that could be included into a formula for a golf course assessment, though I agree most is subjective.
Logged
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #76 on: April 01, 2011, 12:31:25 PM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on April 01, 2011, 11:41:06 AM


You just can't seem to understand that a fair number of people here don't agree with you.



Does that mean that Adrian is objectively or subjectively wrong? ;D ;D
Logged
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #77 on: April 01, 2011, 01:21:02 PM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on April 01, 2011, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on April 01, 2011, 03:40:31 AM
I am finding this hard to explain, I will try once more.

I am NOT saying a 6800 yard course MUST BE better than a 4800 yarder. or a 9 hole course could never be better than an 18 holer.

I am saying that a 9 hole course starts out handicapped to an 18 holer.
I am saying that a 18 hole course of 6800 yards naturally starts out superior to a 4800 yarder.


Adrian:

I understand what you are saying.

You just can't seem to understand that a fair number of people here don't agree with you.

"More" is not inherently better, all other things being equal.  By your logic above, a 530 yard hole always starts out superior to a 450 yard hole, and a 380 yard hole starts out superior to a 330 yard hole.  I would say in both cases it's the other way around.

I don't think he is saying "more is better" I believe he is saying that 18 is the NORM and ACCEPTED length of a that dreaded "championship course" and thus 99 of 100 people would likely dismiss a nine holer as inferior or not worthy of consideration. Your 530 vs. 450 does not relate to his argument in my mind.
Logged

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #78 on: April 01, 2011, 01:33:37 PM »
HALLELUJAH!!!  and so a 16 hole course would start off inferior. Its nevert to say that a really good 9 holer cant be better than an 18 holer, or a 4800 yarder could never be better than a 6800 yarder, I just think that great little 4800 yarder starts off 'behind', with great architecture it can make up ground on a full length course and the 6800 yarder if its up and down a field it wont get many points for the architecture.
Thanks Greg
Logged
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #79 on: April 01, 2011, 01:34:15 PM »
Allow me to get into the yardage issue and suggest the following:

1. Let's say that in order to reach 7200 yards an architect is told to take a really good 150 yard hole and make it into a mediocre 260 yard hole - does everyone agree that is stupid?

2. Let's say that in order to make 18 holes an absolutely worthless 110 yard par 3 is going to be built - which is better in that case 17 or 18 holes?  (I believe that is the case at Caledonia which is a solid course except for that one par 3.)
Logged

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2011, 02:09:50 PM »
Quote from: Jerry Kluger on April 01, 2011, 01:34:15 PM
Allow me to get into the yardage issue and suggest the following:

1. Let's say that in order to reach 7200 yards an architect is told to take a really good 150 yard hole and make it into a mediocre 260 yard hole - does everyone agree that is stupid?

2. Let's say that in order to make 18 holes an absolutely worthless 110 yard par 3 is going to be built - which is better in that case 17 or 18 holes?  (I believe that is the case at Caledonia which is a solid course except for that one par 3.)

1. likely unanimous - stupid (and seen all too frequently)
2. Only a handful of GCAtlas minded people would accept ot as "better" - the masses would look at it as a lost opportunity
Logged

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #81 on: April 01, 2011, 02:30:13 PM »
If you need to stretch a 7090 yd course into a 7200 course you only need to remeasure and print new scorecards.  Six yards per hole is only one step in each direction.  Who's stupid now.
Logged

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2011, 03:09:06 PM »
Human nature precludes one person from being objective in all cases.

FWIW, The most horrible thing I've ever heard was about an individual who spent an entire round, their first time around a specific venue, influencing others on the merits, of a specific design.

This same person is well known for planting seeds that get regurgitated throughout these annals, all the time.

The verdict is that most of us are way too easily influenced, if something as trifle as a comment, can sway someone else into believing it as gospel, to the point of brain washing.   
Logged
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2011, 03:15:16 PM »
One note about objective vs subjective.

It is only objective if 100 people using an objective scale come out with 100 identical ratings. Anything that produces more diverse results would be subjective and not objective, no matter how true you believe those opinions are.

This, pretty much by definition, makes all criticism of art, literature, and golf courses firmly in the subjective category.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 03:16:50 PM by Richard Choi »
Logged

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #84 on: April 01, 2011, 03:17:30 PM »
JK: You should be hired by the Dems to balance the budget - a hundred billion here or there doesn't really matter.
Logged

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would rankings be more credible with only one rater?
« Reply #85 on: April 05, 2011, 08:05:34 PM »
I like the magazine rating system, as I really dig into it and understand where each one is coming from, and I can appreciate one person's opinion as well.  Like Tom Doak's Confidential Guide or Darius Oliver's stuff (http://www.planetgolf.com.au/index.php?id=55) and the "Whip it out Top 25" lists that we put up on this site.

No one is neccessarily right or wrong, just a bunch of opinions that someone might be able to use to help them pick and choose places to play and/or clubs to join.

I'd like to see Brad Klein do a 31 flavors type of list to go with Tom Doak's and Darius Oliver's lists. 
Logged
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back