[Don_Mahaffey]

Sean,
How does it skew the rankings? I keep reading where someone is giving too many courses *** and they have to remember to keep in mind other courses they haven't seen. Either we vote as we see fit for the courses we've played, or we vote for all regardless of whether we've played them or not. When you ask someone not to give too many courses high rankings, aren't you actually asking them to vote for the courses they haven't played? I don't get it.

If everyone who has played Sand Hills gives it ***, and I haven't played it, am I supposed to give one less course *** to make sure SH gets it's due?

[Jim Franklin]

***  One of the very best courses in the world, modern or old

Good point. Rock Creek still #1 and top 10 in the world IMHO. This poll will not change that.

[Jud_T]

If everyone who has played Sand Hills gives it ***, and I haven't played it, am I supposed to give one less course *** to make sure SH gets it's due?

Don,  

Yes, essentially, but not because everyone else gave Sand Hills ***.  Unless you think a course can hang with TOC, RCD, Pine Valley, Cypress etc. it should be ** or lower.  I misunderstood the star system initially like Eric and went back and changed my votes accordingly.  IMO the only modern course I've played that can hang with that crowd is Pac Dunes, hence it's the only course that I gave ***.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jud,
OK, but what if I have not played TOC, CP, PV, NGLA...etc
How am I supposed to know if the courses I’ve played match up?
And since PD and SH is often ranked right up there with those courses, if I haven't played either, are you saying I’m not supposed to fill up my ballot with courses I know, I'm supposed to defer to the conventional wisdom that all those courses are superior? Which in essence to me means, I'm voting for courses I haven’t seen.

I believe some people voted for Ralph Nadar because they wanted him to be President, not because they wanted to skew the results for the "real" candidates.

[Jim Franklin]

PS I apparently need to play Wolf Point.

[Eric Smith]

***  One of the very best courses in the world, modern or old

See what I mean.

[Jud_T]

Jud,
OK, but what if I have not played TOC, CP, PV, NGLA...etc
How am I supposed to know if the courses I’ve played match up?
And since PD and SH is often ranked right up there with those courses, if I haven't played either, are you saying I’m not supposed to fill up my ballot with courses I know, I'm supposed to defer to the conventional wisdom that all those courses are superior? Which in essence to me means, I'm voting for courses I haven’t seen.

Then you need to step up the access whoring here...   So by the same logic if the only drawing you'd ever seen was a crayon scribble by your 3-year old, then it's by default the finest piece of art on the planet?

[Steve Lapper]

Alotian
Arcadia Bluffs
Ballyhack
**Ballyneal
**Bandon Dunes
*Bandon Trails
Barnbougle Dunes
*Bayonne
Black Mesa
Boston G.C.

Cal Club
0 Calusa Pines
Cape Kidnappers
Castle Stuart
Chambers Bay
*Colorado Golf Club
0 Dallas National
Diamante
Dismal River I
**Ellerston
0 Erin Hills

*** Friars Head
Gozzer Ranch
*Hidden Creek
*Kauri Cliffs
*Kingsbarns
Kingsley Club
Kinloch (N.Z.)
Kinloch (Va.)
Lost Farm
*Monterey Peninsula (Shore)
*Nanea

Nine Bridges, Korea
Oitavos Dunes, Portugal
Old Macdonald
Old Sandwich
*** Pacific Dunes
Pinnacle Point, S. Afr.
Quarry at Giant's Ridge
The Renaissance Club
Rock Creek
0 Rustic Canyon

Sagebrush
*** Sand Hills
*Sebonack
St. Andrews Beach
Sutton Bay
Victoria National
0 Whistling Straits (Straits)
*Wild Horse
Wine Valley
Wolf Point

[John Kavanaugh]

No one is controlling your ballot. So where is it?

I have honestly tried to rate the ten courses I have played on the list.  Years ago I promised myself to quit lying to myself and I can't get through this list without breaking that promise.  I keep coming up with three stars for Rustic Canyon and it blows my mind.  That just has to be a lie.

[Eric Smith]

 IMO the only modern course I've played that can hang with that crowd is Pac Dunes, hence it's the only course that I gave ***.

Jud,

See that's precisely why rankings give me a headache. What do you mean by that? You initially gave Kinglsey 3*. I liked that play, who cares if you are a member there - I too gave it 3*. It's freaking incredible. The Kingsley Club should be happy to have you hanging your hat there, which I'm sure they do. Question - How many guys on this forum rate/rank it ahead of Crystal? I know you know the answer to that one! Isn't (or wasn't) Crystal in the top 20 in the world or thereabouts? So is it a stretch then to think Kingsley could be top 20, possibly top 10, if it is better than CD. Or is it?

I wish everyone here could go play Merion today. Then go play The Olde Farm tomorrow. Then tell me why on earth these two courses are miles apart. Miles! - according to golf magazine panels. Give TOF 100 years of history and prestige and then compare them. Believe me, I loved Merion. One of my favorite courses played. So is The Olde Farm. I just don't get. But as I type this a calmness overrides my incredulity because I know there are no absolutes with this stuff. Screw it - I love em all. *** for everyone!!

[Jud_T]

Eric,

Don't get me wrong.  I love Kingsley too, and I'm one of it's biggest supporters here and elsewhere.  It's simply that if I put my pom-poms away and try to be impartial, I'd say that it sneaks into the top 10 modern and top 100 world rankings, not top 30 in the world.  Still pretty heady company...

[John Kavanaugh]

Eric,

Don't get me wrong.  I love Kingsley too, and I'm one of it's biggest supporters here and elsewhere.  It's simply that if I put my pom-poms away and try to be impartial, I'd say that it sneaks into the top 10 modern and top 100 world rankings, not top 30 in the world.  Still pretty heady company...

They win when you let them take your pom-poms away. The only winning move is not to play.  How about a nice game of chess?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Wolf Point 8

Jim, that's everyone.   
Unless the voting open for my wife and daughters.
They loved the 15th green...

 

[Sean Leary]

Eric,

I understand your point and that is one of the issues with all rankings.

So when I voted, I looked at this.

The grading scale is the Michelin three-star system:

***  One of the very best courses in the world, modern or old
**    One of the top ten modern courses, if you had played all of those on the ballot
*     A very good course, but probably not in the top ten overall
0     Not in the same league with the others on this ballot


Obviously one could look at  *** as being a top 10 course in the world or say a Top 100 US course depending on what their interpretation of what "very best courses in the world" means.

For me its the 3 star ones that are the hardest to rate. I used a Top 15-20ish in the world as my barometer when I voted, and so Pacific Dunes is the only one who made it. If I used a top 100 ish in the world as my barometer, then 3 or 4 more of those I had played would have been 3 stars. But since 2 stars was Top 10 modern courses since 1995, and I figured that in a Top 100 list probably would include about 10 or so modern courses, those that I think fall between 20 and 100ish were my 2 star courses. We all did this differently and because when you are only grading on a 4 point scale, the averages change significantly based on the voting. If you were rating on a 100 point scale, the variability would be significantly less...

Don, your points about "How do you know" are spot on but that is the issue with all rankings....

[JMEvensky]

Eric,

Don't get me wrong.  I love Kingsley too, and I'm one of it's biggest supporters here and elsewhere.  It's simply that if I put my pom-poms away and try to be impartial, I'd say that it sneaks into the top 10 modern and top 100 world rankings, not top 30 in the world.  Still pretty heady company...

They win when you let them take your pom-poms away. The only winning move is not to play.  How about a nice game of chess?

This wins most obscure movie quote of the day,year,and decade.

[Sean Leary]

The REAL question, in my mind, is:  why do Doak's rankings presume that the *** greatest courses in the world aren't ALL top 10 modern courses? 

Doesn't his ranking system presume the answer to its own question? 

Assume you've played all the greatest courses in the world and you think 10 of the courses on this list are the best 10 in the world?  Do you give them 2 stars or 3 or both?  And what do the second 20 get?  One star?  2?  A zero?   

Exactly. See my post above...

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,
How does it skew the rankings? I keep reading where someone is giving too many courses *** and they have to remember to keep in mind other courses they haven't seen. Either we vote as we see fit for the courses we've played, or we vote for all regardless of whether we've played them or not. When you ask someone not to give too many courses high rankings, aren't you actually asking them to vote for the courses they haven't played? I don't get it.

If everyone who has played Sand Hills gives it ***, and I haven't played it, am I supposed to give one less course *** to make sure SH gets it's due?

Don:

Three stars is supposed to be A LOCK for one of the ten best modern courses.  If you think it belongs but are not sure of it, then it's two stars.  So, the only way you should vote for ten courses in the top ten is if you've played all 52 courses on the ballot.  The reality is, most people have played half or less than half the courses, so they should be giving out 3-5 *** rankings, as most are doing.

The voting is not skewed as much as you think.  If somebody has played Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes and many of the other leading contenders, and gives them all ** instead of ***, they all move in unison.  It's only when somebody loads up *** rankings on a bunch of courses that only have a few votes and aren't part of the well-known pack, that something would get skewed.

Just by looking at the ballots posted here, and the calculations I did on the other thread, the reality is that a ** average is about tenth place out of 50 ... as it should be ... if a course is a unanimous ** choice, it ought to be in the top ten, right?  And if it's much below that, it shouldn't be, right?

[Jud_T]

Now I'm totally confused.  


The grading scale is the Michelin three-star system:

***  One of the very best courses in the world, modern or old
**    One of the top ten modern courses, if you had played all of those on the ballot
*     A very good course, but probably not in the top ten overall
0     Not in the same league with the others on this ballot

Based on this I thought ** was a lock for top 10 modern, but *** was a subset of those that were also a Doak 9 or 10 that were a lock for World top 30-50 all-time...

[Sean Leary]

Now I'm totally confused.  


The grading scale is the Michelin three-star system:

***  One of the very best courses in the world, modern or old
**    One of the top ten modern courses, if you had played all of those on the ballot
*     A very good course, but probably not in the top ten overall
0     Not in the same league with the others on this ballot

Based on this I thought ** was a lock for top 10 modern, but *** was a subset of those that were also a Doak 9 or 10 that were a lock for World top 30-50 all-time...

I did the exactly the same, Jud...

[Michael George]

While I love the discussion, ranking golf courses is next to impossible.  It is a lot of fun and that is why I am constantly analyzing the best courses and holes that I have played. But, I don't know how to compare some courses against others.

For the cultured few (of which I am not), I equate it to ranking the best paintings or sculptures.  For the rest of us (of which I am), it is like ranking the best looking model or actress.  How you differentiate between #5 and #20 is next to impossible.  There are definite cut offs where you can say this group is better than the next group, but it is impossible to accurately put a number on it.  It is why I think golf course architecture is more art than science.

One example with the courses that I have played.  I think Calusa Pines is about as good as golf can get with the topography of Southwest Florida (great job done by Hurzdan and Fry).  Meanwhile, Arcadia Bluffs is on a spectacular site and is a great golf course, but probably could have been better (wish Coore/Crenshaw/Devries/Doak had a crack at this land).  Which course do I list higher - I don't know.  They are so different, it is really hard to compare them.

  

[Mark Bourgeois]

**
Barnbougle Dunes
Pinnacle Point (S Afr)

*
Hidden Creek
St. Andrews Beach

0
Arcadia Bluffs
Chambers Bay
Kauri Cliffs
Whistling Straits (Straits)

Rather than offer up favorites I asked myself what each course strove for and how well it did against that.

I reiterate the Keynesian Beauty Pageant Problem: the temptation is to figure out how everyone else is voting then either adjust your ballot to "offset" the group's collective score, or to norm your vote to the group's. For the record, I don't believe I've done that, but who really understands the manipulative ways of the human subconscious?

PS Michael G, I agree ordinal rankings are intellectually lazy if not outright dishonest. Cardinal values on the other hand I'm okay with.

[Pete Lavallee]

**Ellerston

Slapper,

As the only person out of 1500 to have played Ellerston, I think you owe us at least a short review. 

[JC Jones]

Tom and Jim,

Is the voting limited to golfclubatlas posters? Are there ballots in the box from folks outside of the dg?

Eric,

  There have been lurkers that have submitted their ballots and have identified themselves as such. But it's probably 95% GCA folk so far. It's not an official GCA ranking so I'm not terribly concerned about weeding out non-GCA types.

First off, this whole thing is ridiculous.  It is already less than objective given that Tom Doak is running it and, of course, his courses are featured prominently in the *** category.  Countless times on this website the credibility of the Golf Magazine rankings has been called into question because of the presence of competing architects on that panel.  Somehow that is not in question here.
 
Jim,

Saying that you are not concerned about "weeding out" non-GCA posters is not entirely a correct statement.  You have a blog post and a tweet inviting people (all readers of your blog and followers on twitter) to vote in these rankings.  That is not "weeding out" non-GCAers, that is openly asking them to vote.

Moreover, given your affiliation with Ballyneal and the fact that when one googles Ballyneal your blog is on the front page of the results and how many people are following you on twitter, I have a hard time believing that there wont be a significant number of votes in favor of Ballyneal  Not that Ballyneal doesn't belong in the list, but this is exceeding any sort of "bias" that Tom Doak is casually dismissing.

Not that much of anything could legitimize this exercise, but certainly keeping the ballots limited to members of the GCA discussion group would inch it in that direction and limit the scope of any such ranking.

[Jim Colton]

JC,

Like Tom, I was trying to get some more votes to add to the pool, because the numbers will mean even less if there are only 1 or 2 votes for some courses. I'm happy to post the non-GCA and total results if you want, though I don't think I've gotten a single non-GCA ballot since I solicited more votes.

I was going to volunteering doing other mini-eras after this is over, but this is more trouble than it's worth. If I try to adjust for all of the biases in the data, we won't have any ballots to work with.

Jim

[Scott Warren]

I don't recall having to identify myself when I voted. Did I miss a step?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()