Ratings: Where Lies The Greatest Gap?

[Ronald Montesano]

There continues to be much fruitful discussion on the heels of the tablet release of the Digest ratings for 2013. As I sift through each post, I recognize that there is little potential for turning thinkers from one direction to another. My principle uncertainty at this point is where do we find the greatest potential gaps for disparity.

I'll continue. Take a look at the current Golf Digest USA top five of Pine Valley, Augusta, Cypress, Shinnecock and Oakmont. Is there any reordering of these that would upset a true architecture expert? Do the same with the next five (Merion East, Pebble, Winged Foot, Sand Hills, Fishers)~isn't there something about each that keeps it out of consideration for America's Best, yet enough to keep it anchored in the top ten? Should any of these first ten courses potentially fall to a 16-20 slot?

I'm interested in knowing your thoughts: at what numeral do we begin to see potential enormous disparity of ranking?

Unless we are prideful members of a particular course, does it really matter if it features in the third or fourth or fifth ten, or the bottom fifty, or not at all? If a course does not figure as highly as we wish, or at all, there is much recourse. Sing its praises in person or in writing, take photos to state the case.

I miss a great deal during a first playing of a course, especially if it's a demanding course. Revisiting the course through my photos allows me to fix a value to the course. This shortcoming suggests why I am not a rater for any publication.

[Mac Plumart]

(Merion East, Pebble, Winged Foot, Sand Hills, Fishers)~isn't there something about each that keeps it out of consideration for America's Best, yet enough to keep it anchored in the top ten?

Not sure on all of them, as I haven't played all of those...but I can't readily think of something about Sand Hills that would keep it out of consideration for America's best.



at what numeral do we begin to see potential enormous disparity of ranking?

Excellent question.  I'd love to hear others thoughts.  I'll start with 25ish.



does it really matter if it features in the third or fourth or fifth ten, or the bottom fifty, or not at all?

Depends on who you ask.  I think it matters because I care and want to get it "right."  At least no obvious mistakes. 

[Sean_A]

i]...at what numeral do we begin to see potential enormous disparity of ranking?[/i]

This is the problem with ratings.  The very idea of a number assigned to a course will never, ever compute.  There are many #1s and whatever those candidates are make up the top tier.  That may be 4, 7, or 11 courses - it doesn't matter.  It doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily have a top 5, 10 or 100.  It does make some sense to have groupings of courses. 

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

"It does make some sense to have groupings of courses."

That suggests a Pandora's box...how many groupings, what parameters, how many per group (I'm doing the number thing again!)

[Sean_A]

"It does make some sense to have groupings of courses."

That suggests a Pandora's box...how many groupings, what parameters, how many per group (I'm doing the number thing again!)

These are open-ended questions.  There could be 5 groups or maybe 15 groups.  There could be 1 in a group or 50.  For instance, if I were to create groups out of my personal rankings it would look like

Kington
St Enodoc
Lahinch
Lakewood Shores Gailes
Brora
____________
Prestwick
Enniscrone
N Berwick
Pennard
Woking
Cavendish
Castletown
Lederach
Michigan
Rye
_____________________________
Probably something like 75 courses

______________________________
Notable others; would include among others many well known greats that I am not in the least willing to pay the green fee/jump through hoops for access. 

The numbers aren't pre-determined, it just happens to be 5, 10 & 75 ish for me.  Mags could easily do the same thing, but they prefer neat 100 packages with identifying numbers that we all know are meaningless.  

While I fully understand that mags are looking to rank only the best, but that sort of thing has never really interested me because the same courses are mentioned year after year, mag after mag, list after list.  All of us KNOW which are the best courses whether or not we ever play them.  Additional lists don't add to that body of knowledge, but for some reason people get invested in these lists.  Very strange if you ask me.


Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Just looking at Jud's top 5 I could see:

Augusta falling out of the top 10.
Cypress falling into the 40s.
Shinnecock falling out of the top 10. (Not by a lot: to 12 or so.)

Oakmont and Pine Valley I don't ever see dropping out of the top 10 because they have been and will always be tough but fair. Also, the groupthink on those two is so strong it's hard to see how anyone would be comfortable recording their own thoughts rather than the consensus.

Their votes very likely would get thrown out, and who knowingly risks being added to the authorities' watch list?

[Ronald Montesano]

Who is Jud? Did he post on this thread?

Sean, will your groupings have headings, a la some of the groupings in the Confidential Guide, or will that be left up to the viewer to discern?

[Jeb Bearer]

Mark,

I agree with you on Augusta dropping out of the top ten, but cypress into the 40s? Not sure about that, because unlike Augusta, cypress is still, for the most part, the same top tier course it always was.  Augusta has been tinkered with so much that you could argue what was once Mackenzie's most innovative course is now jus another American parkland club.

Also, is tough but fair a prerequisite for greatness?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ron, I bhve e slpeical kybeaodr htat ptyes "Ron" sa "Jud"; srory!

Jeb, tough but fair isn't a prerequisite for greatness, it IS greatness. GD says so. Also according to GD: Cypress from 1971-74 was the 40something-th greatest course in America. If Cypress can achieve that in two rankings, it can do it again. For example, it can lose its shot values and tough-but-fairness.

OTOH, I can see groupthink sclerotizing Cypress into the top 5 / 10, so maybe you're right.

[Tim Martin]

Just looking at Jud's top 5 I could see:

Augusta falling out of the top 10.
Cypress falling into the 40s.
Shinnecock falling out of the top 10. (Not by a lot: to 12 or so.)

Oakmont and Pine Valley I don't ever see dropping out of the top 10 because they have been and will always be tough but fair. Also, the groupthink on those two is so strong it's hard to see how anyone would be comfortable recording their own thoughts rather than the consensus.

Their votes very likely would get thrown out, and who knowingly risks being added to the authorities' watch list?

Mark- You don't think Shinnecock is tough but fair? Additionally I have to imagine that groupthink never let's it slide past # 5 and rightly so.

[Sean_A]

Who is Jud? Did he post on this thread?

Sean, will your groupings have headings, a la some of the groupings in the Confidential Guide, or will that be left up to the viewer to discern?

You can callem' your best, favourite, least bad, whatever.  The point is, there are more than enough good and great courses for reasonable people to not only disagree on any aspect of "rankings", but more than enough that it would be nothing short of a miracle if reasonable agreed.  Its impossible (and IMO not even desirable) to prove that A is better than B, but maybe we can admit that courses can be great without being particularly inspiring, beautiful or perhaps even fun to play.  I say call a spade a spade and fully admit that formulas and universal criteria used to determine greatness is a load of bunk.  Whats the answer?  Create a huge panel using subjective criteria then average out the results.  Huh?  Why should that be a solution for any so called problem with rankings?  Then, people are unhappy (not surprising) with the results so more subjective criteria are created which only top dogs can utilize.  Thats meant to smooth over the problems?  The entire concept is bizarre.  I know, I did it for LINKS 100 and in the end, flipping a coin was just as statistically meaningful as most subjective criteria.  By the time I got above X number of courses it was literally impossible for me to determine if one was better than another.  

You know what my #1 criteria is?  Am I happy to hand over the requested cash to play a course?  It isn't enough that a course is interesting, beautiful, somewhat challenging, varied and fun to play, I gotta get value out of my money (golf is just a game afterall).  I always say that if I was only interested in in somehow trying to determine how good a course is by how it plays (how else can it be determined if at all?) then I would rarely play courses. I am better off not paying a green fee and instead watching all calibre of golfers have a go.  The big problem with that is its not much fun for me.

Ciao  

[Mac Plumart]

Augusta has been tinkered with so much that you could argue what was once Mackenzie's most innovative course is now jus another American parkland club.

With those greens?

[Ronald Montesano]

mark,

i believe that the GD USA rankings were labeled "Toughest" until the mid-1980s, which would explain Cypress Point's placement to a degree. I've played The Monster at the Concord in the Catskills from the tips and I would never visit that horror on anyone. I'm told that the original Reserve at Thunderhill, outside Cleveland, was virtually unplayable from the tips. I counted 32+ ponds during a google maps flyover.

[Mac Plumart]

But to Jud's point (  )...

We might be arguing similar things here.  You can say, "where is a big numerical drop"  or you can say, "where does Tier 2 or Grouping 2 start."

I see similar things there.

[Ronald Montesano]

Agree with Mac on Augusta greens. Plus, they didn't reshape the holes, just gave them a tuck and a lift and a boom-boom-BOOM.

And that's what I'm after (2nd point)...What are the similar things? What are the barriers/fences that keep courses in one tract and out of another, and where are those barriers placed?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jud,

It's been a ranking of the greatest since 1975.

Tim:

For me it's a question of groupthink around tough-but-fairness: Oakmont and Pine Valley locked in the groupthink on that a long time ago, before GD's authoritative measurements enabled the golfing world to gel around the concept (tough-but-fairness as a paragon of greatness). It's hard to see courses celebrated almost unanimously for their tough-but-fairness as slipping, whereas it's easier to see it happening for courses known for a different, less-established type of groupthink, eg around memorability or aesthetics.

Now, I could see how someone would conclude groupthink is locking in on Shinnecock: it's been top 6 since 1987.

But before then it was never one of the 10 greatest or toughest courses. Clearly the course improved itself for the 1986 US Open and that improved greatness has shown through in the rankings ever since. I see the early rankings as being less susceptible to groupthink and now that I look more closely I see back in the late '60s it was regarded as "only" in the third decile for "most testing" courses and in 1975 the first ranking of greatest courses put it in the second decile.

So, yes, the course may have improved itself for the 1986 Open in a way that axiomatically locked in groupthink. Improving its tough-but-fairness seems like the logical way it would have accomplished this, and I think many would say subsequent US Opens have done nothing but cement Shinny's reputation as a paragon of tough-but-fairness. (Except for the 7th green in the 2004 Open: but, hey, sometimes the pursuit of tough-but-fair excellence toes just over the line.)

My own opinion is that Shinnecock's improvement of its tough-but-fairness is johnny-come-lately when compared to the paragons of Pine Valley and Oakmont. Since it decided to improve its tough-but-fairness relatively recently, it equally seems possible that it could decide to reduce it, or at least not maintain it in the face of I&B improvements. If it decides to let that slip, then I guess it would have no choice but to see itself slip back downwards.

[Ronald Montesano]

Kram,

Do you believe that your groupthink, applied to the then-new appelation of "Greatest" not "Toughest" would have preserved the notion of toughness? How long might it have taken for "greatness" to supersede "toughness" in the rankings?

Which course elements improved Shinnecock's tough-but-fair stature in your mind? Were they all conditioning elements?

[Mike_Young]

Every town in America with more than 100,000 people has a women that could win the Miss America pageant.  It's all a matter of it being your goal and being in the right place at the right time.    The Miss America pageant wasn't created so that we could all decide the most beautiful women in America.  It was created to make money for the promoter.  I think someone took that formula and applied to our golf courses

[Mac Plumart]

Every town in America with more than 100,000 people has a women that could win the Miss America pageant.  It's all a matter of it being your goal and being in the right place at the right time.   The Miss America pageant wasn't created so that we could all decide the most beautiful women in America.  It was created to make money for the promoter.  I think someone took that formula and applied to our golf courses

Correct!  Miss America is not the most beautiful woman in America.  You need talent, be able to interview, and answer a question on stage.    



Preliminary Competitions Scoring

The Miss America Preliminary Competitions and their weighted score values are:
•Lifestyle and Fitness in Swimsuit - 15%
•Evening Wear - 20%
•Talent - 35%
•Private Interview - 25%
•On-Stage Question – 5%

Finals Competition Scoring

The scoring for the Miss America Finals Competition is weighted accordingly:
•Composite Score - 30% (Top 16)
•Lifestyle and Fitness in Swimsuit - 20% (Top 16)
•Evening Wear - 20% (Top 10)
•Talent - 30%  (Top 8 )
•On-Stage Question (Top 8 )
•Final Ballot – Each judge ranks the Top 5 contestants in the order he/she believes they should each finish.  The outcome of the pageant is based solely on the point totals resulting from the final ballot.

[Mac Plumart]

And I'd agree you need to promote to make the Top 100 golf course lists.  At least a little.  I have to believe that is why Peachtree comes out too low and Myopia is WAY low (I suspect).

[Mark Saltzman]

And I'd agree you need to promote to make the Top 100 golf course lists.  At least a little.  I have to believe that is why Peachtree comes out too low and Myopia is WAY low (I suspect).

Promote? What do you mean?

[Mike_Young]

Every town in America with more than 100,000 people has a women that could win the Miss America pageant.  It's all a matter of it being your goal and being in the right place at the right time.   The Miss America pageant wasn't created so that we could all decide the most beautiful women in America.  It was created to make money for the promoter.  I think someone took that formula and applied to our golf courses

Correct!  Miss America is not the most beautiful woman in America.  You need talent, be able to interview, and answer a question on stage.    



Preliminary Competitions Scoring

The Miss America Preliminary Competitions and their weighted score values are:
•Lifestyle and Fitness in Swimsuit - 15%
•Evening Wear - 20%
•Talent - 35%
•Private Interview - 25%
•On-Stage Question – 5%

Finals Competition Scoring

The scoring for the Miss America Finals Competition is weighted accordingly:
•Composite Score - 30% (Top 16)
•Lifestyle and Fitness in Swimsuit - 20% (Top 16)
•Evening Wear - 20% (Top 10)
•Talent - 30%  (Top 8 )
•On-Stage Question (Top 8 )
•Final Ballot – Each judge ranks the Top 5 contestants in the order he/she believes they should each finish.  The outcome of the pageant is based solely on the point totals resulting from the final ballot.

Mac,
you are correct.  I have always thought Condeleeza Rice should be Miss America.

[Jeb Bearer]

Agree with Mac on Augusta greens. Plus, they didn't reshape the holes, just gave them a tuck and a lift and a boom-boom-BOOM.

And that's what I'm after (2nd point)...What are the similar things? What are the barriers/fences that keep courses in one tract and out of another, and where are those barriers placed?

Agree on the greens, I may have hyperbolized a little, ANGC is still an excellent course, but in terms of strategy and uniqueness, it's a shadow of what it once was.

As to your second point, I agree that promotion is a big factor. The greatest number of raters are likely to visit courses that they've already heard a lot about. In addition, people in general have a tendency to see what they expect to see. Consequently, courses that are frequently espoused as being great are likely to be perceived that way regardless of whether they truly deserve it, because raters, expecting a great course, will be looking for greatness, not flaws. The same is true for underrated courses.

On the other hand though, courses that earn the "great" label usually get it for a reason, which is why you see the same courses in the top 10 or so every year, and while we can argue about the order they should be in, there's little disagreement that CPC, PV, Shinnecock, ANGC etc. should all be up there.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeb, I agree with your points.

But I think Kram, is saying Shinnecock is over-rated.  Kram?

[Joel_Stewart]

Having been a panelist for many years I've noticed that there are a top 7, top 25 and then everything else.  If a course is ranked 99th or 55th, it doesn't surprise me or mean anything.  The voting is so tight, a point or two can mean the course is up or down 20 or 30 spots.