Why does Golf Digest overlook Wine Valley?

[Sean Leary]

Joe S, I take it you have decided the problem is WV's overall GD score, whatever that score may be?

Let me put it this way. Almost everyone would agree that the Mona Lisa is a great painting. When someone compiles a list of great paintings, and the list excludes the Mona Lisa, that list lacks credibility. It would not be up to the doubters to explain whether the compiler of the list used the wrong criteria or simply misapplied its own criteria. It is wrong either way.

I am not, by any stretch, claiming that Wine Valley is a Mona Lisa. But is is well praised by many well-travelled golfers on this site (Mark Saltzman, as an example) and well regarded by the public in this State (see Cascade Golfer). I therefore cannot explain its omission in Golf Digest as among "the best of ... Washington State." If it is too inconvenient for enough raters to see it, then the publication should say so. If it is off the list because of the criteria used or a misapplication of the criteria, then I would suggest Golf Digest needs to revisit its methodology. 

This is silly, though Joe, if you think about it. Why does WV deserve this treatment more than any other course that doesn't have enough ratings? Do they all need to be listed as well. Eventually it will have enough and will almost undoubtedly make the top 3 or 4 in the state, if not higher. The cream eventually rises.

[Mark Saltzman]

Phil, so when can we begin that discussion of why GD apparently overlooks Wine Valley?

I have to guess/assume/hope that not enough digest raters have been out there because I cannot understand how it wouldn't make a best in state list.

Possible reasons to overlook WV?

Low rating in RS.  Wine Valley is not overt in its penalties.  Fairways are massive, the ball runs forever, and there is very little water.  I found angles to be extremely important when I played the golf course -- both for minimzing approach yardage and for angle into the green.  The second hole is a tremendous example, with an angled green and a convex fairway cut area short of the green.  Approaching from the right, downwind, it was one of the most difficult mid-irons I've ever had to hit, even if the penalty for missing is only half a shot.   Maybe this doesn't fit well with some raters views of RS, which demand full shot penalties.

Conditioning.  There is a lot of pale green at WV, with obvious patches of brown.  Bunker edging is truly rugged, not that faux rugged stuff we see at some high-end Fazio courses.  I think the course is damned near ideal in the conditioning category, but maybe not so in the eyes of other raters.

Aesthetics.  Water features, vegetation, backdrops?  OK, let's be fair.  The water features at WV look like absolute crap and stick out as abominations on an excellent golf course.  I don't care if practically they needed the water for irrrigation, the use of water sucks.  Backdrops and vegetation.  I guess forever views of nothing do little for some raters.

I still think it must just be short of ratings.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark,

Thank you for that. Does everyone else agree with Mark's comments re RS, conditioning, and aesthetics? Does the course go a little too easy on mistakes made by scratch golfers?

Mark

[Joe Stansell]

Why does WV deserve this treatment more than any other course that doesn't have enough ratings?

I'd say that it deserves mentioning because Wine Valley is rated so highly in another credible publication (e.g., Golfweek), and therefore its exclusion from a "best of ..." is a "red flag." I'm also surprised, as you suggest, that once a course receives enough ratings (Desert Canyon, as an example) its score never expires. Because I would be shocked -- shocked -- if Desert Canyon received more ratings in the years since Wine Valley opened than Wine Valley itself.   

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

I go through this exercise with Golf Digest here in Wisconsin, which (apparently; I haven't seen the list but Jud Tigerman says it's so, so it must be true ) once again failed to put Lawsonia on its top-10 list of publics in Wisconsin -- which is arguably a more egregious absence than Wine Valley, if for no other reason than Lawsonia has been around for close to 90 years now.

Maybe not enough raters make it to Lawsonia to see the place (although its central location makes it a less-than-two-hours-drive from nearly every major population center of the state -- on good Wisconsin roads!). Maybe some are just freaked out by a largely tree-less course in the middle of dairy country. Maybe some just don't "get it" -- I know plenty of those folks around here. Maybe its wide fairways, manageable rough, avoidable hazards, lack of penal water, and non-traditional layout and routing (with its famous par 5-3-5-3-5-3 sequence mid-round) confuse all of the raters who think courses just.....aren't.......like............that.

But, one never knows, because of the Oz-like curtain that hides what GD really thinks makes a course worthy of inclusion on such lists.

[Joe Stansell]

Does everyone else agree with Mark's comments re RS, conditioning, and aesthetics? Does the course go a little too easy on mistakes made by scratch golfers?

I'd say Mark's assessment is spot on.  But when I put Wine Valley up against several of the other courses on Golf Digest's "best of ... Washington State," it couldn't be more than marginally worse in these categories and at the same time definitely blows most of them away in shot values, design variety, and memorability.

How about if I ask this question: Why aren't Golf Digest's raters willing to travel to see a course that Golfweek lists among its top 100 modern?

[Stephen Davis]

Phil, so when can we begin that discussion of why GD apparently overlooks Wine Valley?

I have to guess/assume/hope that not enough digest raters have been out there because I cannot understand how it wouldn't make a best in state list.

Possible reasons to overlook WV?

Low rating in RS.  Wine Valley is not overt in its penalties.  Fairways are massive, the ball runs forever, and there is very little water.  I found angles to be extremely important when I played the golf course -- both for minimzing approach yardage and for angle into the green.  The second hole is a tremendous example, with an angled green and a convex fairway cut area short of the green.  Approaching from the right, downwind, it was one of the most difficult mid-irons I've ever had to hit, even if the penalty for missing is only half a shot.   Maybe this doesn't fit well with some raters views of RS, which demand full shot penalties.

Conditioning.  There is a lot of pale green at WV, with obvious patches of brown.  Bunker edging is truly rugged, not that faux rugged stuff we see at some high-end Fazio courses.  I think the course is damned near ideal in the conditioning category, but maybe not so in the eyes of other raters.

Aesthetics.  Water features, vegetation, backdrops?  OK, let's be fair.  The water features at WV look like absolute crap and stick out as abominations on an excellent golf course.  I don't care if practically they needed the water for irrrigation, the use of water sucks.  Backdrops and vegetation.  I guess forever views of nothing do little for some raters.

I still think it must just be short of ratings.

Mark,

I would agree with what you said here. I have played WV a half dozen times and to me it is easily the second best course in Washington (I  have played many on the GD list of best in washington). I think you nailed your assessment that the GD raters are obviously either not links style golf fans, don't appreciate the FF and slightly brown conditions, or/and cannot fully appreciate a course unless there are trees and water hazards. I think this is apparent with the drop in ranking of just about every course that would be considered a links style course. There has been plenty of talk already about them not applying the new definition for conditioning, because if they had, WV scores very high on the current definition. I also agree with you about the RS score. WV requires thoughtful placement of your tee shots if you want to score well, however, it also allows for a recovery shot in case the golfer has an errant shot. GD seems to prefer more definitive penalties in order to score well on the RS portion. My hope is that it doesn't appear because they have not been able to get enough people out there and not because they didn't feel it was worthy. The second option would make me disappointed.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Three good posts.

Joe, when did WV open for play?

Phil, so if I read you correctly, when you score Lawsonia using GD's criteria you get a much higher score than the average, a score that if the average would put Lawsonia comfortably in the state top 10. Leaving aside the question of number of ratings, where are the biggest gaps between where you score it and the, say, 100th-ranked course in the top 100 USA? Can you extrapolate between the state rankings and the USA ranking to give us a sense of where the gaps lie?

Stephen, regarding conditioning, could this be a timing issue? Is is possible there are "old definition" ratings being factored into the scores or is it really a matter of lack of rater understanding / education?

[Joe Stansell]

Joe, when did WV open for play?

2009

[Stephen Davis]

Three good posts.

Joe, when did WV open for play?

Phil, so if I read you correctly, when you score Lawsonia using GD's criteria you get a much higher score than the average, a score that if the average would put Lawsonia comfortably in the state top 10. Leaving aside the question of number of ratings, where are the biggest gaps between where you score it and the, say, 100th-ranked course in the top 100 USA? Can you extrapolate between the state rankings and the USA ranking to give us a sense of where the gaps lie?

Stephen, regarding conditioning, could this be a timing issue? Is is possible there are "old definition" ratings being factored into the scores or is it really a matter of lack of rater understanding / education?

Mark,

It could be timing, however, the fact that many courses that are maintained in a similar manner have seemed to drop in this years ratings. That timing seems more odd to me.

[Sean Leary]

Joe, when did WV open for play?

2009

I believe it's an 8 year period where you can get scores.  As far as the number of raters vs GW I have no idea.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I wish I could claim Lawsonia didn't get the ballots, but I'm pretty confident it has ten. I went and visited and its certainly (a lot) better than a couple of the courses on the list.

I could see Lawsonia and Wine Valley struggling with panelists in the ambiance category as well--I happen to find Lawsonia rather charming, but its got a different vibe than the courses that folks here claim are overrated on the Digest scale. I think Mark S. covered some of the other potential reasons that Wine Valley might not be as high as some say it should be. I've heard from enough of you to believe that its good, but the photos I've seen would not have enticed me to even put it on my "to do" list otherwise.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

I actually haven't seen the new Wisconsin top-10 list; I can guess the usual suspects....

[John Kavanaugh]

The Golfweek raters on this site, past and present, do a great job of promoting courses that they like.  Through their rater club get togethers they often get enough votes to propel a course into their top 100.  I think it is great because it gives us all a chance to see something new and enjoy it along the way.  This in no way reflects on the accuracy of Digest.

I don't get out much and here are five that I have played that have been heavily promoted by Golfweek raters that Digest ignores. Clearly none of the following are top 100 material.  Perhaps Wine Valley is skinned of the same goat.  

Barona Creek
Rustic Canyon
Wild Horse
Lawsonia
Beverly

[Mike Wagner]

Mark,

I would rate it for you, but I haven't played WV.  I suppose the answer to the question is that not enough raters have played it?

I hate to say it, but yes, I would give Canterwood a "0."  Having it and Desert Canyon on this list completely undermines whatever system they use and it's raters.

Literally, there are 50-100 courses in WA that I would rather play than Canterwood.

[Steve_Lovett]

Mark,

I would rate it for you, but I haven't played WV.  I suppose the answer to the question is that not enough raters have played it?

I hate to say it, but yes, I would give Canterwood a "0."  Having it and Desert Canyon on this list completely undermines whatever system they use and it's raters.

Literally, there are 50-100 courses in WA that I would rather play than Canterwood.

I haven't played Canterwood in many years. I remember some holes I liked a lot and that others I didn't care for or were awkward. I'm curious what you find so objectionable - which holes in particular and why?

[Richard Choi]

Since I have played Wine Valley as much as anyone on this site, I will jump in.

Joe is correct. Wine Valley is easily the second best course in the state behind Chambers Bay (it used to be a bigger gap between CB and WV, but has narrowed since USGA changes to CB). All of the other courses, including Sahalee, Aldarra, and others are a significant step down from Wine Valley in my opinion as no other course can offer the kind of drama its epic scale brings and great strategic variations and clever combination of wide fairways and heavily contoured greens employed at Wine Valley. It is the only course that I visit every year that is more than 1 hour away from my home (WV is  a 4 hour drive each way). Portland and Vancouver are shorter trips and there is no course there that I would travel every year for.

I believe it is quite unfair to ask Joe or anyone who is not already a GD panelist to rate the course as a single course rating is useless without a complete portfolio of ratings of other courses to measure against. It is a bit of red herring to ask for one.

But if one was to rate it using the GD criteria, it would score pretty low in only one category - Resistance to Scoring. The conditioning has improved every year and the greens are as good as any in the state. And contrary to belief, it is not brown like Chambers Bay can be. The turf at Wine Valley can be quite lush.

One only needs to look at other highly rated Washington courses to see why Wine Valley does not make the cut (if there are indeed enough raters who have played it). The fact that courses like Sahalee (and others like Canterwood) is rated so high compared to Chambers Bay and Wine Valley clearly indicates the GD raters' tendency for "more trees = better course". Chambers Bay can overcome most of it by being on the coast and hosting US Open, but Wine Valley has no such luxuries. People who believe Sahalee is what a golf course should be will certainly not be the biggest fans of Wine Valley.

It is just a matter of perspectives. I found myself disagreeing with GD's perspective so much that I ended up cancelling my subscription. If you are using these lists to figure out which courses to play, you should just find one that is most agreeable to your opinion and go from there. Some people like blondes and some like brunettes. Each to his own, since as much as I like Wine Valley myself, it is no Mona Lisa of golf courses. There are plenty of people who just don't get Picasso and Warhol and they are two of the most successful painters in art history.

[Sean Leary]

Since I have played Wine Valley as much as anyone on this site, I will jump in.

Joe is correct. Wine Valley is easily the second best course in the state behind Chambers Bay (it used to be a bigger gap between CB and WV, but has narrowed since USGA changes to CB). All of the other courses, including Sahalee, Aldarra, and others are a significant step down from Wine Valley in my opinion as no other course can offer the kind of drama its epic scale brings and great strategic variations and clever combination of wide fairways and heavily contoured greens employed at Wine Valley. It is the only course that I visit every year that is more than 1 hour away from my home (WV is  a 4 hour drive each way). Portland and Vancouver are shorter trips and there is no course there that I would travel every year for.

I believe it is quite unfair to ask Joe or anyone who is not already a GD panelist to rate the course as a single course rating is useless without a complete portfolio of ratings of other courses to measure against. It is a bit of red herring to ask for one.

But if one was to rate it using the GD criteria, it would score pretty low in only one category - Resistance to Scoring. The conditioning has improved every year and the greens are as good as any in the state. And contrary to belief, it is not brown like Chambers Bay can be. The turf at Wine Valley can be quite lush.

One only needs to look at other highly rated Washington courses to see why Wine Valley does not make the cut (if there are indeed enough raters who have played it). The fact that courses like Sahalee (and others like Canterwood) is rated so high compared to Chambers Bay and Wine Valley clearly indicates the GD raters' tendency for "more trees = better course". Chambers Bay can overcome most of it by being on the coast and hosting US Open, but Wine Valley has no such luxuries. People who believe Sahalee is what a golf course should be will certainly not be the biggest fans of Wine Valley.

It is just a matter of perspectives. I found myself disagreeing with GD's perspective so much that I ended up cancelling my subscription. If you are using these lists to figure out which courses to play, you should just find one that is most agreeable to your opinion and go from there. Some people like blondes and some like brunettes. Each to his own, since as much as I like Wine Valley myself, it is no Mona Lisa of golf courses. There are plenty of people who just don't get Picasso and Warhol and they are two of the most successful painters in art history.

Rich

Thanks for chiming in. Wine Valley or Sagebrush,  which is better ? Also, before you turned into a nerd like the rest of us, would you have thought as highly of it as you do? Meaning that that type of golf is more of a connoisseurs perspective rather that the "hard is good" world that a lot of solid players like yourself (but non architecture geeks) think they prefer.

Assuming it does have enough ratings to be rated for best in state (I still think for some reason it doesn't), I am trying to get some sense of how it possibly could be rated behind those 10.

[Steve_Lovett]

I'm not sure I'd seen the WA list until I just looked it up. I'm shocked.

Personally, I would include Seattle Golf and Inglewood on the list. I would drop Canterwood, Desert Canyon, and Eaglemont. I haven't seen Wine Valley yet, but its reviews are hard to ignore. I'd also think that Gold Mountain, McCormick Woods, Tacoma G&CC, and Semi-ah-moo might deserve consideration.

[Pete_Pittock]

Choi mentioned resistance to scoring. They held the Northwest Open there last year. There were three hot rounds and 20 broke par over 54 holes http://www.pnwpga.com/pdf/resultsnwo12.pdf. There is resistance to scoring available when there is a reason to det up the course that way. A pro from my home course declined to enter that tournament because he couldn't handle the greens. You get nicked with many cuts at WV rather than being stavbbed one or two times. There doesn;t seem to be a premium on driving. Perhaps if the GD raters would get there when the wind picks up in the afternoon it might make a difference in their review.

I head over there every year and will try and set up a GCA weekend there in the spring.

  

[Sean Leary]

I'm not sure I'd seen the WA list until I just looked it up. I'm shocked.

Personally, I would include Seattle Golf and Inglewood on the list. I would drop Canterwood, Desert Canyon, and Eaglemont. I haven't seen Wine Valley yet, but its reviews are hard to ignore. I'd also think that Gold Mountain, McCormick Woods, Tacoma G&CC, and Semi-ah-moo might deserve consideration.

Steve,

Have you been to Fircrest since you came back? You need to, it's better than most of the top 10 list.

[Steve_Lovett]

I haven't been to Fircrest in some time, Sean - but I've heard it's special.

Many of the rankings are nonsense, but the WA State rankings seem way out of whack.

[Stephen Davis]

Choi mentioned resistance to scoring. They held the Northwest Open there last year. There were three hot rounds and 20 broke par over 54 holes http://www.pnwpga.com/pdf/resultsnwo12.pdf. There is resistance to scoring available when there is a reason to det up the course that way. A pro from my home course declined to enter that tournament because he couldn't handle the greens. You get nicked with many cuts at WV rather than being stavbbed one or two times. There doesn;t seem to be a premium on driving. Perhaps if the GD raters would get there when the wind picks up in the afternoon it might make a difference in their review.

I head over there every year and will try and set up a GCA weekend there in the spring.

  

Pete brings up a very good point. The greens at WV are fantastic. There is a lot of internal movement in them and they can get them running fast if they so desire.

[Kalen Braley]

I've played it 5 times and wine valley is indeed the real deal as rich explained very well

I've also played sagebrush and I would put sagebrush as just a bit better but not by much

In wa state chambers and wv rule the day and its a pretty significant drop to #3

[Richard Choi]

Sean, as a card carrying member of GCA nerd brigade, I would say there are two areas where my tastes have changed over the years.

First, I don't get impressed with conditioning as I did before. Conditioning is like cosmetics for women, it may enhance and cover up many flaws, but it is what is underneath that counts. Second, I don't get impressed as much with difficulty. My emphasis has shifted from scoring to fun.

However, I would also say that I always valued great courses with wide fairways even before I started coming to this site as I fell in love with Bandon Dunes the first time I played it. I just don't regard courses like Sahalee as high as I used to.

I think GD rankings of courses in Washington state is garbage. I would not recommend that list to anybody I know (unless I just don't like that person ). The Olympic Course at Gold Mountain is probably the best John Harbottle course that he ever built and is in the same class with Aldarra, Sahalee, and others. Its omission is a damning evidence against the list and not the course.

To me, it is pretty obvious that people who created this list are enamored with great views and/or tight tree lined fairways. I would be embarrassed if I put out a list like this.