Should one charged with ranking/rating a golf course...

[Mike_Young]

GREG,
As do you , I have plenty of rater friends.  I don't comp raters just because they are a rater.  If there is one thing this site has done for me over the years it is show me how dorky this side of things can become when the barrier to entry is miniscule.  People write pages on this site and yet they have not taken the time to learn to grip a club properly.  I'm not talking about 80 year olds who could play at one time.  i'm speaking of guys that have played for a few years and feel they know architecture and decide they will chime in and start hyping courses.  
Over the last few years it is obvious the mags are rating all type of categories since there are not enough new projects to rank each year.  
As JK, I despise it but know it's not going away....I just have to take them on an individual basis.  Most are good but there is often an unjustified arrogance conveyed to staff etc for no reason....for me I just want the golfer  in a 25 mile radius and I can therefore piss them off more easily than a major resort...

Merry Christmas and hope to see you guys in Feb...you never showed up down here in CR...

Mike

[Wyatt Halliday]

It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.

I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.

John, I'll have you as my guest only if you'll join me for an evening on the town. I'm thinking you could be quite entertaining after a Don Julio or two. Not quite Tom Dunne, but entertaining nonetheless.

Greg,

Please be fair. There isn't another person I know as entertaining as Tom Dunne. Don Julio or not.

Wyatt

[Mark Pearce]

You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses.

What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine?  What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?

[Joe Hancock]

You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses.

What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine?  What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?

Conversely, there are plenty of folks who consume a lot of Reunite Lambrusco and McDonalds food, but that doesn't make them a reliable source for what is good and what isn't when it comes to wine and food.

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes and if everyone could eat free at McDonald's the future of modern civilization would be more bleak than it is. It's the free golf that kills your ability to discern crap from granola.

[Mike_Young]

Yes and if everyone could eat free at McDonald's the future of modern civilization would be more bleak than it is. It's the free golf that kills your ability to discern crap from granola.

It's more than just the free golf.  It's the regurgitation process that gets me so often....have you ever been in a men's grill and listened to some of these rater type pontificate when they have no idea that anyone that can argue with them is in the area?  And so often their friends consider them experts or at least God's gift to golf as they know it.  I should not let it bother me but the air that surrounds the entire process is not good...there are good guys in the process but the bad just set me off...

[jeffwarne]

I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.

Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff, and I ask this highly leading question with respect, if you consider the best as different from the most fun, then doesn't that make you the golf mags' willing executioner? Why perpetuate the magazines' definition instead of the right one? I will note these people are asking your professional advice. If they want the magazines' advice just send them to their websites.

[Mark Saltzman]

I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.

Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them

Isn't the best and the most fun the same thing? I know you and Sean seem not to think so, but I don't really get it.

[Mark Pearce]

You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses.

What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine?  What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?

Conversely, there are plenty of folks who consume a lot of Reunite Lambrusco and McDonalds food, but that doesn't make them a reliable source for what is good and what isn't when it comes to wine and food.

Joe

So what?  If your logic is that you do need to know how to make wine to be a fine judge of wine then it is clearly flawed.  In fact, aside from equisite for being able to judge them, as Don Mahaffey was suggesting.  Or do you believe that only architects can have a valid view on good golf?

[Joe Hancock]

Eating food and cooking food are separate endeavors, as is wine making and wine drinking, or golfing( golf course evaluating?) vs. golf course design/ building. We all know that.

My own opinion is that the most important quality of a discerning evaluator of things is that they have many varied experiences with the subject of which they proclaim to be an expert.

As an example, I have worked and learned a tremendous amount about golf courses/ design/ construction from Mike DeVries. One of the things that separates us in the ability to evaluate golf courses is that he has traveled FAR more than I have, specifically to study golf courses, their design and construction. I certainly can have an opinion about anything that he has an opinion about, but I think his should be more trustworthy due to his vast and varied experiences in this particular area of expertise. Also, there may be raters who are well traveled, but still don't possess much in-depth knowledge merely because they weren't fortunate enough to have a knowledgeable tutor willing to teach them what they can't otherwise learn on their own. Self-taught experts are the ones I would trust the least.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it is a complicated thing. The whole ratings/ rankings thing is rooted in money, for other than publicity and profit, there is no reason to participate. On the other hand, it is silly to expect any business (which,  to my knowledge, every golf course is) has to make at least a certain amount to exist.

Joe

[Mark Pavy]

Joe,

I would regard both your view/opinion and Mike DeVries as equal. Why? Because you're both golfers (I'm assuming).
Golfers play the game and pay the green fee...therefore it makes sense if anyone should be rating courses- it should be golfers.

[Sean_A]

Joe

While I understand where you are coming from, I would still say there is a big difference between designing/building and playing.  One would naturally assume the two are connected in some way and they probably are, but so what?  In the case of playing, its the end user who ultimately decides on the merits of courses and of course, we are all different in that regard.  

Mark

For me the biggest difference between fun and best simply comes down to taking on board the opinions of others I trust.  I don't know as much as many people so I value their opinion even if I don't quite get it.  But I am not gonna spend a lot of time listening to a guy tell me that because a course is fun that it must be among the best.  Only I decide what is fun for me...its very personal.  However, running down a list of the best courses isn't personal...its part of group think...otherwise everybody is just pissing into the wind.  Best courses may have stuff on them I don't like which I think takes away from my fun factor, but I wouldn't say they aren't among the best merely because I don't like some of the stuff.  Variety is important even if I don't care for some stuff....others may like it.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.

Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them

Isn't the best and the most fun the same thing? I know you and Sean seem not to think so, but I don't really get it.

Mark,

The best and most fun usually mean the same to me, but I'd say not to Sean who definitely makes a distinction.

I think Sean would definitely give you two different answers for "favorites" and "best".

But then I consider Pennard, North Berwick, and Brora three of the best courses in the world, and others would rank their well known neighbors well ahead in their respective areas as well as the world.

[Paul Gray]

I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......

.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.

Just saying.

[John Kirk]

Greg -

I think panelists need to be proficient players.  Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players?  No.  But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course.  They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.  

If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"

By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.

Joe

Joe,

That's my point.  Proficiency in play has nothing to do with it, proficiency in analysis does.

Sven

If this is so, then I argue the rater "proficient in analysis" must have sufficient experience watching golf shots by players of varying abilities, which implies they have significant experience playing the game.

For the purpose of rating top golf courses, one does not have to discern between a bad course and a good course.  He/she has to discern the difference between very good and great.

I also think that architectural features should be considered in the context of how they affect experienced golfers.  How they affect the beginner golfer is not very important.

Finally, I think a course should be evaluated on more than how fun it is.  For instance, I consider the quality and beauty of the walk or journey through the park as a significant factor.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......

.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.

Just saying.

Been there done that.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27002.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29061.0.html

[Greg Tallman]

Greg

While I think I do get the point you are making, I would ask you the following:

As a golf destination, what is your target market? Covers the spectrum of golfers ability wise though narrowed based on income

Are suggesting the opinions of those who aren't better than average players with no knowledge of golf architecture are not to be considered? When defining and ranking courses supposedly based on primarily architectural factors... yes, there are some who have no real input to such a discussion

Being that the majority of all golfers are in fact poor players who don't care much for architecture and all its sub topics, are you not effectively restricting your options by placing less value on their views? Not interested on a course being ranked higher because they have a great clubhouse or great food stations on the course.

Wouldn't the greatest ratings cover a wide range of abilities and agendas and having a couple of complete hacks leave your facility having thoroughly enjoyed themselves and your course be the best outcome or are you only interested in having a bunch of GCA type golf nerds play at your course? That is an entirely different scenario and something we obviously work on as well given the fact that the overall experience for the vast majority is probably <20% golf course design and >80% other factors.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg - would it destroy your argument if you were to find out:

1) Said publication actually has a lengthy application that must be filled out (and I assume is vetted/reviewed, see #2) prior to acceptance.

2) A good friend of mine, who thoroughly filled out said application, was denied by said publication this past year.

I don't believe they accept every Tom, Dick and Hairy as you state.  In fact, it appears to be just the opposite.

The fundamental premise to your argument is potentially flawed...........................just sayin'.................

Interesting but not destroying my "argument" which is simply stating that monetizing the system beyond selling hits and magazines is a bit much. Again, they have created what amounts to a very inexpensive international golf club going that not only includes access to some private facilities but comp or discounted golf at any number of high end public/resort facilities.

The fact that someone was turned down is surprising and would actually restore some respect for the system.   

[Paul Gray]

I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......

.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.

Just saying.

Been there done that.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27002.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29061.0.html

Should have made reference to these and explained that I was thinking of something a little more public and, as well as a World's Top, say, 100, national and regional lists to boot.

The most recent review I've seen of British courses was offered up by Golf Monthly and was able to poor as usual.

[Michael George]

Greg:

I think the quality of a panel is a valid and interesting topic.   Here are some thoughts:

1.  Magazines should first ask any applicant to the panel for a list of every golf course that he has played to date.   Simply put, I have played with panelists with little experience on great courses and their opinion is usually flawed.  Everyone has been there at a time.  Just think back to "that course" that you once thought was as good as golf got.  It is usually embarrassing.

2.  Magazines should next ask what you have done to enhance your knowledge of great golf courses. If one hasn't at least read the books by Thomas, Mackenzie, Doak, Tillinghast, Colt, Ross and others, they shouldn't be rating a course.  Without being educated on a topic, how can you be asked to apply the necessay standards.  You would be surprised how many panelists can't discuss basic architectural principles.

3.  While it is not necessary for a panelist to be a great player (in fact I don't think most pros know much about great architecture), there has to be a base skill level.... and Mike Keiser, Tom Doak and Brad Klein all qualify.  You need the ability to see different shots and the value of those shots based on the design of holes.   Often the better players can see these types of options and thus rate the variety of shots needed for a course.  Average players that have this ability are usually based on their love for the topic of golf architecture.  However, I do agree that a 20+ handicap shouldn't be involved unless age has caught up with him.

4.  I would never comp a rater if I was a course. If you are Shadow Creek or Pebble Beach and you want to offer a discounted rate so it is not so expensive, that is fine, as a rater shouldn't have to go broke rating courses. However, courses shouldn't buy ratings, just as magazines shouldn't profit off ratings.  There has to be some middle ground on this issue. If members don't play for free, neither should a rater.

Don't know if this is of any value. Just some thoughts.