[Jim Nugent]

Jeff Brauer,


We didn't "pattern" our ratings off of Golf Digest other than wanting a ratings panel. We developed a totally different model, based on criteria relevant to real, everyday golfers, that reflected 2X as many courses out there, most of them in the public domain, and we focused on rater education trips, fun, gatherings. That wasn't patterning on anyone.


As for statistical rigor, the argument about needing to go from 45 to 70 is nonsense. Once you get to about 30 the stat remains virtually immune to the contribution of N+1.

Knuth, a numbers guy (developer of the USGA's Slope ranking system), should know that.

That's not a ringing endorsement of his statistical chops to me -- slope makes knowledge of courses' difficulty MORE confusing, not less. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Hmmm ... got me thinking ... do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to be a member of a private club?


If so, the complimentary golf is more justifiable ... at least they are paying somewhere.  That's one reason I joined Crystal Downs many years ago; I don't feel as guilty about accepting free golf when I'm paying $4k per year to a club that doesn't even open til May!

I wish I was only paying $4000 a year.....

God bless the cost of living in Texarkana🤗😉

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom,
In the latest Golf Digest podcast, Ron Whitten says it's $1000 for new panelists, plus $250 a year for all panelists. He also talks at length about the handicap Index requirement and how few have played both Augusta National and Pine Valley (around two dozen he says).

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-65-inside-story-our/id1057307365?i=1000379610883&mt=2

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
In the latest Golf Digest podcast, Ron Whitten says it's $1000 for new panelists, plus $250 a year for all panelists. He also talks at length about the handicap Index requirement and how few have played both Augusta National and Pine Valley (around two dozen he says).

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-65-inside-story-our/id1057307365?i=1000379610883&mt=2

Hi Geoff:


Thanks for the note.  A little birdie had texted me about the possible $900,000 in new panelist fees, but I didn't want to post anything about it without citing a source, and didn't want to out my source.  Ron Whitten is a very good source!


It's hard to believe only two dozen panelists have played both Augusta and Pine Valley ... if Augusta has more than 45 votes, that would mean only half of those people had ever played Pine Valley.  I imagine that there are many Augusta members who have never played PV, of the Bill Gates type profile, but I can't imagine the same for a bunch of 5-or-under-handicaps with a passion for rating courses. 


Perhaps Ron means they haven't played them both in the last eight years so they don't have active VOTES for both courses on their ballot.  That would be much easier to believe; I'm not even sure if my vote for Pine Valley would count anymore, if I was on one of these panels.  Which is yet another sign of how silly they are.

[David Davis]

Wait, according to the rules shouldn't a course be removed from the ranking if they don't have enough votes or do some courses obviously get a pass in that category?

[jeffwarne]

Talk about pay to play.......
Clinton Digest?


A LOT can be learned fro this business model where you collect money from people to potentailly use 17000 of other people's assets-with no compensation to any of the 16,900- except 100 of the assets.
Genius

[Tom_Doak]

Wait, according to the rules shouldn't a course be removed from the ranking if they don't have enough votes or do some courses obviously get a pass in that category?

David:


The statement was the number of panelists who had rated BOTH Augusta and Pine Valley.  I assume each course still has more than 45 votes. 


But, another elephant in the room is that there are many contenders behind the curtain that DON'T have the 45 vote minimum and thus cannot be compared fairly, and the data shows that several of them would easily beat out the bottom rung of the list they do share.


And, yes, a few courses have likely been taken off the list over the years because they suddenly fell under the cut-off of 45 votes ... but GOLF DIGEST would probably not explain it in those terms.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brad,


Crap, there goes my ratings in the next GW......


I understand you put a lot of brainpower into that to make it as relevant as you could, adopted the panel system, and then tried to learn from the flaws you saw in GD.  I like a lot about your system.  Still, as an independent observer, who considers both you and Ron as friends, many areas still overlap:


GW conditions = GD conditioning
GW Variety and Memorability = GD Design Variety and Memorability
(you have par 3, 4, and 5 subsections, GD splits the two into different general categories)
We could argue that GW Walk in the Park (as much as I like it) = GD Ambiance
GW - Trees and landscaping (although not a perfect fit) = GD Aesthetics.


No clear correlation for their resistance to scoring (IMHO, leftover legacy from America's Toughest, which seems dated) or GW "Land Plan" which is a bit vague to me.  I have been to one education session for each magazine, and understand you have slightly different approaches to educating raters, too.  No doubt the emphasis is slightly different.


Overall, my impression remains you want to get to about the same place, perhaps taking a different train.....but then, I am not as personally or emotionally involved as many here seem to be.  Obviously, I am changing no ones mind here!  That said, I am of the overall impression that those who don't like the GD system as much can keep piling on well beyond what is probably deserved.


BTW, I do know there is a single digit handicap requirement.  I have had several friends ask me to approach Ron with an endorsement for his panel, and he has thrown most out for too high a handicap.  Wonder if he would take me, with double digit handicap, but more knowledge about architecture than the average bear? Not sure how firm that system is, but again, seems to reinforce what seems to be the main difference, which is resistance to scoring.


Cheers.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom,
In the latest Golf Digest podcast, Ron Whitten says it's $1000 for new panelists, plus $250 a year for all panelists. He also talks at length about the handicap Index requirement and how few have played both Augusta National and Pine Valley (around two dozen he says).

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-65-inside-story-our/id1057307365?i=1000379610883&mt=2

Whitten bans raters from keeping score when they're rating courses?

[Brad Klein]

Jeff Brauer,


We'd take you as a rater, in which case you'd be joining several other ASGCA members.


When we came up with the Golfweek ratings we never even looked at Golf Digest criteria and I had no idea what they were. I literally paid them no attention. Having said that, when you are judging golf courses, there are only so many things you can look for. But one major difference you overlook is that we only count one vote - overall. The other factors are considerations but not mathematically (or pseudo-scientifially) calculated in the mix.


By the way, does this all of this mean that 50 years of GD ratings suddenly, in retrospect, don't have statistical validity?

[Mark Bourgeois]

By the way, does this all of this mean that 50 years of GD ratings suddenly, in retrospect, don't have statistical validity?

That's how I read Tarde's comment in his editor's letter, and it's a stunner (to me). Always assumed the score differences failed statistical significance at much lower levels (eg <1.0 differences) than what he seems to imply. I thought they were okay once you got out past differences of 1.5, 2.0.

But since there's no transparency, who can say? Probably best to assume a random number generator (monkeys banging on a calculator) determines the ranking of large groups of the top 100 -- if not the entire list!

Until they fix this maybe Whitten can expand his comment about Pine Valley and Augusta being 1A and 1B to just make everyone on the list #1. Like this: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E ... 1CX. The golf courses of Lake Wobegon pale in comparison. 

[V_Halyard]

But the BEST news is that "Dean Knuth, the chief statistician for Golf Digest's course rankings, advises us that we need to raise our minimum number of evaluations from 45 to at least 70 to make the 100 Greatest statistically above reproach."

That's ok, you guys came to see us in Iowa for Confidential so we're good.

[V_Halyard]

Jeff Brauer,


We'd take you as a rater, in which case you'd be joining several other ASGCA members.


When we came up with the Golfweek ratings we never even looked at Golf Digest criteria and I had no idea what they were. I literally paid them no attention. Having said that, when you are judging golf courses, there are only so many things you can look for. But one major difference you overlook is that we only count one vote - overall. The other factors are considerations but not mathematically (or pseudo-scientifially) calculated in the mix.


By the way, does this all of this mean that 50 years of GD ratings suddenly, in retrospect, don't have statistical validity?

In my biased opinion, GW takes the need for a single digit handicap out of the equation of the love of architecture. I've been a single and play well into the doubles. Plus as a currently under-practiced double, I have beaten plenty of vanity singles when you take them off their home course, which I might add, is an essential part of the rating process. Home course index has a small percentage to do with the love of, and ability to rate courses.

[Howard Riefs]

Shack weighs in... and quotes Ran in the process:


http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/1/12/golf-digest-looks-to-double-size-of-course-rating-panel-by-2.html

[Joe Zucker]

One of the things I used to strongly believe was that you had to be a good player to fairly assess a course.  In part to this site, I've learned that I was completely wrong.  I still see how it can help in some cases (i.e. players with great short games may have more imagination seeing shots around a green), but the vast majority of time a 15-20 handicap can appreciate just as much as the scratch.


 
Having the arbitrary handicap cutoff of 5 seems silly to me.  Especially since they call out the cost of time and travel required for raters, which means the ideal person might be a 50-60 year old guy who used to be a 5 but no longer is due to age.  Also, I think I've heard Tom Doak say his handicap is above 5 and I would guess many other great architects are above that limit.  I'm sure the architects can't be raters, but do you really want a rule that would eliminate these people from your pool?  If you can design a top 100 course, you can probably rate them.

[jeffwarne]

One of the things I used to strongly believe was that you had to be a good player to fairly assess a course.  In part to this site, I've learned that I was completely wrong.  I still see how it can help in some cases (i.e. players with great short games may have more imagination seeing shots around a green), but the vast majority of time a 15-20 handicap can appreciate just as much as the scratch.


 
Having the arbitrary handicap cutoff of 5 seems silly to me.  Especially since they call out the cost of time and travel required for raters, which means the ideal person might be a 50-60 year old guy who used to be a 5 but no longer is due to age.  Also, I think I've heard Tom Doak say his handicap is above 5 and I would guess many other great architects are above that limit.  I'm sure the architects can't be raters, but do you really want a rule that would eliminate these people from your pool?  If you can design a top 100 course, you can probably rate them.

No worries Joe.
When Outpost Digest doubles raters again they'll no doubt raise the handicap limit.
Who knows? maybe they can get a premium for every shot above 5

[Peter Pallotta]

As Felix Unger once said to Oscar Madison:
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive!

[Declan Kavanagh]

The system gets worse with everyday. That entire organization is a sinking ship. The internet is bleeding it out.

If only there were some solid young minds who could save them......Or not and just usurp them.....

[JMEvensky]

As Felix Unger once said to Oscar Madison:
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive!

There's an English Lit professor who owes me a tuition refund.

[Joe Zucker]

One of the things I used to strongly believe was that you had to be a good player to fairly assess a course.  In part to this site, I've learned that I was completely wrong.  I still see how it can help in some cases (i.e. players with great short games may have more imagination seeing shots around a green), but the vast majority of time a 15-20 handicap can appreciate just as much as the scratch.


 
Having the arbitrary handicap cutoff of 5 seems silly to me.  Especially since they call out the cost of time and travel required for raters, which means the ideal person might be a 50-60 year old guy who used to be a 5 but no longer is due to age.  Also, I think I've heard Tom Doak say his handicap is above 5 and I would guess many other great architects are above that limit.  I'm sure the architects can't be raters, but do you really want a rule that would eliminate these people from your pool?  If you can design a top 100 course, you can probably rate them.

No worries Joe.
When Outpost Digest doubles raters again they'll no doubt raise the handicap limit.
Who knows? maybe they can get a premium for every shot above 5

Don't give them any more ideas!

[Peter Pallotta]

As Felix Unger once said to Oscar Madison:
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive!

There's an English Lit professor who owes me a tuition refund.

You mean Felix wasn't the first one to say this? It sounds exactly the kind of thing that Felix *would* say!

[Ken Moum]

Having the arbitrary handicap cutoff of 5 seems silly to me.  Especially since they call out the cost of time and travel required for raters, which means the ideal person might be a 50-60 year old guy who used to be a 5 but no longer is due to age.  Also, I think I've heard Tom Doak say his handicap is above 5 and I would guess many other great architects are above that limit.  I'm sure the architects can't be raters, but do you really want a rule that would eliminate these people from your pool?  If you can design a top 100 course, you can probably rate them.

Add to that the fact that there's probably not much chance that Ron is a 5.  I know both Ron and Brad, and like them both, but can't imagine either of them thinks low indexes result in better rankings.


I also admit Brad has put me on the GW panel (for undetermined reasons) and my index has only been as low as 5.? a few times in my life. 


As relates to the whole rankings deal, and such items as "condition," GW specifically mentions extraneous circumstances such as overseeding and weather.

[Bill McKinley]

Great thread here guys.  Lot's of good stuff in here.


I can tell you with 100% certainty that we at Canterbury did not get to that number of 45 evaluations.  And I would suspect that some other worthy Cleveland area clubs fell short of that number as well. 


One other note on this subject is that the 45 number has to take place over an 8 year period.  I can tell you that a whole lot can and does change in an 8 year span.  Not to say that I would expect panelists to cover 45 evaluations in a 2 year span or something of the like, but I would think that more courses would drop out when that number goes up to 70.

[jeffwarne]

Great thread here guys.  Lot's of good stuff in here.


I can tell you with 100% certainty that we at Canterbury did not get to that number of 45 evaluations.  And I would suspect that some other worthy Cleveland area clubs fell short of that number as well. 


One other note on this subject is that the 45 number has to take place over an 8 year period.  I can tell you that a whole lot can and does change in an 8 year span.  Not to say that I would expect panelists to cover 45 evaluations in a 2 year span or something of the like, but I would think that more courses would drop out when that number goes up to 70.

Not just pay for play anymore Bill
At Outpost Digest you gotta be a frequent flyer
and that's just one magazine!
Tough to get to 70 ratings + other magazines when all the raters are somehow only available July 4th weekend-especially the ones with a 516 area code (Long Island)

[Bill McKinley]

Great thread here guys.  Lot's of good stuff in here.


I can tell you with 100% certainty that we at Canterbury did not get to that number of 45 evaluations.  And I would suspect that some other worthy Cleveland area clubs fell short of that number as well. 


One other note on this subject is that the 45 number has to take place over an 8 year period.  I can tell you that a whole lot can and does change in an 8 year span.  Not to say that I would expect panelists to cover 45 evaluations in a 2 year span or something of the like, but I would think that more courses would drop out when that number goes up to 70.

Not just pay for play anymore Bill
At Outpost Digest you gotta be a frequent flyer
and that's just one magazine!
Tough to get to 70 ratings + other magazines when all the raters are somehow only available July 4th weekend-especially the ones with a 516 area code (Long Island)

I hear that!  Or the other side of it is they try to come out in April and end up playing on a wet, cold day... now how's that going to reflect a ranking??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()