We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings

[Joe Sponcia]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

[BHoover]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

[Kalen Braley]

In many ways it seems demanding raters to be low single digit is the complete wrong way to go about it.


If most golfers are double digits with an average or 15 and 16, wouldn't a mid teen capper be more representative of how a course is setup and how they interface it as opposed to a low digit which only represents a tiny minority of players who will play it?


Think about the 200 yard bunker....a low digit who flies it 250-260 probably doesn't even hardly notice it whereas the vast majority of average golfers will certainly notice it.


Or the water hazard thats 10 yards left of a green.  A good player will hardly even give it a thought but the average joe with much more variable misses sure as hell will and factor it in on thier next shot.


Seems to me if courses are to be ranked, then it should be from a majority perspective, not a handful of good players who can swing a club more consistently than most...

[JMEvensky]

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.

Serious question--do the members really care about the magazines' rankings? Canterbury is certainly a historically significant club. Would a magazine ranking really change the members' perceptions? Do members resign if the golf course gets a lower ranking?


I'm not trying to be a prick, I just can't understand why a membership would ever care about the opinions of people whose imprimatur,for the most part,is worthless.

[jeffwarne]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

aah Joe, clearly some have not experienced your own specialty tongue-in-cheek taco delights

[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.

Serious question--do the members really care about the magazines' rankings? Canterbury is certainly a historically significant club. Would a magazine ranking really change the members' perceptions? Do members resign if the golf course gets a lower ranking?


I'm not trying to be a prick, I just can't understand why a membership would ever care about the opinions of people whose imprimatur,for the most part,is worthless.

In my scenario, some of the members here care, some don't.  Not to the point of leaving the club by any means but all of the members are proud of their club and they no how great of a golf course they have, and those who care about the rankings want to see the "recognition" in the magazine.  I have done a couple articles for our club newsletter about the rankings how they are certainly not an exact science, but just something to look at and talk about during the winter.  But those articles have certainly sparked more conversations than some of my other historical pieces that I've done.

[BHoover]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

aah Joe, clearly some have not experienced your own specialty tongue-in-cheek taco delights

Oh I get it. I just wanted to be sure to point it out too.

[jeffwarne]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

aah Joe, clearly some have not experienced your own specialty tongue-in-cheek taco delights

Oh I get it. I just wanted to be sure to point it out too.

Well it could be worse. The Alotian could have bad tacos....
If I'm paying $1000 initiation +$250 dues -the tacos better be good...

[BHoover]

Hopefully clubs like the Alotian will continue to rise.  Compelling pictures.  I bet their locally-sourced fish tacos with orange remoulade are off the charts.

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

aah Joe, clearly some have not experienced your own specialty tongue-in-cheek taco delights

Oh I get it. I just wanted to be sure to point it out too.

Well it could be worse. The Alotian could have bad tacos....
If I'm paying $1000 initiation +$250 dues -the tacos better be good...

Exactly, good tacos are a must.

[Ted Sturges]

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.

 
Glad Seth Raynor wasn't around for consideration on Whitten's esteemed panel.  He would have been sent packing due to not having the ability to shoot a golf score which Whitten deems to make him knowledgeable enough on golf architecture to evaluate and rate golf courses.   

[Tom_Doak]

Serious question--do the members really care about the magazines' rankings?

Unfortunately, yes they do.  I have seen and/or heard members and green committee people fret about their club's place in the rankings at courses like Seminole, San Francisco Golf Club, Crystal Downs, and others well up in the top 50.


At the one I know best, Crystal Downs, thirty years ago it was unranked and no one cared a bit.  But now that it's ranked so highly, members take pride in it, and are concerned if it slips even a little bit.  They couch their language in terms of "being sure to preserve the course for the next generation," but it's clearly at least partly about bragging rights, too.

[John McCarthy]

"statistically beyond reproach"


That is a phrase that would make Nick Taleb do away with himself. 


A very large biased n is still very biased. 


There is no way to make a perfect ranking of golf courses, other than by score.  There are courses with perfect service and agreeable members that I love versus indifferent public courses which made me want to walk directly from the eighteenth green to the first tee for a replay.  Humans being humans there is no way to tease it out.  And I'm the effort claiming statistical significance is a lie. 

[Carl Rogers]

In the past, I have always disqualified myself as a rater-ranker. 


...........If I volunteered, would ANGC & Pine Valley let me have around there?  That prospect seems remote.

[V. Kmetz]

Imagine an old horse, with sores and discolorations, lying on it's side, barely able to muster enough protest to raise its neck and give some whinny cries...


This board is whipping that horse, mercilessly, with its nostril's flaring and a furrowed brow.


Just make your own list of courses you like...for fuck's sake.


cheers
vk

[Greg Tallman]

What is the obsession with tacos and remoulade? What do things like tacos, remoulade, or the type of water in the tee box coolers have to do with rankings?

LOL, Far more than you care to know but somewhat less than... I should stop.   

[Frank M]

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??

Bill, I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but I can tell you with certainty that there are more than a few on the GW panel who I know that would not be impacted by a wet, cold day in April.

[Bill McKinley]

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??

Bill, I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but I can tell you with certainty that there are more than a few on the GW panel who I know that would not be impacted by a wet, cold day in April.

I believe you Frank and that's great to hear.


Best,
Bill

[Garland Bayley]

In many ways it seems demanding raters to be low single digit is the complete wrong way to go about it.


If most golfers are double digits with an average or 15 and 16, wouldn't a mid teen capper be more representative of how a course is setup and how they interface it as opposed to a low digit which only represents a tiny minority of players who will play it?


Think about the 200 yard bunker....a low digit who flies it 250-260 probably doesn't even hardly notice it whereas the vast majority of average golfers will certainly notice it.


Or the water hazard thats 10 yards left of a green.  A good player will hardly even give it a thought but the average joe with much more variable misses sure as hell will and factor it in on thier next shot.


Seems to me if courses are to be ranked, then it should be from a majority perspective, not a handful of good players who can swing a club more consistently than most...

If you talk to a low handicapper about removing a tree from the course to enhance playing options, they will tell you that you can't remove the tree, because it is there to penalize the wild hitting players.


The last thing we need is golf course raters with handicaps of 5 or less.

[Garland Bayley]

Serious question--do the members really care about the magazines' rankings?

Unfortunately, yes they do.  I have seen and/or heard members and green committee people fret about their club's place in the rankings at courses like Seminole, San Francisco Golf Club, Crystal Downs, and others well up in the top 50.


At the one I know best, Crystal Downs, thirty years ago it was unranked and no one cared a bit.  But now that it's ranked so highly, members take pride in it, and are concerned if it slips even a little bit.  They couch their language in terms of "being sure to preserve the course for the next generation," but it's clearly at least partly about bragging rights, too.

And I have had people tell me they quit a club, because all they wanted to do is spend more money to get the rating higher.

[jeffwarne]

In many ways it seems demanding raters to be low single digit is the complete wrong way to go about it.


If most golfers are double digits with an average or 15 and 16, wouldn't a mid teen capper be more representative of how a course is setup and how they interface it as opposed to a low digit which only represents a tiny minority of players who will play it?


Think about the 200 yard bunker....a low digit who flies it 250-260 probably doesn't even hardly notice it whereas the vast majority of average golfers will certainly notice it.


Or the water hazard thats 10 yards left of a green.  A good player will hardly even give it a thought but the average joe with much more variable misses sure as hell will and factor it in on thier next shot.


Seems to me if courses are to be ranked, then it should be from a majority perspective, not a handful of good players who can swing a club more consistently than most...

If you talk to a low handicapper about removing a tree from the course to enhance playing options, they will tell you that you can't remove the tree, because it is there to penalize the wild hitting players.


The last thing we need is golf course raters with handicaps of 5 or less.

If someone with a 5 handicap or less applies, pays their $1000 Initiation fee and $250 annual Golf Outpost Digest dues,
are they in?
Any experience or training needed?

[Steve Lapper]

If someone with a 5 handicap or less applies, pays their $1000 Initiation fee and $250 annual Golf Outpost Digest dues,
are they in?
Any experience or training needed?

Jeff,


  Only mandatory ability is typing. Can be "hunt and peck" or speed! :1)


   I believe they require corrected vision. Lasik preferable.

[Garland Bayley]

I finally saw the GD article for the first time yesterday. I notice that they give double weight to shot values. My (too often mistaken) recollection was that they used to give double weight to resistance to scoring. Anyone know if this is truly a change?

[Mark Saltzman]

I finally saw the GD article for the first time yesterday. I notice that they give double weight to shot values. My (too often mistaken) recollection was that they used to give double weight to resistance to scoring. Anyone know if this is truly a change?

Not a change. Your recollection is mistaken.

[Garland Bayley]

I finally saw the GD article for the first time yesterday. I notice that they give double weight to shot values. My (too often mistaken) recollection was that they used to give double weight to resistance to scoring. Anyone know if this is truly a change?

Not a change. Your recollection is mistaken.

Thanks Mark