Why GD's ranking system is detrimental to the game of golf

[Andy Johnson]

Figured you all would enjoy this. I dove into why GD's rankings are bad for the game of golf. Thanks to Jon C. for all the great shots of some of GD's snubs.


http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/golf-digest-bad-ratings

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:


Your article has "Aesthetics" listed twice in the list of categories used by GOLF DIGEST.

[Andy Johnson]

Andy:


Your article has "Aesthetics" listed twice in the list of categories used by GOLF DIGEST.

Thank you!

[jeffwarne]

Andy:


Your article has "Aesthetics" listed twice in the list of categories used by GOLF DIGEST.

only twice?

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:


Your article has "Aesthetics" listed twice in the list of categories used by GOLF DIGEST.

only twice?

Well, unfortunately, many panelists' score for Conditioning also boils down to how good the course looks.

[Mark Saltzman]

Golf digest says it wants firm and fast and gca still doesn't like its definition of conditioning because it might have rained ?

[Andy Johnson]

2 easiest criteria for an uneducated rater to judge a course off of is difficulty and conditioning. Sad.


Overall I love Tom's Scale think it's the proper way to discuss golf courses. But for the general public rankings will always be the main driver. Just need the system to be bulletproof. Golf Digest's is laughable.

[Tom_Doak]

Golf digest says it wants firm and fast and gca still doesn't like its definition of conditioning because it might have rained ?

How they define it and how they vote still look like two different things, to me.  I've looked at the conditioning scores for my own courses on occasion, and their panelists' evaluation of conditioning is way different than mine.  Unfortunately, there aren't any conditioning numbers printed in the magazine to prove or disprove my point.

[Mark Saltzman]

Golf digest says it wants firm and fast and gca still doesn't like its definition of conditioning because it might have rained ?

How they define it and how they vote still look like two different things, to me.  I've looked at the conditioning scores for my own courses on occasion, and their panelists' evaluation of conditioning is way different than mine.  Unfortunately, there aren't any conditioning numbers printed in the magazine to prove or disprove my point.

Tom, I agree and written that exact thing before. Some, maybe many, Panelists are hung up on the old definition and the ratings suffer as a result, but the article linked isn't talking about that issue, it's talking about the definition.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't have any problem with their definition of conditioning, now, except for their inability to get their panelists to use it.  But I'm still not convinced that conditioning should be a factor in the rankings at all, or at least to the point where people are rating it from 1 to 10.  If the course isn't in reasonable shape to play golf, just mark it down on Shot Values ... they are probably doing that anyway.

[BCowan]

The State top 25 GD is what really hurts places especially 2nd tier privates with a solid course.  Those ranking are off the charts horrible.  A friend of mine who is a pro had disagreements with a panelist, he had the audacity to question some of the rankings in a professional manner.  No raters have been back since.  It's sad. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Golf digest says it wants firm and fast and gca still doesn't like its definition of conditioning because it might have rained ?

Mark,


To me this what's fundamentally wrong with considering conditioning in any ranking. A golf course is a living, breathing thing. Depending on the climate, a super may be able to bring the course to "ideal" conditions for two periods a year. Depending on the weather, you may not get the "best" course to play on the day you show up to play your one round you'll use to enter a number for the course. (Thus what golfers hear so often: "you should've played these greens last week.")


The rest of the year, I think you have to grade on a curve--if the point is to assess how well a super (and team) does given the circumstances. I guess I see a "conditioning" score as a measure of the super's aptitude.


Even if you disagree with that, how can anyone accurately judge a course's condition by making ONE visit? How can this be accurate? Even multiple rater assessments don't solve this problem: you either get amplified extremes (everyone visits during peak season) or garbage (average of drastically different experiences from across the year).


Meanwhile the actual architecture is the architecture: unchanging from day to day.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I don't understand why extreme conditioning, either good or bad, which either highlights or detracts from the architecture can't be a criteria.  I think the category should only be used in unusual circumsances and that the rater should understand the climate and recent weather. 

That said, I think it is more important to incorporate conditioning into a presentation category whereby it is determined if conditioning, rough, trees, fairway width etc are helping or hindering architecture.  More and more I am finding courses which are not what they should be because the architecture is compromised by presentation.  Hence my theory that I would rather play a good course well presented than a great course poorly presented. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean,

You make good points but to me that is more like a conditioning "plan" than actual conditioning. Like we talk about proper grasses for links: meadow grasses are wrong but it's not like one day you show up and get rye, the next day fescue.

There will be some of the plan in the ground, sure. But is that what raters rate? I thought they rate just the actual conditioning on the day they visit.

If a system's designer, like Ron Whitten for example, decided to change his personal preferences of what makes for a "great" golf course along these lines (and he still believed in a reductionist approach), then wouldn't he move conditioning from a criterion to a constraint? In other words, require his raters to note only whether minimum standards were met, answering either yes or no?

(I think when you go down this road you end up with a better, more honest definition of conditioning that 90%+ of any panel, no matter how smart, would screw up.)

[Jeff_Brauer]

As I commented on another thread, my sense is that GD put the system in place many years ago, and for consistency sake, stick to it.  Who knows, they might not believe all of it, might think some could change, and might instruct panelists to consider each ranking in a new light (such as environmentalism, for instance).


As I read the article, I found myself wondering if thousands of golfers really do look to it for advice?  I am a fairly sophisticated golfer, having played or toured 66 of the new top 100, but even I don't use the lists in particular.  For one, most of the top 100 are very private and off limits, and I am not enough of an access whore to go out of my way to see them. I hope, if for whatever reason, if I am in their area, I can get on for golf or a tour, but that's about it.


Second, at some point, Andy mentions the 15 handicapper, in dissing the resistance to scoring criteria (which has to be legacy from the original lists) Okay, but I get the impression that ambiance, experience, service, etc. really are components of how the typical 15 capper views a course and its greatness!


Are you telling me that a group of golfers going to my Giant's Ridge (not in the list) can't call that trip an enjoyable success because its not on the top 100 list (although not long ago, it had the points, but not the raters numbers to be on it....)  What about all the Joe Six Packs who go to Myrtle Beach and enjoy the heck out of all those Willard Byrd courses?


I would love some statistical proof to the assumption that the 100 Greatest Lists somehow misguide 15 handicappers to go to the "wrong" places.  Obviously, all the courses not on the list probably complain about golfers heading away from their course in droves, but I doubt the Top 100 have substantially more - and probably have a lot less - play than courses more geographically suited to a region, ones priced better, easier to get to, and yes, with prettier beer girls.


Short version, if nothing else, the where to play, and "what do I think" decisions are many shades of gray, and the lists play a small part.


Shorter version....lists are what they are.

[Andy Johnson]

Very interesting and insightful thoughts Jeff.


I think that the Golf Digest top 100 has a tremendous impact on what people think is good and bad also on how the regular guy plans trips. Before I started the fried egg I was working about 90 hours a week. I had little time for life let alone researching, reading, studying golf courses. I used the lists as a resource to plan golf excursions. I would often find myself disappointed in golf courses.


I think the majority of relatively serious golfers will consult a list like Golf Digest's if they are looking to play somewhere in another state. They don't come here, they go there and that's the problem.


The more I have thought about it, using the Golf Digest list as a travel resource is similar to when you see a 20 handicap taking a range lesson from a 15.


Unfortunately, many golfers who are passionate about the sport but only commit time to playing the game don't realize that is the case.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You make good points but to me that is more like a conditioning "plan" than actual conditioning. Like we talk about proper grasses for links: meadow grasses are wrong but it's not like one day you show up and get rye, the next day fescue.

There will be some of the plan in the ground, sure. But is that what raters rate? I thought they rate just the actual conditioning on the day they visit.

If a system's designer, like Ron Whitten for example, decided to change his personal preferences of what makes for a "great" golf course along these lines (and he still believed in a reductionist approach), then wouldn't he move conditioning from a criterion to a constraint? In other words, require his raters to note only whether minimum standards were met, answering either yes or no?

(I think when you go down this road you end up with a better, more honest definition of conditioning that 90%+ of any panel, no matter how smart, would screw up.)

Thats an idea Mark.  I am far more concerned with how a course is presented than the condition it is in, but I do think condition is part of presentation.  I understand that most people would say presentation (rough, trees, fairway width) is part of architecture and maybe they are right. Somehow, I don't think its quite the same thing or at least its a different aspect of architecture which should be looked at in correlation with the proper architecture and its intent.  All I know is how a course is presented is incredibly important.  We have seen a night and day reaction when trees are cleared out at many courses. That reaction, while it may be based quite a bit on aesthetics, often does impact playability and how a course can be played and in the end greatly change cnsitioning practices to better suit the new presentation.  They all fit together very tightly whereby its difficult to pull at one string without unraveling the entire ball.  Bottom line, I don't go for Doak's method of mentally seeing what a courses should look like and therefore give the architecture a break.  Hence the reason you and I differed so much on Ganton.  You focused almost solely on the architecture and I kept saying the architecture is severely compromised by the presentation.  That said, Addington and Beau Desert are probably two of the worst offenders for this problem.  Just to confuse things, at least Ganton was in absolutely top nick even if the presentation didn't support it or the architecture.


Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:


Here's why I don't like when raters try to judge conditioning:


I've recently started consulting at Bel Air.  In a meeting, several members asked me why their course couldn't be in the same sort of condition as the club they belong to in Palm Desert, The Vintage Club.


I explained to them that The Vintage Club was a ryegrass surface that was over seeded every fall so it would be a rich deep green ... but to do that, the club closes for six weeks each fall.  They weren't judging it on a day-in, day-out basis, like they do Bel Air; they were judging it in a vacuum, based on the three months a year they get out there.


That's why I think having amateurs [even guys who know golf] rate conditioning can lead to poor results.  They just don't know what they don't know.

[John Kirk]

Sean:

Here's why I don't like when raters try to judge conditioning:

I've recently started consulting at Bel Air.  In a meeting, several members asked me why their course couldn't be in the same sort of condition as the club they belong to in Palm Desert, The Vintage Club.

I explained to them that The Vintage Club was a ryegrass surface that was over seeded every fall so it would be a rich deep green ... but to do that, the club closes for six weeks each fall.  They weren't judging it on a day-in, day-out basis, like they do Bel Air; they were judging it in a vacuum, based on the three months a year they get out there.

That's why I think having amateurs [even guys who know golf] rate conditioning can lead to poor results.  They just don't know what they don't know.

Forgive me in advance, but in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" that bias is referred to as WYSIALTI, or What You See Is All There Is.

I think conditioning should be considered, but understand there are obstacles to establishing a reasonable value.

[Dave McCollum]

I think the majority of relatively serious golfers will consult a list like Golf Digest's if they are looking to play somewhere in another state. They don't come here, they go there and that's the problem.

I think the vast majority of golfers, serious or not, don't care about and don't remember the lists.  It takes a certain kind of golfer to focus on collecting courses just as it takes a certain golfer who can't play unless he keeps score, knows how many putts taken, or a dozen other compulsive behaviors.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's a big world and play golf for whatever reason gets one out.  Outside of the biz, I can't think of a golfer that cares about these ratings as much as so many here.  That's their thing and enjoy it.  You can really have a discussion of what you really like without being subjective, emotional, and, for better or worse, some sort of ranking framework for perspective.

I avoid these discussions because I view them as arbitrary at best and, perhaps, don't feel qualified to comment based on why I like golf .  Do I look at the lists or this site when deciding where to play?  Yes I do, with a great deal of skepticism.  Just today somebody invited me to play Bermuda Dunes next week.  I asked why there?  Because another member of our group deceased parents were members there and this would be a trip down memory lane for him, a very good friend of ours.  For me, that's a excellent reason even though I'd never pick that course myself.  Big world theory:  something special could happen...or not.   Doesn't matter, we play for our own reasons.  And in this example, screw skepticism and go with sentimental.               

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Here's why I don't like when raters try to judge conditioning:

I've recently started consulting at Bel Air.  In a meeting, several members asked me why their course couldn't be in the same sort of condition as the club they belong to in Palm Desert, The Vintage Club.

I explained to them that The Vintage Club was a ryegrass surface that was over seeded every fall so it would be a rich deep green ... but to do that, the club closes for six weeks each fall.  They weren't judging it on a day-in, day-out basis, like they do Bel Air; they were judging it in a vacuum, based on the three months a year they get out there.

That's why I think having amateurs [even guys who know golf] rate conditioning can lead to poor results.  They just don't know what they don't know.

Forgive me in advance, but in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" that bias is referred to as WYSIALTI, or What You See Is All There Is.

I think conditioning should be considered, but understand there are obstacles to establishing a reasonable value.

Yes John, but I would take it one step further and say only considered when we find extreme conditions. I think given all the circumstances/variales there must be a wide level of tolerance. Even in this case the category should only be minor unless we know for certain from repeated visits that there is something terribly wrong or extraordinarily right. For example, I hammer Beau Desert, Addington and Huntercombe due to long term presentation issues which effect design and playability.  I have seen those courses plenty of times over many years and in many seasons to know the story.  But this approach also feeds the idea of multiple
plays before submiting a review...which I like.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

I don't have any problem with their definition of conditioning, now, except for their inability to get their panelists to use it.  But I'm still not convinced that conditioning should be a factor in the rankings at all, or at least to the point where people are rating it from 1 to 10.  If the course isn't in reasonable shape to play golf, just mark it down on Shot Values ... they are probably doing that anyway.

Which courses, specifically, do you think are over/under rated on conditioning?  What are their conditioning scores and how do you think the panelists have erred in assigning that score?

I don't know of a panelist nor do I see how a panelist would include conditioning into Shot Values as the two categories are evaluating two entirely different things. 

[Andy Johnson]

I don't have any problem with their definition of conditioning, now, except for their inability to get their panelists to use it.  But I'm still not convinced that conditioning should be a factor in the rankings at all, or at least to the point where people are rating it from 1 to 10.  If the course isn't in reasonable shape to play golf, just mark it down on Shot Values ... they are probably doing that anyway.

Which courses, specifically, do you think are over/under rated on conditioning?  What are their conditioning scores and how do you think the panelists have erred in assigning that score?

I don't know of a panelist nor do I see how a panelist would include conditioning into Shot Values as the two categories are evaluating two entirely different things.

I spoke with a few panelists before writing this piece. One of them recalled his experience at Fox Chapel during the week of this year's US Open. As you recall it rained a good 5 inches. He played Fox Chapel on a Friday, they couldn't mow, it was soggy, standing water. He said to me, how could I score it high given their criteria's definition?


That is the problem is rating conditioning, so much of it is out of the course's hands.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joseph Campbell tells of one version of the 'slaying the dragon' myth. On each scale of the dragon you slay is written a 'thou shalt', ie a proscripton/prescription from the outer world that, adhered to, blinds you to your own unique inner light.
Find your top 10, or at most ask a trusted friend for his. But to set your lights by the suppossed wisdom and objectivity of a collective view, of 'the world's' view is to embrace the thou shalts like a child does/is forced to instead of stepping into your mature self as Nature intends.

[BHoover]

Joseph Campbell tells of one version of the 'slaying the dragon' myth. On each scale of the dragon you slay is written a 'thou shalt', ie a proscripton/prescription from the outer world that, adhered to, blinds you to your own unique inner light.
Find your top 10, or at most ask a trusted friend for his. But to set your lights by the suppossed wisdom and objectivity of a collective view, of 'the world's' view is to embrace the thou shalts like a child does/is forced to instead of stepping into your mature self as Nature intends.

I'm sorry but I have no clue what in the hell this means. Could you please explain it like I'm a 6-year old, who speaks English? Thank you.