Magazine rating and raters throughout the world

[Peter Pallotta]

I've often complained about and criticized the endless parade of rankings/ratings, but I've never derided or disrespected any individual rater or any one person's personal rankings. Can everyone see why? It's because when a Sean or a Tom or a Tommy W lists for me the courses he thinks best, he is *sharing* with me his experience and tastes and expertise; whereas when a for-profit magazine performs some alchemical transmutation of subjective feelings into supposed objective numbers it is *telling* me something, or more accurately, *selling* me something. The former is an act of generosity by a fellow lover of the game and its fields of play, while the latter is the increasingly cynical and desperate ploy of yet another corporation trying to make money off the game, even if they have to steal it

[James Bennett]

Golf Australia uses a panel of 20 regular golfers from around the country.
Their names are published, but only the group outcome is shown.

James B

[Sean_A]

Sean: 


Yes, that's life, but on a small panel supposedly full of independent thinkers it's not really ideal ... especially in a system where only a few votes are necessary to make a list.  It lowers the threshold for "favors".


Also, I can say with some experience that golf professionals do not particularly like dealing with groups of 2-3 raters instead of just one at a time ... it's harder for them to exercise their prerogative.

There is no perfect or right system to rate courses.  I personally think your approach is the best if there can't be a Michelin Guide system.  A small band of folks who are somewhat like minded willing to get around.  Even then, there are courses you miss, even when they are seen because there simply isn't the time to do each "eligible" course justice.  Plus, tastes change over time and of course your purpose is not to rank courses, but to make recommendations (I wish this approach was much more adhered to and that you never used the numbers to suggest best to worst)...so there will always be weird little places popping up.  I think a team of 10 is probably more like it, but then the text aspect gets gets thinned out too much...I think this is the case even for three people.  We just have to accept the inherent limitations of rankings or choose not to and move along. At the end of the day, I don't think this stuff is important.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Interesting comments on group think in terms of GCA. Speaking from a UK perspective I've long thought that there is also group think in terms of nationality or more accurately what you were brought up with impacts on the way you assess the course. For instance there are certain courses over here which overseas visitors rave about but which "locals" don't rate nearly as highly.


Niall   

[Sean_A]

Niall

I spose you could say the same thing about locals and how they have been influenced by what they watch on tv.  It is often said that locals think The New Course is better than The Old Course.  I have no idea if this is true, but man that is a shock to my system for it to even be contemplated. 

There is a supposed dichotomy between

Cruden Bay and Royal Aberdeen...Very different, but quality wise very similar...prefer the unsual CB offers

St Enodoc and Trevose...it rips my golfing soul to think anybody would pick Trevose over St E

Prestwick and Troon...you know what I think

West Links and Muirfield...you know what I think

Lahinch and Ballybunion...very similar in quality from my perspective...prefer the unusual Lahinch offers

Sandwich and Deal...odd one in that Deal is a bit more funky, but the out n' back routing is mundane..I take Sandwich

Walton Heath Old and New...both have their moments of the unusual, but it is the non-Fowler and more conventional stuff which makes WHO stand out

Sunny Old & New...neither is funky, but Old probably pips it, however I take the playability of the Old as the real reason I prefer it

In most cases I plop for the unusual and away from the more mundane.  The highs far outweigh the lows. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean

That's it. I think there are different lots of group think and yes, lot's of "locals" do prefer the New over the Old, RA over Cruden Bay, Nairn over Dornoch etc. That's basically what I was getting at. It's not that the courses aren't good but one group has a preference for one course and another group has a preference for another course. What tends to link the people each group is where they come from/where they were brought up/learned their golf.

Following that through to the rankings, for example I’d suggest that RD wouldn't be anywhere near as high up the UK produced rankings as it finds itself in US produced rankings. NB now appears to be going the same way. I'd throw in another factor that amplifies this and that is herd instinct. Once someone from a group champions a course the rest tend to follow. Basically Tom Watson discovered RD for America and now Ran and others are championing NB.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever but there does seem to be a clear differential in thinking for different groups.

Niall   

[Sean_A]

Sure Niall, some people influence groups more than others.  That said, guys like Doak and Ran put in the time and I believe whether many agree or not, can defend their choices quite well in most cases.  In short, these guys have street cred beyond the vast majority.  We all pick the people we most agree with to find new courses and rediscover old courses. 


Dornoch is an interesting case, as is TOC.  There is quite a bit about both courses which don't sit well me, but the highs or so high that it more than makes up for the lows.  It also helps that when the lows are looked at in detail, that aren't all that low!  Its just that compared to the highs they seem to be lows.


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

No worries guys.  Jim Franklin is going to finally post the correct Top 100 list so no one has to worry and argue about this anymore.  This should have been done long ago as it would have saved endless threads on the topic.  I just can't believe how much interest these lists create in the golfing world?  Even a group as knowledgable and as well traveled as the one here just can't stop talking about them.  It is a shame the magazines that do them don't realize this   

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Golf Magazine is the only magazine with a proper panel to rate the best courses in the world. Look no further than people like Ran and their excellent editor to support my argument. They are also the only mag that proudly publishes the names of all their raters. For good reason considering these guys don't need a card or a magazine affiliation to get access.

Throw me a bone I have to bite...
But selecting a magazine whose last world rankings resulted in somewhat of a controversy and the loss of one of its most respected panelists does not exactly make me think it should be held up as a positive example.
The fact that Ran...who we all respect....is on that panel does not make it all that is good.
I think even he was rather embarrassed by some of the feedback following its publication, not that I am in any way speaking on his behalf.
Publishing names of a panel does not exempt a pane l from still coming up with some rather bizarre rankings.


If I was going to hold two above all others it would be the beloved Confidentisl guides mode of "rating" or. That of Planet Golf both of which do indeed " publish" the panelists and are very open in expressing personal potential biases.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Hey John, are you still related by marriage to that editor?

Proudly so. Never afraid to throw a bone for the holidays. Give Joe credit, he never offered me a ratership. That's when I knew he was legit.

Either that, or he didn't want to risk his job over your behavior, which would make him a wise man!  Tell him I said hi!

+1

[John Kavanaugh]

I made it easy for Joe considering I had never played overseas last time we spoke.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Golf Magazine is the only magazine with a proper panel to rate the best courses in the world. Look no further than people like Ran and their excellent editor to support my argument. They are also the only mag that proudly publishes the names of all their raters. For good reason considering these guys don't need a card or a magazine affiliation to get access.

I am confused...
On another thread you suggest only raters remaining anonymous is the way to go?
But I guess Golf Magazine  is exempt from that criteria?

[John Kavanaugh]

The Golf Magazine panel access courses because of who they are and what they have contributed to society and the golfing world. They are anonymous raters in that respect. The magazine publishes their names because it makes the magazine look good.

[Richard Fisher]

Not wishing to prolong this thread unduly, it seems nonetheless only fair to point out that on page 51 of this month's (UK) Golf Monthly full details are given of the 36-strong panel responsible for the latter's Top 100 Courses, with ages, handicaps, and status (whether 'senior', 'senior advisory', 'staff' or 'reader' (of which latter category there are 20 named)). 
The one thing that stands out straightaway in the GM listing - as of course seems largely true of GCA - is the lack of any female presence. A question of genuine ignorance - and one to which the American and non-American answers may well be different - has there ever been a Course Ranking list prioritising the playing attributes and preferences of lady golfers?

[Tom_Doak]

The one thing that stands out straightaway in the GM listing - as of course seems largely true of GCA - is the lack of any female presence. A question of genuine ignorance - and one to which the American and non-American answers may well be different - has there ever been a Course Ranking list prioritising the playing attributes and preferences of lady golfers?

Richard:


It's a great question and one I tried to answer via the GOLF Magazine panel years ago.


At my suggestion, we had several women on the panel, and I think they still do:  among them at the time were Judy Bell the former USGA president, Marlene Streit the great Canadian amateur, Alice Dye [although she and Pete only filled out one ballot between them], the photographer JoAnn Dost, and 3-4 of the leading LPGA players at any given time.  Their opinions of great courses were markedly different than those of the men.  There were a few championship courses they had absolutely no time for.  Their games are so different than ours [much much straighter off the tee, but less inventive around the greens] that it would have to change their perspective on what's good.


Note, too, that nearly all the women who did participate in the rankings were very good players who generally played from the men's tees, so even when we included them in the process, it didn't really make the forward tees a factor in the rankings at all.


I wished we'd had a big enough group to break out a separate ranking just from the women -- I think we did print their top ten at one point, in a sidebar -- but we never really had enough of them to cover lesser-known courses.  Even the women we did have had generally seen only half as many of the courses on the ballot as the men had, and there were quite a few top-100 courses that had one or no votes from the women ... not just Garden City and Butler National.


EDIT - Oh, I forgot to mention that there is a U.S. magazine called Golf For Women -- not sure if it's still around -- that did their own top 100 list years ago with an all-woman panel.  That list was VERY different than any of the ones we usually talk about here.  I'll see if I can find it, it would be a good discussion point.

[Tom_Doak]

Lo and behold, here is one women's ranking, by the editors of GOLF DIGEST WOMAN.  [Didn't know it existed.]  It is pretty light on details of how they did the ranking, other than a list of disqualifiers -- the course had to have at least two sets of tees rated for women's play, and one of them had to be under 5,300 yards.  The article makes it seem that other non-golf factors were also considered -- which I think they must be if a course like The Golf Club of Newcastle in Seattle is making their top ten!


link:  http://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women-2011-06



I only had one course in the women's top 50 -- Old Macdonald at #3 -- so according to them I don't do as well for women as for the men.  I'm surprised by that because I get a lot of compliments from women about our work.  We do try hard to position tees correctly [because I still have Mrs. Dye looking over my shoulder], but they also love fast fairways which give them more chance to reach greens in regulation.  And we have worked in some pretty places!

[Mike Sweeney]

link:  http://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women-2011-06



I only had one course in the women's top 50 -- Old Macdonald at #3 -- so according to them I don't do as well for women as for the men. 

Tom,

Not sure you should promote that list!! That is a weird list!

I had a personal record on Queenstown Harbor (!!), but it is hard to say much/anything about the course other than it is a "Matt Ward Florida Special".

I stayed at Monarch Beach (CA) and played 2-3 courses in the area based on a former GCA poster recommendations. Never thought twice about walking through the course to the beach....

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The Golf Magazine panel access courses because of who they are and what they have contributed to society and the golfing world. They are anonymous raters in that respect. The magazine publishes their names because it makes the magazine look good.

This is a joke right?
What's the punch line
That may well apply to many on that list who take their position on that list diligently, but let's not pretend that then becomes the final ratings list...no one on here is that naive
I suggest you leave this topic alone with you obvious bias

[Richard Fisher]

Dear Tom,

Thanks so much. Very interesting indeed. If you look at the list of host venues for what used to be called The Ladies' Championship but is now more correctly termed the British Ladies Amateur Golf Championship, you will see an amazingly GCA-friendly cohort of courses, including (say) North Berwick and Broadstone and Aberdovey and Silloth, as well as the more obvious 'British Championship Courses' like St Andrews and Formby and Royal County Down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ladies_Amateur_Golf_Championship

gives the complete listing since 1893, and may need to be taken with a tiny pinch of salt: it contains at least two errors (the 1959 championship was not held at Royal Ascot, but at the Berkshire, and the 1964 event likewise was not at Royal St George's but at its Sandwich neighbour, Prince's). The overall point nonetheless stands, firmly!

[V_Halyard]

Lo and behold, here is one women's ranking, by the editors of GOLF DIGEST WOMAN.  [Didn't know it existed.]  It is pretty light on details of how they did the ranking, other than a list of disqualifiers -- the course had to have at least two sets of tees rated for women's play, and one of them had to be under 5,300 yards.  The article makes it seem that other non-golf factors were also considered -- which I think they must be if a course like The Golf Club of Newcastle in Seattle is making their top ten!


link:  http://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women-2011-06



I only had one course in the women's top 50 -- Old Macdonald at #3 -- so according to them I don't do as well for women as for the men.  I'm surprised by that because I get a lot of compliments from women about our work.  We do try hard to position tees correctly [because I still have Mrs. Dye looking over my shoulder], but they also love fast fairways which give them more chance to reach greens in regulation.  And we have worked in some pretty places!

If I remember correctly, I think Stina S.made a go of trying to elevate the editorial but was "encouraged" to soften it into a fashionista travelogue and was told to dumb it down. (Error)

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Many years ago I played Ashridge. I had coffee with the Secretary afterwards and he told me they were very cross that they had been thrown off the Golf Monthly top 100 list. They had been thrown off without anyone official having visited the course. That was what made him cross.