[jeffwarne]

No one has the time, but I think it would be interesting/instructive for these 10 posters to do the GD rating exercise with their favourite 10 courses (ie essentially, to become the GD panel for a day):
Jim Sullivan
Jay Mickle
Bob Crosby
Ben Cowan (Michigan)
Mark Saltzman
Jeff Warne
Joe Hancock
John Kavanaugh
Terry Lavin
Kyle Harris

I'll bite-and bear with me as I'm only slightly tongue in cheek
Using their very redundant guidelines and my subjectivity

Shelter Island CC-circa not this year!
Shot values-10 have to drive it well, have runups, hit long irons, judge blind shots, putt well on very challenging greens and have an exemplary imaginative short game
Resistance to scoring 8 (10 if you can't hit a runup off a supertight lie, can't judge a blind shots and can't putt super sloped greens)
Design variety 10-there's nothing like it
Memorability 10 you never forget the Goat
Aesthetics-9 beautiful old barnlike simple clubhouse overlooking the Peconic and back bay of Shelter Island
Conditioning-10 firm and fast fairway and true green
Ambiance 10-nothing better and a good restaurant-playing it followed by Fisher's the next 2 days


Most people would hate it

[David Davis]

No one has the time, but I think it would be interesting/instructive for these 10 posters to do the GD rating exercise with their favourite 10 courses (ie essentially, to become the GD panel for a day):
Jim Sullivan
Jay Mickle
Bob Crosby
Ben Cowan (Michigan)
Mark Saltzman
Jeff Warne
Joe Hancock
John Kavanaugh
Terry Lavin
Kyle Harris

I'll bite-and bear with me as I'm only slightly tongue in cheek
Using their very redundant guidelines and my subjectivity

Shelter Island CC-circa not this year!
Shot values-10 have to drive it well, have runups, hit long irons, judge blind shots, putt well on very challenging greens and have an exemplary imaginative short game
Resistance to scoring 8 (10 if you can't hit a runup off a supertight lie, can't judge a blind shots and can't putt super sloped greens)
Design variety 10-there's nothing like it
Memorability 10 you never forget the Goat
Aesthetics-9 beautiful old barnlike simple clubhouse overlooking the Peconic and back bay of Shelter Island
Conditioning-10 firm and fast fairway and true green
Ambiance 10-nothing better-playing it followed by Fisher's the next 2 days


Most people would hate it

That's pretty solid scoring Jeff. Where does that place it on Golf Digest Top 100 US and World Lists? Top 5?

[jeffwarne]

No one has the time, but I think it would be interesting/instructive for these 10 posters to do the GD rating exercise with their favourite 10 courses (ie essentially, to become the GD panel for a day):
Jim Sullivan
Jay Mickle
Bob Crosby
Ben Cowan (Michigan)
Mark Saltzman
Jeff Warne
Joe Hancock
John Kavanaugh
Terry Lavin
Kyle Harris

I'll bite-and bear with me as I'm only slightly tongue in cheek
Using their very redundant guidelines and my subjectivity

Shelter Island CC-circa not this year!
Shot values-10 have to drive it well, have runups, hit long irons, judge blind shots, putt well on very challenging greens and have an exemplary imaginative short game
Resistance to scoring 8 (10 if you can't hit a runup off a supertight lie, can't judge a blind shots and can't putt super sloped greens)
Design variety 10-there's nothing like it
Memorability 10 you never forget the Goat
Aesthetics-9 beautiful old barnlike simple clubhouse overlooking the Peconic and back bay of Shelter Island
Conditioning-10 firm and fast fairway and true green
Ambiance 10-nothing better-playing it followed by Fisher's the next 2 days


Most people would hate it

That's pretty solid scoring Jeff. Where does that place it on Golf Digest Top 100 US and World Lists? Top 5?

Maybe I do a hole by hole comparison with Fisher's after next 2 days-though I guess Fishers has an edge with 18 holes vs. 9
here's a tease of the first 9
#1 Goat
#2 Goat
#3 Fishers
#4 Fishers
#5 Fishers
#6 Fishers
#7 push  close as 7 is about as hard to judge a hole at the Goat as you'll see (or not see) 7 at Fishers spectacular views(maybe Fishers wins on scenery -both are difficult holes
#8 Goat-never loved the 8th at Fishers-and the 8th at the Goat has one of the best spines in golf on a (potentially) driveable par 4)
#9 Goat-one of the best par 3 in MET area

Edit
Just returned from Fishers-first time in about 5 years


Setting matters

[BCowan]

Jeff,


Please have thee goat in proper form for the invitational in 2018 or 2019.  I should be able to make it then! 


Ready for back 9 match play!

[Jim Nugent]

Jim N, but for the international rankings doesn't GD abandon its formula? Thought that was the case, looking for confirmation.

Don't know the answer to your question, but here are GD's top 10 U.S. rankings:

1.  Pine Valley
2.  ANGC
3.  CPC
4.  Shinnie
5.  Oakmont
6.  Merion
7.  Pebble
8.  NGLA
9.  Sand Hills
10. Winged Foot West

As with their top 10 world courses, a list that would get pretty wide approval here at GCA. 

The second ten includes a few not in favor as much here -- Oak Hill, Muirfield Village and Oakland Hills esp. -- but also features Pacific Dunes, Fishers, Chicago, Crystal Downs, Friar's Head and Seminole.

So it seems to me the point still holds. 

Also, six U.S. courses Doak gave 10's to are among GD's top ten, and 8 are in the top 20.  Only one left out is P2, which comes in at #30.     

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


Please have thee goat in proper form for the invitational in 2018 or 2019.  I should be able to make it then! 


Ready for back 9 match play!

I worry it may not be around then...hearing rumblings

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N:  even a child could get most of the top 20, just by going chalk as they say in basketball.  DIGEST voters know to give Fishers Island and Cypress Point an 8 or 9 for Resistance to Scoring (which is silly) so it doesn't drag them down. 


But as soon as you get out of the top 25 it's obvious from their list that Resistance and Conditioning and Esthetics are stacking the deck for stupid-long, ultra-private, spare-no-expense new clubs.

[Sean_A]

Jim N:  even a child could get most of the top 20, just by going chalk as they say in basketball.  DIGEST voters know to give Fishers Island and Cypress Point an 8 or 9 for Resistance to Scoring (which is silly) so it doesn't drag them down. 


But as soon as you get out of the top 25 it's obvious from their list that Resistance and Conditioning and Esthetics are stacking the deck for stupid-long, ultra-private, spare-no-expense new clubs.

Exactly!  Every decent ranking has the same courses near the top with very few exceptions.  This is another reason why ranking based on "quality" is a fruitless exercise.


Ciao

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Let's stipulate that no one should take ratings or rankings too seriously...any ratings or rankings. 


Moreover, quantifying assessment of subjective qualities does not alter the fact the assessment is subjective.  This is not science.


And the differences in GD scores are often very small, making a rank ordering based on those scores suspect.


I get all that.  Here is what I don't understand about the hostility toward Golf Digest's rankings:


1.  Can't structure be useful, even in thinking about subjective qualities?  Structure helps me articulate "I like it because..."


2.  While "resistance to scoring" is a debatable criterion, isn't the criticism a bit over the top?  In GD's structure, resistance is about 10% of the rating.  Perhaps that is too much, and it could influence the ranking when scores are so close.  But if a consumer of GD's rankings are putting a lot of emphasis on who is #50 v #75 or #75 v #125, their problem is their own grasp of the math.


3.  Is "conditioning" not a consideration in our enjoyment of the game?  GD has revised this criterion so as not to reward over-use of water and fertilizer, emphasizing instead "fast and firm."  I would much rather play a course with good turf and true greens.  And the difference between greens that are "firm, yet receptive" versus rock hard or mush is clear to me.  It seems to me that good conditioning helps assure the course plays as the architect intended, enhancing the player's enjoyment.


4.  Aren't "shot values", "design variety", "memorability," and "aesthetics" qualities valued in this forum?  Perhaps "shot values" is the most obscure of these criteria, yet GD's explanation seems clear to me.  Key words are "variety", "risks and rewards", "accuracy, length, and finesse."


I will repeat: No one should take any ratings or rankings too seriously.  However, they generate interest and discussion of GCA.  For me, that's good enough.


When people get too worked up about the defects in GD, it starts to sound a bit like religious dogma.

[Tom_Doak]

Glenn:  you have 1,000 panelists quoting the gospel of the formula, and you accuse the critics of religious dogma? 


The GOLF DIGEST criteria have had a big impact on what gets built on American courses.  I'd just like to see it have a more positive impact and focus.  The problem is that many low-handicap panelists see Shot Values and Resistance to Scoring as almost the same thing, and see Condotioning and Esthetics as almost the same thing, so those two are worth way more than 10% each.  And the idea that more=better for difficulty or conditioning is the flaw.

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Tom, thanks for the reply.


I agree that inconsistency in application weakens the ratings.  And inconsistency is inevitable when 1000 panelists are used.  GDs view, presumably, is that large numbers adds validity, but that is definitely debatable.


To me, inconsistency in application is a somewhat different issue than GD's formula itself, even though either (or both) can compromise the ratings.


As for your specific claims about how panelists apply the criteria, I don't know how they are applied.  However, the difference between "shot values" and "resistance to scoring" is clear to me, as is the difference between "aesthetics" and "conditioning."  The language is certainly clear.


What is the source of your knowledge about how the 1000 panelists apply the ratings?


As for my use of the term "dogma", I did not mean to imply that all criticism of GD's approach is dogmatic.  Indeed, as I have explained in both posts, I believe there are legitimate issues. 


As with many things in life, GD's ratings are a mixed bag...some pluses and some minuses.  I believe, on balance, their effect is positive because they generate interest in GCA.  That said, I can't compete with your expertise on how they have affected GCA. Perhaps others can.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim N:  even a child could get most of the top 20, just by going chalk as they say in basketball.  DIGEST voters know to give Fishers Island and Cypress Point an 8 or 9 for Resistance to Scoring (which is silly) so it doesn't drag them down. 


But as soon as you get out of the top 25 it's obvious from their list that Resistance and Conditioning and Esthetics are stacking the deck for stupid-long, ultra-private, spare-no-expense new clubs.

It's so simple a child could do it, hunh? 

I haven't seen the rankings in your new CG.  From what I understand of the original CG, though, all the U.S. courses you gave 9s or 10s to rank in the top 40 of GD's best in America list.   

Also on GD's top 100 are GCA favorites like Friar's Head, LACC North, Sebonack, Garden City, Old Mac, Ballyneal, Camargo, Winged Foot East, Somerset Hills, MPCC Shore, Shoreacres, Kittansett Club, Bandon Trails, Milwaukee CC, Maidstone, Quaker Ridge, Plainfield, Aronimink, Olympia Fields, Valley Club, Yeamans Hall, and Essex County.  Plus a number of other courses Ran profiles here in GCA such as Victoria Falls, Gozzer Ranch, Olympia Fields N, Oakmont and Inverness.

Yes, the GD list also has some long, private moderns -- quite a few more than a typical GCA list would have.  They are still the minority though.  And maybe that means GD has a less narrow range of favorites -- in a subject that is entirely subjective.   

Several years ago I did a comparison of the GD list with those unofficial GCA rankings that came out around 2009.  Most courses (more than 50%) were on both lists, if in somewhat different order.  The rankings were more like each other than unlike.  Wouldn't surprise me if that is still true. 

[cary lichtenstein]

Does anybody think that raters really follow any formula? I used to rate for GW, I ranked every hole, got my average and then I moved it up or down based on my "gut". After awhile, "gut" took over, enjoyment, eye candy, diversity of holes, challenge, and would I ever go back for multiple plays, did it blow me away, the wow factor, or did it have 10 par 4, with trees on both side that were dead straight?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N:  I was almost a child when I wrote The Confidential Guide in 1988.  And David Kidd thinks I'm childish!  But I did get all the 10's and 9's right, and eventually GOLF DIGEST panelists fell in line on Crystal Downs and National Golf Links, neither of which were in their rankings back then.

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anybody think that raters really follow any formula? I used to rate for GW, I ranked every hole, got my average and then I moved it up or down based on my "gut". After awhile, "gut" took over, enjoyment, eye candy, diversity of holes, challenge, and would I ever go back for multiple plays, did it blow me away, the wow factor, or did it have 10 par 4, with trees on both side that were dead straight?

And Brad fired you while Tommy danced a jig. Welcome to the club.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim N:  I was almost a child when I wrote The Confidential Guide in 1988.  And David Kidd thinks I'm childish!  But I did get all the 10's and 9's right, and eventually GOLF DIGEST panelists fell in line on Crystal Downs and National Golf Links, neither of which were in their rankings back then.

My understanding is that NGLA was a very different creature back in the 1980s, heavily over-treed and over-watered, S&S instead of F&F, stripped of many of its angles, strategy and teeth. 

[Jay Mickle]

No one has the time, but I think it would be interesting/instructive for these 10 posters to do the GD rating exercise with their favourite 10 courses (ie essentially, to become the GD panel for a day):
Jim Sullivan
Jay Mickle
Bob Crosby
Ben Cowan (Michigan)
Mark Saltzman
Jeff Warne
Joe Hancock
John Kavanaugh
Terry Lavin
Kyle Harris

Peter,
Just for fun I picked 4 local courses and used my interpretation of the GD criteria to rate each course. Each number is more or less a gut reaction to the GD standards. I am ill equipped to assess any course on the basis of how it plays for a scratch player. Seems to me that most holes play easier the longer you can hit the ball.  On a par 4 that measures 380 for me and 440 for scratch we are both 160 out but I have a 5 iron/hybrid in hand he has an 8 iron. As for memorability that gets tougher with age.
 
 The totals are not a reflection of how I value the courses merely the results of a valuation according to what I see as flawed criteria. Is the best course decided by the scratch golfers looking for the greatest challenge or should it be decided by (as suggested  by Golf’s Most Beloved) whether after walking off of 18 you want to go right to the 1^st tee. These results show neither.

 

[Tom_Doak]

My understanding is that NGLA was a very different creature back in the 1980s, heavily over-treed and over-watered, S&S instead of F&F, stripped of many of its angles, strategy and teeth.

I gave it a 10 in 1988.  It wasn't in very good shape - Karl Olson had just taken over a year or two before - and trees had narrowed the corridors from 80 yards to 60.  You couldn't see the water behind the Redan.  But to say it wasn't a great course then is total revisionist ass-covering.  DIGEST panelists had been conditioned to think it was too wide and too easy and too quirky and did not belong in a list with Baltusrol and Bellerive.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


I just took a look at historicalaerials.com and that's what i saw as well. in 1980, there were some trees on the interior of the course and it didn't look anything Oakmont-ish in nature, but most of the trees were on the course boundaries.  Those interior ones have obviously been removed as well many of the exterior ones to open up views.

[cary lichtenstein]

Does anybody think that raters really follow any formula? I used to rate for GW, I ranked every hole, got my average and then I moved it up or down based on my "gut". After awhile, "gut" took over, enjoyment, eye candy, diversity of holes, challenge, and would I ever go back for multiple plays, did it blow me away, the wow factor, or did it have 10 par 4, with trees on both side that were dead straight?

And Brad fired you while Tommy danced a jig. Welcome to the club.

Doubtful Tommy could dance a jig carrying around all that baby fat.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jay, Jeff - thanks for the efforts, much appreciated.
I see your point. I understand where you and Jeff and Tom and Sean etc are coming from.
In fact, I come from exactly the same place.
Bless Tommy for even trying to start a discussion on this.
For most of us (me included), it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
And that's precisely what bothers me. 
I take all the well traveled golfers at their word when they say that NGLA is a "10".
It wasn't thought of that way when an astute young observer like Tom first rated it so highly.
But now, years later, the GD rankings and the raters have clearly moved in that same direction, with the formula being "flexible" enough to allow for it.
It all seems like a sham and a racket, even to me.
And yet...and yet:
Something doesn't sit right.   
Arguing that it's all "subjective"and yet hammering away incessantly and en masse at any attempts at a kind of collective consensus opinion seems strange to me; there's something at work that I can't put my finger on. 
Especially strange coming now, at an era like ours -- when there's never been more consensus of opinion about what makes for quality gca than there is right now. 
It's like the scene from the Life of Brian, when Brian tells the adoring crowd to remember that they are all individuals, and everyone in the crowd repeats it verbatim, as the new gospel, all together in unison: "Yes, we're all individuals!"
How many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of times has some poster come on here listing/asking about the "10s" and the "9s"?  Why - because we all embrace the answers to those questions as merely subjective?
No, we ask so often and agree so often because we are treating them as "facts", just as much/or as little as the GD folks treat their rankings/ratings as facts.
Hey: maybe there are many different types of good/great golf courses, from different times and places and serving different wants and needs and preferences and representing different values (aesthetic and financial and spiritual etc) than mine.
Isn't that possible? Isn't it worth looking a little deeper into these differences? Isn't there something to be said for exploring the ways in which these differences are "quantified"?
Might it be good to better understand and even appreciate and maybe even celebrate these differences?
Can we even consider looking at Tom Paul's Big World Theory of Golf Course Architecture with fresh eyes?   
Again, let me stress: I agree with what most of you have said about the GD system. I've been saying it myself for years.
But I think it sensible, every once in a while, when we find that we've been saying the same thing for years and years, to stop ourselves and question ourselves and our assumptions -- just a little bit.
Why? Here's just one example/reason/question: What takes up more 'space' - a renovated, say, Baltustrol or Winged Foot with 400 yards of added length (to "combat technology"), or the latest & greatest in designs for the average golfer: Mammoth Dunes?
I mean, everybody, everybody - GD writers included - is raving about it, right? What is it: 2 courses there, on 5,000 acres?!
And when Mammoth Dunes wins the Best New course on GD's latest rankings, as it almost surely will, what are we going to focus on then -- the flawed and silly GD "formula"?
 
None of this is either here nor there, I know; just talking, just sharing what's on my mind. 
Peter   
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()