Golf Digest Course ratings

[Steve Lang]

   unfortunately, off the RTJ golf trail, a lot of the young folks in AL typically choose other shooting


https://www.lautnerfarms.com/alabama-boy-kills-1051-pound-monster-pig-bigger-than-hogzilla/

[Michael Wolf]

Those things can do an incredible amount of damage to a golf course or neighborhood landscape in one night. Sadly I haven't heard of any being spotted near the RTJ tracks yet.


Alabama does have beautiful land, unfortunately lots of it sits on pretty miserable soil for quality golf turf

[James Brown]

Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.


Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.

This is my sense as well.  I don’t know the demographics of the current cohort of GD rafters, but I do think growing the pool will have an impact on the ratings, probably favoring architectural factors over atheistics and conditioning. 

[Sean_A]

So, I see that Golf Digest is doubling the number of ratings per course required for their rankings (from 30 to 60) over the next couple of years, and eventually to 75. 


What impact do you think this will have on the ratings?

I think you will see the pool of courses considered for top 100 shrink and consequently make the list less interesting and varied.  That isn't to say the final list will be any worse or better. 

I don't think the categories make much difference as most raters will tailor scores to fit their opinion.  However, I just did this ranking procedure and I will say I stuck to the categories as directed (not GD).  My list was a bit skewed because some of the criteria is stuff I don't care about or would weight very differently for my personal rankings.  The final mag list is quite interesting even if flawed.  No matter what the numbers reveal, all lists need to pass the eye test of a few very well informed folks....thats the editor's job...protecting the integrity of the process when something goes badly astray.   

For mine, I will always prefer using the opinions of people I trust before rankings when trying to actually use top 100 lists for making choices as to where to play. 

Glen

Thanks for the criteria.  To me its far too complicated.  Half of the criteria I would simply lump as design and weight it something like 80%.  Aesthetics and conditioning maybe the remaining 20%....that might even be too high.

Memorability?  That criteria has more to do with people than the place.  I don't get it.  If you can't remember a course for the short period it takes to make the rating, you shouldn't be a rater.   

Ciao

[Greg Chambers]

Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.


Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.

This is my sense as well.  I don’t know the demographics of the current cohort of GD rafters, but I do think growing the pool will have an impact on the ratings, probably favoring architectural factors over atheistics and conditioning.

Why would you think that?  I’ve been involved in the golf industry my entire career...not to mention I’ve been playing golf my entire life.  Within that limited experience, I can tell you with great confidence that a VERY small percentage of the people I’ve come across even care about “architectural factors” when compared to asthetics and conditioning.  A larger pool of raters can only lead to a dumbing down of the rankings...I’d say expect more of the same.

[James Brown]

Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.


Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.

This is my sense as well.  I don’t know the demographics of the current cohort of GD rafters, but I do think growing the pool will have an impact on the ratings, probably favoring architectural factors over atheistics and conditioning.

Why would you think that?  I’ve been involved in the golf industry my entire career...not to mention I’ve been playing golf my entire life.  Within that limited experience, I can tell you with great confidence that a VERY small percentage of the people I’ve come across even care about “architectural factors” when compared to asthetics and conditioning.  A larger pool of raters can only lead to a dumbing down of the rankings...I’d say expect more of the same.

For my two cents, I think more rafters will help reduce the good ole boy factor, which is heavily weighted towards prior rankings. 

[Mike_Trenham]

This will reduce the number of private courses in the mix and increase the number of resort courses, which are the real customers (advertisers) for the magazine.  Also the lists are stale so this will create interest like a guy who screams for three hours on talk radio.

[Frank Kim]

There is a golf digest rater who lives in my hometown in Alabama.  He pretty much only rates the top courses on the golf digest list.  So it just becomes self fulfilling prophecy.  He's not even played what I consider the best course in the state.  In fact that course is not even in the golf digest best in state. 

[BCowan]

There is a golf digest rater who lives in my hometown in Alabama.  He pretty much only rates the top courses on the golf digest list.  So it just becomes self fulfilling prophecy.  He's not even played what I consider the best course in the state.  In fact that course is not even in the golf digest best in state.

Frank,


   You and Michael should whip up an Alabama Top 20 list to right that injustice. 

[Jack Carney]

Bill - I confess that i'm disturbed by your experience and several others as well. The routing and how the course fits the land is extremely important to me and I always walk when evaluating a course (can't imagine otherwise). I take the process very seriously and spend a considerable amount of time in prep and completing an eval. I think there have been some significant changes since 1993 as walking is certainly suggested and aesthetics/ conditioning are 1/8 of the overall process and exclusivity should not be considered outside of part of the ambience factor. I rated Friars Head very high as well, defended my eval and my scoring was accepted by Dean. I have had to defend a few and been successful on all so far. Hopefully moving this dial a tad. That being said I think panelists in general do overweight such and maybe unintentionally. Apparently the reputation of GD panelists is extremely poor around this site. I had a fairly tough way into the process with several interviews but I don't think this is the case in general but I didn't really know anyone.


James - I think that just from my personal thought process and the discussion group on the panelist website. However I agree that most players don't even consider what we are talking about.


On cost - GD has considerable expense in administration of the program and the fee recently instituted i would really doubt covers such. The overall cost to the individual is quite high at least the way I do it. Travel expense plus $100+ per caddie etc means I spend $0000's each year to follow this passion.


As with any process it takes a while to lean how to play the pinball machine. The CG "system" is exceptional once you understand it and I respect the outcome highly. It is really all feel right? One of the reasons I wanted to get involved in the GD panelist program was to learn more about a "system" and how such might be defined. We could all come up with a system and most would disagree with that definition. GD has a put a stake in the sand and gone forward trying to improve every year. Perfect - No. I do appreciate the attempt at definition and I like trying to make a difference in some small way.


I respect most on this site and think some of you guys might consider volunteering and improve the quality of the pool or start a new process. The collective evals of the contributors here would be an interesting and quality list!!!

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Sean,


I agree GD has too many criteria.  I would condense the list to five equally-weight criteria:


Shot Values (presents a variety of risks/rewards, tests accuracy/length/finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two)


Playability (challenges low handicap players while providing options for high handcappers)


Design Variety/Memorability (holes varied and distinctive in lengths, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours)


Conditioning (firm, fast, rolling fairways with true greens)


Walkability.


As for whether more raters will dumb-down the ratings or bring fresh new perspectives, I think the jury is out.  I hope for the latter but fear it will be the former.

[Jay Mickle]

Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGEST[/size]
Never quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.[/size][/font]

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I agree GD has too many criteria.  I would condense the list to five equally-weight criteria:


Shot Values (presents a variety of risks/rewards, tests accuracy/length/finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two)


Playability (challenges low handicap players while providing options for high handcappers)


Design Variety/Memorability (holes varied and distinctive in lengths, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours)


Conditioning (firm, fast, rolling fairways with true greens)


Walkability.


As for whether more raters will dumb-down the ratings or bring fresh new perspectives, I think the jury is out.  I hope for the latter but fear it will be the former.

Glen

I guess I wouldn't be so prescribed with weighting or hitting the elements.  I would leave it up to the rater to decide the importance of each aspect of design, presentation and conditioning.  I believe every course is different and therefore the same weighting shouldn't necessarily be applied equally to all courses.  For instance, if I am evaluating a true championship course I am not going to care so much about playability for all because that isn't the intent of the design.  Sure, if a course is a champ venue and it is very playable then I will give it extra marks, but I am not gonna whack a course for fulfilling the intent of challenging the best.  The most important thing for me is to evaluate what is in the ground rather than looking for things I want to see.  So with that in mind the general criteria I use are

DESIGN (usually at least 65%):

Routing: the walk, use of natural features and green sites
Greens: good variety and firm
Man-made features: well balanced in type and placement
Variety:
Originality:

THE SITE (maybe 15% of score): terrain & quality of grass/soil

PLAYABILITY & PRESENTATION (maybe 15%)

BEAUTY/AESTHETICS (maybe 5%...generally speaking if the other stuff is well done the beauty/aesthetics side of things will naturally follow)

None of the percentages would be hard rules because if a course is exceptional in one area I will push the score up and be more lenient in other areas.  Or maybe a course has 3, 4 or 5 truly superb holes...I am gonna downplay  some weaker areas.   I am not really looking for consistency, I am looking for highlights and so long as there isn't too much really downer stuff going on the course will largely get a pass.  Hence the reason why North Berwick, TOC, Sandwich, St Enodoc, Deal and Lahinch are courses I believe to be top notch or damn near.  All provide some outstanding highlights using some excellent terrain while offering originality and variety.  It is hard for a championship (or very good) parkland course to compete against the character of the land and designs these courses offer.

Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

When they say it's not about the money, then it's about the money.  IMHO the salaries etc of the people operating the ratings of the various pubs requires these rating fees etc.  I think it works much like a missionary or someone who must go out and raise the funds for their own support.    Doubling raters easily helps out.  And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine.  Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely. 

[Sean_A]

And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine.  Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.

I would be shocked if mag ratings are led by marketing.  I would think a list is produced and then clubs are contacted to sell space because they made the list.  I don't see a problem with this. 


Ciao

[Mike_Young]

And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine.  Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.

It is quite possible you may be shocked.....


I would be shocked if mag ratings are led by marketing.  I would think a list is produced and then clubs are contacted to sell space because they made the list.  I don't see a problem with this. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine.  Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.

I was the "outside agency" for GOLF Magazine for 15 years for just that reason - George Peper liked that I was never in the office and didn't know anyone in the advertising department.  The list was always printed exactly the way I calculated  the results.


I don't know if any of the magazines ever edit the results now, but there is so much collusion going on beforehand that it hardly matters.


Also, to James Brown:  how do you think they're going to double the size of an already large panel?  They'll have all the panelists recommend a buddy or two!  That is hardly going to eliminate the good old boy network.  The GOLF Magazine panel ran much better when it was all independent voices, before there was a club of guys who had played them all and compared notes.

[Adam Lawrence]

I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.

You obviously aren't very familiar with the economics of the magazine publishing business 

[Mark Bourgeois]

So, I see that Golf Digest is doubling the number of ratings per course required for their rankings (from 30 to 60) over the next couple of years, and eventually to 75. 


What impact do you think this will have on the ratings?

Because GD is not transparent, it is hard to know for sure. If the panelists were selected randomly and if no data manipulation was employed, then quite likely the impact on rankings would be significant.

But panelists are not selected randomly. More significantly, the data are manipulated (eg "outliers" discarded) and ratings are according to a fixed set of criteria -- these tactics reduce variation regardless of sample size. So: results are likely to be the same, although more of them may meet tests of statistical significance.

What does that mean? Given that small sample size was the ostensible reason for expanding the panel, and assuming the tactics mentioned above continue, then the best explanation is...cash grab.

*Caveat: this is for the USA 100. If the state and international rankings use different techniques and tactics, then the rankings might change in states like Wyoming and the Dakotas.

[Garland Bayley]

Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGEST[/size]
Never quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.[/size][/font]

Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.

I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?

In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".

[cary lichtenstein]

Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like. [/size]I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness




What is a fairway bunker doing in the middle of a fairway? No different if you put a water hazard in the middle of a fairway. Reward good shots, penalize poor shots[/size]

[John Kavanaugh]

Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.

Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.

I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?

In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".

Garland,


How then do you explain the Bandon courses being so highly rated? Perhaps the most over rated courses in the world.

[JC Jones]

And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine.  Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.

I was the "outside agency" for GOLF Magazine for 15 years for just that reason - George Peper liked that I was never in the office and didn't know anyone in the advertising department.  The list was always printed exactly the way I calculated  the results.


I don't know if any of the magazines ever edit the results now, but there is so much collusion going on beforehand that it hardly matters.


Also, to James Brown:  how do you think they're going to double the size of an already large panel?  They'll have all the panelists recommend a buddy or two!  That is hardly going to eliminate the good old boy network.  The GOLF Magazine panel ran much better when it was all independent voices, before there was a club of guys who had played them all and compared notes.

Would you consider a course requiring raters to fill out a questionnaire/application to ensure certain results to rate that course to be collusion or gaming the system?

[Mark Saltzman]

Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.

Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.

I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?

In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".

You have it right, sort of, in your last paragraph.  An 8,000 yard course with 250+ yard carries to reach the fairway should receive low scores in this category because this would not be fair for a typical scratch golfer.  I think this category isn't scored properly by many panelists, but this definition isn't the problem.

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Garland,


I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard.  Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation.  The latter is GD's description of "playability."


It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability."  Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."


Anyone can build a "difficult" course.  And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play.  The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable.  I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.


"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished.  The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.


A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies.  At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )