News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
What this is not:

This is not a criticism of the “Minnesota’s Top 30 Courses” thread — which, by all accounts (including mine, though I have not yet read the whole thing), has been both informative and insightful, letting those of you who live elsewhere know that our North Star State has not only 10,000 lakes (many more, actually; that 10,000 number is indicative of our trademark Nordic modesty!), but also many excellent golf courses. I applaud Pat Craig, who started the thread, and all of the Minnesotans who contributed course descriptions, photographs and observations. I would have added more to that discussion (some of it, perhaps, worth reading!) had I not been enjoying the immense good fortune of the longest vacation I’ve taken in more than 30 years: 12 days in Maui. Couldn’t force myself to do much GCA.com “work” when there was snorkeling to be done and mahi-mahi to be eaten!

This is not an attempt to second-guess those rankings. Not having played all of the courses under consideration even once, let alone enough times, under enough conditions, to reach a final personal judgment on their relative virtues, or the lack thereof, I consider myself unqualified to make any such second-guesses. You might guess that I think the same could be said of those who did participate in the ranking project ... and you would be right about that! What I am certain of, from my own experience and others’, is that opinions of courses change from the first play to the 10th to the 100th — sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Few (if any) of us have played enough rounds on any course, except our own, to know it thoroughly. My Doak Scale ratings, had I been willing to guess at them, would have changed the rank order only minimally.

This is not a criticism of the ranking of my home course, Midland Hills CC — which would be higher on my list of favorite courses in Minnesota. That is why I joined Midland Hills. But that is neither here nor there. I would be happy to host any of you at any time, and you can have your own impressions.

What this is:

This is an argument that my fellow Gophers’ efforts, in that thread (and the the Wolverines’ and the Buckeyes’, in their threads) were all in service of a false god: a ranking of golf courses, from (in Minnesota’s case) No. 30 to No. 1. But it is not just that. It is an argument that all such ranking systems — whether conducted by a dozen Minnesotans or by hundreds of well-traveled raters from all around the world — are, in the words of Tom Doak, “silly and subjective.” That quotation by Mr. Doak has appeared below every one of my posts for almost two years now — but my opposition to course rankings goes back many more years than that, to the time when I arrived at this website. I declined to participate in the Minnesota GCAers’ project because I did not endorse its ultimate aim, and had said so many times in passing.

After all these years, I want to lay out my anti-ranking case in detail — and then propose a new scheme for rating golf courses that would tell people what they need and want to know, without the false objectivity of ratings taken to two decimal points.

I realize that I am tilting at windmills; most people, apparently, love ranking things. But I want to put this out there, once and for all — even if it turns out that I am, in E.B. White’s felicitous phrase, “a member of a party of one.”

Why rankings are a bad idea (using the Minnesota thread as an example of the kind):

(1) Ratings (from which rankings are compiled) are inescapably subjective. Your excellence is yours; mine is mine. If you like one course better than another, and I like them in the reverse order, neither of us is “right,” because there IS no right or wrong.

And adding up the subjective views of a dozen or a thousand raters does not make them any less subjective.

Nor does averaging ratings to two decimal points make them in any way scientific.

In the case of the Minnesota thread:

No course was rated by more than 10 GCAers. One course in the top 30 was ranked by just two golfers.

Ironically, at least to my eyes, they used the Doak Scale (“rankings are subjective and silly”) to achieve the ratings — and the resultant ranking. All of the courses below Hazeltine — from Windsong Farm and Golden Valley (T6) down to Giants Ridge Legend (30) were in an approximately 1-1/2 point range (1.61, to be precise, from 6.11 to 4.50.) Hazeltine was 0.19 higher, in 5th. Minikahda, 0.26 above Hazeltine, in 4th. Northland, 0.19 above Minikahda, in 3rd. Interlachen, 0.25 higher than Northland, in 2nd. And White Bear Yacht Club, a whopping 0.90 above Interlachen, in 1st.

Most of these differences — 0.88 points between No. 8 and No. 23 — are so small as to be insignificant ... yet this sort of ranking MAKES them significant. Which leads to Point 2:

(2) People, I believe, rely on such rankings (the magazines’, their websites’, GCA.com’s) when they decide where they want to play. Henceforth, Google searches for “Minnesota’s top golf courses” (or any similar query) will quickly find their way to that “Top 30” thread. That thread will tell them, for example, that the early-21st-century Windsong Farm is a far better course than the early-21st-century StoneRidge, and that the classic-era Golden Valley or Minneapolis is a far better course than the classic-era Oak Ridge or Midland Hills — both of which propositions I think you’d have a very hard time demonstrating (as Jason Topp is wrestling with in a different current thread).

People visiting from elsewhere will NEVER get far enough down that list of 30 to discover the unique pleasures of many of the courses — all of them excellent golf courses, in many people’s eyes — that fall below No. 5 on the Minnesota ranking. And that’s a damned shame — for the visitors, and for the courses and their staffs.

(3) Golf courses (those worth rating, at any rate) are not just feats of engineering and construction; they are works of art. The best of them are masterpieces. How can one rank masterpieces — or, for that matter, any artistry less than masterful? Is the Mona Lisa greater than Guernica? Is “Charlotte’s Web” a better book than “In Cold Blood”? Mozart or Beethoven — who’s da man? Ridiculous questions — but those are the questions we’re asking when we try to rank the best golf courses. (We are also, of course, trying to say what are the better and worse works when we are speaking of courses no one thinks are masterpieces — perhaps an even sillier venture.)

(4) How can anyone divorce the golf course from its ambiance, its history, its reputation? How can Minikahda, for example, NOT get a bit of juice from its extraordinary clubhouse, set above the beautiful Lake Calhoun, with the Minneapolis skyline in the distance? How can Hazeltine not benefit from its long history of national and international competition? How can you set aside Bobby Jones’s footsteps (and lily-pad shots) as you attempt to size up Interlachen? How can White Bear not get a boost from the praise of its architects and its admirers (and maybe from the fact that Scott and Zelda lived there till they were bounced out on their ears)? How can you disown the sublime pleasure of being the only group on the course at Woodhill? And how, by contrast, can one drown out the noise coming off Interstate 94, in the case of StoneRidge, to judge the course JUST as a golf course?

I think the answer to all of those questions is: You can’t. The best you can do is try.

And YET:

We all want to know which are the best courses, the not-quite-best, the not-quite-not-quite-best-but-nonetheless-excellent. Which is why we need ratings.

I am here to suggest that the Doak Scale is not the scale the rest of us should use. It has too many levels — too many by exactly 100%. I propose, in the alternative, a five-point scale that will tell us what we want and need to know, without pretending to be producing objective assessments or to generate scientifically valid rankings; these are the five points’ meanings, for me (and I will note that most courses, I believe, will sort themselves into these five categories with only a few playings).

Five stars (*****) = One of a kind. Eye-opening and satisfying from start to finish. Holes you’ve rarely or never seen elsewhere. Efficiently routed, producing a reasonable walk. Well conditioned. Play it if you ever get the chance, to broaden your view of what a golf course can be. (Of course, every course is unique — but most are not excellently unique from start to finish, and most don’t open your eyes to golf’s potential.)

Four stars (****) = Outstanding. Excellent from start to finish, with strong or otherwise engaging holes from 1 through 18 — but not consistently eye-opening. Ditto re: routing, walking, conditioning. Play it if you ever get the chance, to enjoy a very fine round of golf.

Three stars (***) = Excellent. Some outstanding holes; some not-so-outstanding. You will not regret having played it, and might want to play it again — soon.

Two stars (**) = Ordinary. Meh. No reason to play it a second time.

One star (*) = Forget about it! Not worth playing even once, unless you have some very good reason.

I have outlined my five-star scale to one other contributor here. He wrote back: “Your scale seems somewhat akin to the Doak scale with a 5 being scores of 7.5-10, a 4 as a 6.5-7.5, 3=4-6, 2=3 and 1=2 or less.”

That is exactly right! I am proposing to edit the Doak Scale, for those of us who are not Tom Doak — and the Doak numbers my fellow contributor suggests are, I think, perfect.

My Minnesota ratings, for what they are worth (in alphabetical order):

***** Northland Country Club. Terrific holes, one after another, on extreme topography — but still easily walkable. Great par-4s. Bewitching greens.

***** White Bear Yacht Club: As Jason Topp wrote near the end of the thread: “At times I have thought it the clear-cut best course in the state.  At other times I have thought it simply fits in with the top group of courses.”

Since finishing my rating scale, I’ve given it quite a bit of thought — and have decided that WBYC is, in my experience, one of a kind. It has one magnificent hole after another (from No. 1 on!), on really interesting land where a level lie is nearly non-existent, with several holes the likes of which I’ve not seen elsewhere (including the tiny No. 3, No. 11 green, No. 12 approach and green, No. 14 green, No. 16 green). The crazy blind approach to No. 9 and the crazy blind tee shot on 18 only add to WBYC’s exceptionalism. And it has not one but two great par-5s (a rarity): No. 7 and No. 16.

**** Hazeltine, Interlachen, Minikahda. As described above.

*** Every course in the Minnesota ranking from No. 6 through No. 30, with the exceptions of those I have never played (Spring Hill, Rochester, the new Olympic Hills). All of the 6-to-30 courses that I have played have legitimate claims to Excellence. All have some very fine holes, and some not so fine.

Do I think some of those *** courses are “better” than others of those *** courses? Of course I do. I’d be tempted to give a few 2.5s and a few 3.5s — but then we’re back to the Doak Scale. And it’s all just a matter of taste! If you ask me MY splitting-hairs preferences, I will tell you (I like Minneapolis better than Golden Valley, Oak Ridge over both Minneapolis and Golden Valley, Minnesota Valley over North Oaks, Stillwater over Edina, etc.) ... but I will not imagine that they are anything more than MY preferences.

There you have it. Maybe something to think about.

Dan
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 11:32:51 AM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to read this, but can you please go back and put some paragraph separations in there?
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to read this, but can you please go back and put some paragraph separations in there?


Jeff --


The paragraph breaks all disappeared between my iPad and the website. Restored now.


Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Hi Dan:


In general, I agree with your take.  Rankings are not only silly and subjective, but they suck all the air out of the space for reviews of courses.  What the magazines publish are ONLY rankings:  they never have anything substantial to say about the golf courses at all, or WHY they were ranked so highly.  Because there is no why ... there are only a bunch of individual ratings, unexplained, and averaged.


And I'd be quite happy for people NOT to steal the Doak Scale (and apply it on a different curve).


The problem with the suggested Kelly scale is that it doesn't give quite enough variation, in my opinion.  In your example, all but a handful of the best courses are three stars -- and with the grade inflation common to other reviewers [who are way too conscious of not burning their bridges or offending potential advertisers], pretty much all of the other courses in the world are three stars, too.  [Or three and a half stars.]  That's why the GOLF DIGEST Places to Play thing was completely worthless.


My wife says that The Confidential Guide would be a great book, without the numbers.  [She was not my wife when it was first written; it would have saved me a lot of grief on many levels if she had been!]  And it would be better, because then you'd have to pay more attention to what we decided to write about those courses, instead of the numbers.  The point of the numbers [originally] wasn't to compare courses, so much as to balance out my short reviews, so you could tell I still liked Augusta and Pebble Beach even if I wrote mostly criticisms of them, and that my enthusiasm for some little course did not mean I thought it was better than Augusta.  But of course everyone latched onto the numbers!  And I couldn't resurrect the book without the Doak Scale, because I'd be accused of being too politically correct, which I am not ... so I decided it would be better with four ratings, instead of one.


Likewise, the Minnesota top thirty.  If every review just posted the ratings given by the various judges, you would see that there isn't much different between #10 and #30, and you'd see that one of the higher-ranked courses rests on the opinion of just two guys.  There would be transparency, rather than a ranking that exaggerates the differences.  Moreover, instead of focusing on the difference between #10 and #30, you would be more inclined to actually read the review, and judge for yourself whether the course is of interest to you ... which is really the whole point.

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8)  Dan,


Agree with your premise, and argument.  Well said.  I am reminded of when playing with some buds, swinging away on the tee, when someone hits a really good one, and grunts a bit... someone will chirp in, "Did you get all of that one?"


I'd advise to only change-tweek one thing, because as soon as you start putting numbers or a number of stars on your ratings, they turn into defacto rankings as one has to understand the qualifications, and no-one other than gca geeks care about the fine nuances and distinctions.  I'd just go with just the one-two word ratings alone:


Avoid
Ordinary
Good-Play
Excellent
Outstanding


to nuance or not to nuance
 
 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:20:05 AM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Peter Pallotta

Not surprisingly, Dan, much food for thought here; a veritable buffet -- an all you can eat pot-luck dinner! So let me offer two small hors d'oeuvres.

1. The Kelly Scale relative to the Doak Scale (re: golf courses) offers an interesting parallel to discussions re: golf equipment.  The Kelly Scale essentially 'widens the gaps' between iron lofts: i.e. instead of the 3-4 degree gap that exists between each iron in a full set (which full set top golfers and professionals can meaningfully and effectively utilize), you are proposing instead a half-set of irons, with 7-8 degree gaps between each iron -- befitting the more limited skill-set and 'game' that most amateurs and average golfers possess, and thus providing all that they can realistically use.

(Tom D, I see, sees it differently; and in his modesty is not likely to agree that a half set is better, or that most of us should be using this half-set instead of the full set that he and a few others can handle and make work.)

2. As I see from several other posters and in many other posts, yours too contains a paradox (or so it seems to me): an apparent contradiction. Everyone, including you, seems to agree that rankings/ratings are "subjective"; but very few are at the same time able to stop themselves from writing phrases like: "Few (if any) of us have played enough rounds on any course, except our own, to know it thoroughly." To me the apparent contradiction is this: if our ratings of courses are merely subjective (which is another way of saying that there is nothing "objective" about quality golf course architecture), then what does it mean, in practice, to "know a course thoroughly", and why would that be important or something we should care about?         

Peter
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:49:21 AM by Peter Pallotta »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Given the instant information we have at our hands in todays society I would prefer courses be rated on a week to week basis. It would be simple enough to graph the Doak scale against the week of the year so we could easily see the best time to play the finest courses.


Even a course as great as Prairie Dunes goes from a 2 to a 10 over the course of a season. They are on temp greens in Jan and Feb and the temps get out of control in the peak of the summer. Most courses have set aeration schedules, tournaments where conditioning gets even better…played Riviera on Monday after the LA Open - 10..and so on and so on. Cypress isn't holding a 10 all year even though it may be the most consistent of all.


The courses in Minnesota would graph well.


Best course in the world during the last week of January? Royal Melbourne…catch some tennis while you are in town.



Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0

John is thinking along the lines I would.


You have probably all seen that personality test quadrant, and I think putting golf courses in that kind of graph would work pretty well.


There might be better broad definitions, but I think q
uadrants or graph lines might be Modern/Classic, Difficult/Fun, Artistic/Plain, Well Maintained/Scruffy.  Who knows, wooded/prairie, mountain/valley, etc.


I might be intrigued by a modern, fun, artistic, well maintained course.  Many here would trend to Classic, others difficult, etc.  No rankings, just telling you if the course is likely to fit your tastes.


Of course, like hockey stats and golf rankings, someone would quickly put more precise numbers in each quadrant, and you would have a course 64% into one quad, and 93% in another, etc. Or, they would add more quadrants.......as I already started to do.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
John

I gotta believe that a guy making a serious trip across an ocean is gonna know when the best time it is to play x course.  Do we really need ranking for seasons?  Sounds like another Golf Digest ranking has been invented.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0

2. As I see from several other posters and in many other posts, yours too contains a paradox (or so it seems to me): an apparent contradiction. Everyone, including you, seems to agree that rankings/ratings are "subjective"; but very few are at the same time able to stop themselves from writing phrases like: "Few (if any) of us have played enough rounds on any course, except our own, to know it thoroughly." To me the apparent contradiction is this: if our ratings of courses are merely subjective (which is another way of saying that there is nothing "objective" about quality golf course architecture), then what does it mean, in practice, to "know a course thoroughly", and why would that be important or something we should care about?         


Peter --


Good question.


I don't think there is any contradiction there.


"Knowing a course thoroughly" means playing it in a variety of conditions (wet/dry, windy/calm, west wind/east wind, etc.) and in all its parameters (tees back, tees forward, hole locations all over the greens).


After five full years at Midland Hills, I am STILL seeing new hole locations almost every time I play. That variety of setups has raised my appreciation of the golf course, year after year. I could not have seen what *is* there with one playing or 50. I'm getting there after 250.
 
The result of knowing a course thoroughly: a more reliable and confident *subjective* (still subjective) opinion.


Thanks for the potluck line! (Just a little side note: When we Minnesotans go to potlucks, we don't take "casseroles"; we take "hotdishes." Must, apparently, include tater tots and cream-of-something soup.)


Dan






 



"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sean,


Last time I spoke to you it was over Thanksgiving in London. Walton Heath was wonderful that time of year as I am sure many courses in the region are not. For me, golf is secondary when traveling.


I was just trying to think of which course I would most like to play during the first week of the year. Sadly Shadow Creek came to mind as Vegas and the College Football Playoffs are a great combination. Just like Royal Melbourne and the Australian Open would be perfect this week. I was even considering starting a thread titled "Best course in the world this week" until I realized it would be a one year commitment.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
I was even considering starting a thread titled "Best course in the world this week" until I realized it would be a one year commitment.


a pretty good thread title.


I got an early look into the ratings system when I worked at Long Cove in the 80's when it was ranked as high as 19 in GD.
Playing in January on an unseasonably pleasant day in the upper 60's, with the nonoversseded fairways and surrounds running beautifully fast and tawny after several weeks of lows in the 20's and highs around 45, a GD rater came in and told me how over rated LC was and that they could at least "put some water" on it to green it up.


So for that guy he needed to come in an overseeded year or play in July-and both months would miss the marvelous conditions we had the day he was there.


I'm not a big fan of number ratings, instead preferring to read comments a la CG or a review to see WHY they liked it.
because if the rater above told me a course was a "9" or 4 stars, all I would know is that it was green.


But if I were a numbers guy, I'd prefer a 10 point scale to a 5 pointer.


Again though, a description(preferably from some whose track record I know) or even a picture generally override #'s.
Plenty of 6's and 7's I don't need to return to due to them believeing (and writing) their own press
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Dan -
There's the rub for me:

you write that multiple plays have given you a more "reliable and confident" opinion about Midland Hills. Understood. But reliable and confident for who? (Or is it "for whom"?)

Do you mean just for yourself -- as in: you as a smart and self-respecting person feel more comfortable to share your opinions with others now that you can confidently back them up?

Or did you intend instead that folks like me and other posters should thus give your (subjective) opinion more weight, and take it more seriously, for said multiple plays and the better understanding that results?

Should others take it more seriously, as a subjective opinion, than the one I might offer about Midland Hills just from the photos and write-ups that I've seen of the course?

I imagine that, all politeness and modesty and notions of subjectivity aside, you and others would answer "yes"; i.e. you would say, essentially: yes, it is all subjective opinion, but Peter's opinion in this matter is as nearly close to worthless as possible.   

Setting aside the question of how a personal subjective opinion can in fact be worthless (in anything but an objective sense), I'll grant you that my opinion about Midland Hills is in an absolute sense worthless, and worthless also in a relative sense, i.e. compared to yours. 

But why would that be the case -- if not because, implicitly at least, you and I and others do in fact believe that there is something objectively there to be recognized and appreciated in any given golf course?   

As I said on another thread, I think there is more than a little Pat M in all of us: i.e. we are fine to claim only subjectivity for our opinions about a golf course -- until, that is, someone we believe knows far less than we do (because he's never played the course, or played it only once, or only played it 4 times and never when the wind was blowing) comes anywhere close to questioning or challenging that opinion.

In that event, we usually (at least privately) conclude that we're right and the other person is wrong; in other words, we resolve the issue for ourselves by using the black and white, true and false language of objectivity.

Listen: I know that there is something amiss here, i.e. that I keep coming back to this question even though most of the smartest and best informed posters have long ago agreed that the case is closed.

If we were talking about films or books, I'd easily agree with you and Tom and others that it's all subjective opinion. But I can't shake the feeling that gca is an art-craft both like, and unlike, other arts & crafts.  To me, it seems more like a mathematical equation than a novel; and more like a theorem from modern-day physics than a movie.

At any rate, consider this my hotdish -- a tray of lasagna, as it were.

Peter   
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 12:18:16 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Peter Pallotta

And to Tom D:

I can't know, of course, and don't want to put words in your wife's mouth, but I suspect that in saying the CG would've been better without the numbers she's suggesting that one can't really claim 'subjectivity' while at the same time using that most 'objective' of all concepts/frameworks, i.e. numbers.

I find it interesting that, in my experience, no woman I've ever known either casually or well seems to have ever produced or promoted their own "Top 10" list, about anything.  I think it may be because they embrace subjectivity, and their own subjectivity, much more fully and truthfully, and without apology than we do (or at least, than I do).


 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 01:07:46 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1

(Tom D, I see, sees it differently; and in his modesty is not likely to agree that a half set is better, or that most of us should be using this half-set instead of the full set that he and a few others can handle and make work.)



Actually, one objection to the 1-5 scale is that I always wish to give myself some wiggle room in my ratings, and often say that a course could be one point higher or lower than my score, depending on the observer and other factors.  With the 1-5 scale there's no room for that, anything you say is going to be pretty definitive.


P.S.  My wife declined to comment on your observations above, other than to say they are in her Top 5 of the Most Sexist Comments she has heard from this web site  ;)


P.P.S.  She further clarifies that she thinks ALL ratings and rankings are subjective, and that every different person takes something different from their experiences, so anyone's rating of anything is meaningless to her; only their experience is relevant.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 01:21:53 PM by Tom_Doak »

Peter Pallotta

I love the PPS - 'only the experience is relevant'. We're in complete agreement.
On her other point: I'll have to give that some serious thought. She might well be right and me completely wrong. I'll check-in with my wife shortly, and will then know for sure which it is! (Of course, independent of 'right' and 'wrong', her experience is what would be of value for me in this.)

Dan - if I've sidetracked your (excellent) thread, my apologies. 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 01:29:26 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I can add a statistical point of view of your Likert scale from a research perspective.  There is a lot of data out there about how many rating options you include in your survey. The consensus is as follows (although I'm not a psychologist, just from my education and MBA background):

1. Odd point scale is preferable for most responders as it gives a middle ground

2. 5 or 7 points has been found to be the most effective in almost all research

3. Any more than 7 points, research shows that the brain can't delineate their response into that many categories

4. Some researchers prefer 7 points because it increases the variance and thus makes your data more meaningful for respondents have a larger spread of choices.

5. The 7 point scale has more closely correlated t-test results (which are used with p-scores) to measure how different the result is and if the response was a result of chance. These t-test and p-scores were hell in statistics for me, lucky there is software. Short story is that means more reliability, which is getting a consistent result.

Thus, the message is use whatever you want but keep in mind that regardless of what data you want, you must consider your target population and their bias.  The most significant point I always remember from my statistics class for formulating a survey in my future case studies is 5 or 7 point scale, with 7 being my preference if I am judging something more complex, as I want variance.

If you think of the scholastic aptitude system we have been locked into the A, B, C, D, F forever. Then they started adding the + or - in there.  Some statisticians loved it because it created variance and more easily grouped sample populations.  Although nowadays with grade inflation and high pressure parents, it seems like everyone gets A's and B's.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom

The issue I have with a 10 scale is I am not confident that there is a real divide between some of the numbers.  I know there is in your mind, but that doesn't always come across well in the book.  For instance, the difference between 9 and 10 strikes me as very vague, leaving me with the feeling you are not sure there is a difference between the two. 

I feel on much more solid ground between 5-7 and 8 to 9...not so much between 7 & 8.

I don't get the 0 business in the least.  It just seems like a depository for courses that piss you off  ;D   Sort of like my NR...usually I am pushed to my limits between reconciling a reputation and reality  ;D

I have really tried to avoid using my ratings (a 6 point scale) as a ranking and stick with what the system was designed to do...offer a final say as to how much time and expense is it worth to play the course.  Folks have to read between the lines for the quality other than to know that any course which I recommend is at the very least good even if unspectacular in any way.  Even then, I often don't come right out and say I recommend a course unless it earns at least 1*....its a way to hedge my bets for folks who haven't read many of my tours.  I don't give some of my favourite courses a * because I know many folks won't get it in that way.  Still, some folks still see the system as a quality ranking when it is most definitely not the case.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
you write that multiple plays have given you a more "reliable and confident" opinion about Midland Hills. Understood. But reliable and confident for who? (Or is it "for whom"?)
For whom. Object of the preposition "for."

You write: "Do you mean just for yourself -- as in: you as a smart and self-respecting person feel more comfortable to share your opinions with others now that you can confidently back them up? Or did you intend instead that folks like me and other posters should thus give your (subjective) opinion more weight, and take it more seriously, for said multiple plays and the better understanding that results? Should others take it more seriously, as a subjective opinion, than the one I might offer about Midland Hills just from the photos and write-ups that I've seen of the course?"

I reply: Yes. Yes. Yes.

You write: "... implicitly at least, you and I and others do in fact believe that there is something objectively there to be recognized and appreciated in any given golf course?"
I reply: Something objectively there to be recognized? Yes.  Something there to be objectively appreciated? I don't know how that is possible.


You write: "As I said on another thread, I think there is more than a little Pat M in all of us: i.e. we are fine to claim only subjectivity for our opinions about a golf course -- until, that is, someone we believe knows far less than we do (because he's never played the course, or played it only once, or only played it 4 times and never when the wind was blowing) comes anywhere close to questioning or challenging that opinion.

"In that event, we usually (at least privately) conclude that we're right and the other person is wrong; in other words, we resolve the issue for ourselves by using the black and white, true and false language of objectivity."

I reply: I did not say all opinions are equal. They are not. Some are better-informed than others. But I can assure you that when an opinion as well-informed as mine differs from mine, I do not think my view is the "right" one and others are "wrong."


One example: There is a club fairly high on the Minnesota list with a course that a lot of my friends just HATE and would never think of playing, let alone joining. For my part, I have enjoyed playing it a couple of times a year -- but wouldn't choose it as a regular diet. At least one of the Minnesota raters gave it a Doak 7. All opinions. All subjective.


You write: "If we were talking about films or books, I'd easily agree with you and Tom and others that it's all subjective opinion. But I can't shake the feeling that gca is an art-craft both like, and unlike, other arts & crafts.  To me, it seems more like a mathematical equation than a novel; and more like a theorem from modern-day physics than a movie."


I reply: We'll just disagree there.

You write: "At any rate, consider this my hotdish -- a tray of lasagna, as it were."


I reply: Great. I love lasagna. Just promise not to put any Cream of Mushroom soup in it!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 02:47:55 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
I have 70,213 mp3s on my iTunes, and while I'll never listen to them all, I do use iTunes' one-to-five star ratings system. I started by giving every song two stars, and as I play them, I either add or detract stars.

Five seems like plenty of categories to make critical distinctions (I don't assign zero stars; if a song isn't worth even one star, I delete it.) One star, to me, means I don't want to hear the song except for some research purpose. Two stars is "just a song" (or, "meh"), or else I haven't heard it yet and it's waiting to go up or down in my estimation. Three stars is pretty standard for a song that was a chart hit or something I've been familiar with for a long time and still enjoy listening to. Four stars is a serious like bordering on love, something I will always listen to actively (I currently have 1,049 such songs, including "I Want to Talk About You" by John Coltrane and "Today" by Jefferson Airplane.).

I have 186 five-star songs, including "Til I Die" by the Beach Boys, "September Gurls" by Big Star, "Highway 40 Blues" by Ricky Skaggs and "I'll Be Around" by the Spinners." In no way would these songs be considered the greatest songs of all time by a consensus of music critics, but they do something emotionally to me every time I hear them, and that's all that matters to me.

I think I tend to rate golf courses by the same general criteria, so the Kelly Scale works for me. You can't compile a consensus best-of list based on emotional reactions. Well, I suppose you could, but it wouldn't mean any more than my iTunes ratings would mean to another person who hasn't lived my life. 
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
I like the 10 point scale more than the 5 point scale.  The 5-point lumps too many courses together IMO. 

Actually, I'd rather take things the opposite way, and know how Tom ranks the 10s against each other.  Same with the 9s and maybe the 8s. 

btw, whether 10-point of 5-point, the scales still rank courses, just in groups instead of individually. 


Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Quote
And adding up the subjective views of a dozen or a thousand raters does not make them any less subjective.

This statement appears to be mathematically false. If you have 1000 raters you have 1000 subjective ratings - no question. But if you average the 1000 ratings to one number, then there is nothing subjective about it.

In other words: every random selection of 1000 golfers will produce the same average number. And if not, then take 2000 golfers or however many are required to get objectivity. There are mathematical formulae that let you calculate this number (trivial solution: the number of all golfers). Most of the time it ends up being between 5% and 10% of all participants.

I do agree with the notion that a course's character is best described in words and pictures, not numbers. But the relative merits of playing one course over the other cannot be put in words. The only way to compare two reviews is to find similar words and then look for adverbs like "very" or "not much of that". But a "very" is a poor substitute for a number. And you would need to write very, very, very for Augusta National, which would quickly become unreadable.

Don't burden numbers with tasks they cannot perform, but also don't do it to words. Each medium has specific strengths and weaknesses.

Ulrich

Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0


As I said on another thread, I think there is more than a little Pat M in all of us: i.e. we are fine to claim only subjectivity for our opinions about a golf course -- until, that is, someone we believe knows far less than we do (because he's never played the course, or played it only once, or only played it 4 times and never when the wind was blowing) comes anywhere close to questioning or challenging that opinion.


Pat was adamant when discussing the merits of a golf course that in order to offer an informed opinion you had to have played the course or at the very least walked the holes and I think he had it right. If I want an informed opinion about an Italian restaurant it's not from someone that read about it in Gourmet Magazine but rather someone that had actually dined there.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 07:34:37 PM by Tim Martin »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
btw, whether 10-point of 5-point, the scales still rank courses, just in groups instead of individually.


Well, yes, of course -- but that is precisely what I want.


I don't need or want to know whether some group of raters thinks Interlachen or Minikahda is supposedly 0.19 points (or whatever negligible amount) better than the other.

[/size][size=78%]What I object to are ratings that tell people this course is 1, that course is 2, that other course is 3, etc., etc., etc.[/size]


Just tell me what-all courses are One of a Kind, Outstanding, Excellent, Ordinary, or Forget About It!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Dan,


While I like the broad concept (maybe 7 is in fact ideal), it still doesn’t address my main concern- i.e. Mike Nuzzo’s excellent Pretty/Fun/Challenging article. http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf  Take Medinah #3, Old Elm and Arcadia Bluffs for example.  While they may all fall into the 4 star category on your scale (for example), it doesn’t tell me anything toward the fact that, given my personal preference for fun first, pretty a distant second and challenge an even further third, I would greatly prefer Old Elm over the other two, may enjoy an occasional round at Arcadia Bluffs and have no business playing Medinah #3 from virtually any tee.  Others, of course, may see it completely differently yet are similarly flummoxed looking at 3 4-star ratings. (Mind you, the Doak scale has the same issue, hence the value of the write-ups)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 07:55:28 PM by Jud_T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back