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.


Ted Sturges

  • Karma: +0/-0
191???
« on: November 29, 2019, 11:11:23 AM »
I saw included in the Golf Magazine rankings stuff that the average number of courses reviewed PER YEAR by their panelists was 191!!


Can this statistic be accurate?  Do any of these panelists have families?


TS

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2019, 11:17:02 AM »
Ted.   You misunderstood.  It means of the 400+ courses on the ballot, the panelists submitted scores for an average of 191 courses.  Not per year. 




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: 191???
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2019, 11:17:08 AM »
It's not per year.  If they really printed that, they need a better copy editor, or fact checker.

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2019, 11:17:59 AM »
I saw included in the Golf Magazine rankings stuff that the average number of courses reviewed PER YEAR by their panelists was 191!!


Can this statistic be accurate?  Do any of these panelists have families?


TS


Paging Cory Lewis, who is up to 190 this year.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2019, 11:18:21 AM »
I saw included in the Golf Magazine rankings stuff that the average number of courses reviewed PER YEAR by their panelists was 191!!


Can this statistic be accurate?  Do any of these panelists have families?


TS


Paging Cory Lewis, who is up to 190 this year.


Plot twist: He married well.  ;D
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2019, 01:47:13 PM »
Still getting hung up on the "average" wording.  For this specific list, I would think the number of courses reviewed, regardless of how many times each one was reviewed, would be a set number.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2019, 06:21:56 PM »
Still getting hung up on the "average" wording.  For this specific list, I would think the number of courses reviewed, regardless of how many times each one was reviewed, would be a set number.
I read it as this: if you're on the panel for 15 years, or you get around and play a lot of courses, you will have seen/played a lot of top courses, so you can submit ratings for many, many courses.

In fact the ability to have played a lot of courses is probably a determinant of whether you make it on the panel to begin with. Someone who has played six great courses is not of much value.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 191???
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2019, 01:40:15 PM »
Thanks Eric, makes sense.  Sounds like on average, each panelist has seen 191 courses of the 400 or so on the list.