Golfweek Rankings

[JC Jones]

Jay,
That is great advice! As for the question at hand. Would you agree that it would be almost impossible not to rate Mid-Pines higher after the recent renovation?

Absolutely, and I am quite sure that Southern Pines will rise significantly after a Kyle Franz makeover. I look much better in airbrushed photos also.

Only if they airbrushed the photo so much that it had no resemblance to your actual self.

[Tom_Doak]

The SC list, though, has the two biggest puzzlers to me.  To rank Legends Moorland ANYWHERE is a shock; it's the third best course out of three just at The Legends, and a true train wreck of over-design.  Only slightly less odd to me is ranking the Barefoot Dye course rather than the Love course at the same site. 

Like you, I realize that these don't really mean anything anyway, and that we could quibble endlessly.  But I do struggle a bit to understand rankings that involve courses at the same site.

1.  Rankings are completely subjective; the fact that two courses are in the same facility instead of next door [or halfway around the world] changes little.


2.  I thought there were a few really good holes on the Moorland course at The Legends.  They're not "my style" of design at all, but I was surprised to find that P.B. could create such a severe and compelling hole from a dull, flat site.  That may not be your thing, at all, but that doesn't mean other guys won't like it.


3.  I have no idea who's on the GOLFWEEK panel -- it could literally be anybody for all I know -- so I don't expect them to have the same tastes I do.  So their rankings don't carry more weight than a comment from any random golfer.

[Lou_Duran]

Who did they hire? And Golfweek scheduled a raters event days after an aeration. Plus the pros bitched.

Funny you mention this.  When I was with Brand X many years ago, we had a rater's event based out of The Glen Club.  Say what you will about Dr. Klein, but he put together some really outstanding itineraries such as this one: Beverly, Skokie, The Glen Club, Cog Hill, around which a few of us played Chicago GC, North Shore, Shoreacres, Knollwood, both courses at Olympia Field, Black Sheep, and Rich Harvest.  Great fun.


The outlier was The Glen Club where they had done a large tine, deep aeration a day or two before we played the course.  To say the greens were rough and bumpy would be an understatement.  Nevertheless, the one GW rater who was a true scratch or better player shot one or two under.  I am a big Fazio fan, but the punched greens took all the fun out of it for me.


By chance, a then young Josh Lesnik sat beside me at dinner.  The conversation was interesting, especially as it related to the development and management of Bandon Dunes.  I did ask Josh why they didn't delay the green maintenance until after the GW outing and he stated that the aeration had already been pushed back two or three times due to a great early fall streak of weather and full tee sheets.  He noted that it was not ideal to punch right before a rating panel was to play the course, but it couldn't wait any longer and he was confident that the raters wouldn't hold it against the course for the needed routine maintenance.  I don't recall if the course made the Top 100 Modern, but I heard more than a few complaints from my brethren.


Cog Hill was the extra arranged course on the getaway day.   It was in fine condition, but play was slow, a number of raters didn't play in their assigned groups and times creating further delays and confusion.  Coupled with quite a few golfers skipping holes to get to their flights, I am afraid that dear Mr. Jensek (who attended the dinner at The Glen Club and gave a short talk) didn't get a fair evaluation.  I always had Cog Hill higher than the consensus.


 

[Jonathan Cummings]

Can someone please explain this for me:

How does Pebble Beach's rating change from list to list?

Classic = 8.78
Resort = 8.85

For mine - it should be the same unless the criteria changes.

Kevin - as far as ratings go these two Pebble Beach numbers are the same.  The change in 8 hundreds is due to a few more ratings added into the several hundred they already have.  It is well within any arguable margin of error and more an estimate of the numeric noise in the ratings. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Are the Golfweek criteria posted somewhere? I see references to them on the website, but not the criteria themselves. Thanks.

[Ronald Montesano]

Kevin, et al.


There's a book you might want to pick up. Guy I know well did a review of it, posted today. Talks about ratings, etc. Gives you a real understanding of how hundreths and tenths of points don't amount to a large hill of beans.


http://www.golfwrx.com/621864/two-great-golf-books-the-rating-game-and-golfs-holy-war/?utm_source=Front&utm_medium=Featured_Latest&utm_campaign=GolfWRX_OnSite&utm_content=unused

[Peter Sayegh]

The SC list, though, has the two biggest puzzlers to me.  To rank Legends Moorland ANYWHERE is a shock; it's the third best course out of three just at The Legends, and a true train wreck of over-design.  Only slightly less odd to me is ranking the Barefoot Dye course rather than the Love course at the same site. 

Like you, I realize that these don't really mean anything anyway, and that we could quibble endlessly.  But I do struggle a bit to understand rankings that involve courses at the same site.

1.  Rankings are completely subjective; the fact that two courses are in the same facility instead of next door [or halfway around the world] changes little.


2.  I thought there were a few really good holes on the Moorland course at The Legends.  They're not "my style" of design at all, but I was surprised to find that P.B. could create such a severe and compelling hole from a dull, flat site.  That may not be your thing, at all, but that doesn't mean other guys won't like it.


3.  I have no idea who's on the GOLFWEEK panel -- it could literally be anybody for all I know -- so I don't expect them to have the same tastes I do.  So their rankings don't carry more weight than a comment from any random golfer.

Thank you Tom Doak. I was prepared to chastise AG about his thoughts in regards to the SC courses. I personally love the Moorland course-for its uniqueness and recommend it often to visitors. The Love course, again, TO ME, is one of the dullest places to play golf. Haven't/wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Course appreciation IS very subjective.

[A.G._Crockett]

The SC list, though, has the two biggest puzzlers to me.  To rank Legends Moorland ANYWHERE is a shock; it's the third best course out of three just at The Legends, and a true train wreck of over-design.  Only slightly less odd to me is ranking the Barefoot Dye course rather than the Love course at the same site. 

Like you, I realize that these don't really mean anything anyway, and that we could quibble endlessly.  But I do struggle a bit to understand rankings that involve courses at the same site.

1.  Rankings are completely subjective; the fact that two courses are in the same facility instead of next door [or halfway around the world] changes little.


2.  I thought there were a few really good holes on the Moorland course at The Legends.  They're not "my style" of design at all, but I was surprised to find that P.B. could create such a severe and compelling hole from a dull, flat site.  That may not be your thing, at all, but that doesn't mean other guys won't like it.


3.  I have no idea who's on the GOLFWEEK panel -- it could literally be anybody for all I know -- so I don't expect them to have the same tastes I do.  So their rankings don't carry more weight than a comment from any random golfer.

Thank you Tom Doak. I was prepared to chastise AG about his thoughts in regards to the SC courses. I personally love the Moorland course-for its uniqueness and recommend it often to visitors. The Love course, again, TO ME, is one of the dullest places to play golf. Haven't/wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Course appreciation IS very subjective.

Well, Peter, since this is all subjective and we're "chastising", I'll just add that you're entitled to your opinion even if you are wrong. 


I won't debate the Love course, which I have done many times before.  But Moorlands?  It's the third best course at Legends, and there are a dozen or more in the MB area that I prefer, and I've played almost all of them.  It's a mess, and being "unique" doesn't change that one bit.  You can have it; I'll play elsewhere every time.  And if you're sending people there, I assume you aren't sending novices, or very many women, or very many old guys, or kids; like most of what PB Dye has done, those people can't play his courses and have any fun at all.  That, at least to me, is a disqualifier of the first order, and I'll NEVER change my mind about it.

[Edward Glidewell]

I've actually never played any of the Legends courses (one of the few places I haven't played in the area), although I've been wanting to get down and see Heathland at some point.

I think I'd agree that Tiger's Eye is a slightly better course than Leopard's Chase, but I would tell everyone to avoid that whole complex. Leopard's Chase is apparently in the "best" condition of the four, but it has greens that are half-dead with multiple types of grass and weeds growing in the fairways.  Even ignoring the conditions I'd probably rate Rivers Edge higher than any of those courses, but I could also understand having a lower opinion of it because it has some very difficult holes, and the green on the 9th hole is pretty silly.

I think the Fazio course is the best at the Barefoot complex, but all four are solid golf courses -- the Norman is a bit compromised by the condos that were built later and intrude on some of the holes, though.

[Peter Sayegh]

Thanks for allowing me to have a personal opinion AG.

I'll be sure to tell "novices, or very many women, or very many old guys, or kids" you have their opinion-on Moorland and most of PB Dye's courses-decided for them since "those people can't play his courses and have any fun at all."

[Jonathan Cummings]

Are the Golfweek criteria posted somewhere? I see references to them on the website, but not the criteria themselves. Thanks.

Matt - each rater submits a 1-10 rating (whole scale) for the categories listed below.  Unlike Digest, these category numbers are recorded but not used by GW in determining the overall ranking averages.  An overall and independent 1.0-10.0 score (using 1/10 scale) is also provided by each rater for a course rated.  These are the only scores used by GW in determining the classical and modern rankings.

Ease & Intimacy Routing

Quality of feature Shaping (Modern)

Integrity of Design (Classical)

Natural Setting

Interest of greens and chipping

Variety/mem Par 3s

Variety/mem Par 4s

Variety/mem Par 5s

Basic Conditioning

Lands/Tree Management

Walk in Park

[Ronald Montesano]

Jonathan,


What is the purpose of the individual-category ratings (the ones that are recorded, but not utilized)? Is it to serve as guideposts for the raters themselves, or does it have some other relevance? Thank you in advance.

[John Kavanaugh]

You have to read a Rater’s Notebook for it all to hit home.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/golfweek.com/2010/09/27/raters-notebook-twenty-ten-course/amp/

[mike_malone]

 I’m wondering if Flynn is too subtle in his brilliance compared to the brash features of other classic designers. What he lacks in eye candy he makes up for in challenging playability.

[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks for allowing me to have a personal opinion AG.

I'll be sure to tell "novices, or very many women, or very many old guys, or kids" you have their opinion-on Moorland and most of PB Dye's courses-decided for them since "those people can't play his courses and have any fun at all."

I felt that allowing you to have an opinion was the least I could do after you elected not to chastise me; I hate being chastised!
Kidding aside, it is odd to say the least that we're arguing about a course that most people that have played most MB courses wouldn't have in their top ten JUST for the strand.  I realize that the northern end of the strand is in NC, but still...

[Jonathan Cummings]

You have to read a Rater’s Notebook for it all to hit home.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/golfweek.com/2010/09/27/raters-notebook-twenty-ten-course/amp/

John - they are using a much newer one than the one in your link.

[John Kavanaugh]

That was the first Rater’s Notebook that came up for me on a Google search. I miss Brad Klein’s reviews of courses under that format.

[Jonathan Cummings]

That was the first Rater’s Notebook that came up for me on a Google search. I miss Brad Klein’s reviews of courses under that format.

John - I agree, I miss Brad's reviews.  Say what you want about Klein but he has one of the best set of eyes for judging golf course character, to say nothing of his excellent writing abilities.


Are you following Brad's COVID diaries?  Not about golf but excellent muses and observations on current events and coping.

[John Kavanaugh]

That was the first Rater’s Notebook that came up for me on a Google search. I miss Brad Klein’s reviews of courses under that format.

John - I agree, I miss Brad's reviews.  Say what you want about Klein but he has one of the best set of eyes for judging golf course character, to say nothing of his excellent writing abilities.


Are you following Brad's COVID diaries?  Not about golf but excellent muses and observations on current events and coping.

Typically I just read Thefriedegg and tack on 40 years.