[Ted Sturges]

In the Indianapolis market, there is a sports talk radio guy who was recently discussing all the NFL draft "experts", who are the guys telling us who made wise selections in the draft and who made poor ones.  He recently asked the question, "so...who rates the draft experts?"  Fair question.  My favorite team the Colts picked Darius Leonard with the 36th pick (early 2nd round) in the 2018 NFL draft and one so called "expert" said it was the single worst pick in the 2018 draft.  Leonard has been named to the All-NFL team the last 2 seasons.  So much for that "expert".


With that thought in mind, I am going to start a thread on rating the golf course raters.  Below is my analysis of these "experts".  Feel free to add your own analysis:


Golf Magazine:    I give them a B+.  I think it is clearly the best set of lists out there and I appreciate that they do both the US and World lists.  Given more time, I am confident REM3 will make this list even better.


Golf Week Magazine:     I give them a C+.  I do like their "modern" versus "classic" distinctions, but they have too many courses more than 20 spots out of where I believe they should be on both lists.


Golf Digest:  I will be generous and give them a D-.  This year's list simply can't be taken seriously.  Though I am tempted to just give them a flunking grade, I do think they identified some of the best courses in the US.  However, they lead the league in courses more than 20 spots out of where I believe they should be.


TS

[Bernie Bell]

Aren't the golf magazines consciously applying different criteria?  You're just gonna like the one that likes what you already like, no?

[John Kavanaugh]

I give Ran and all his appointees an arms length A+++.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe Facebook can send over some of their fact checkers, now that they have banned Trump for longer, and probably don't have a lot to do?


A bit more seriously....but who would rate the raters who rate the raters?

[Jay Mickle]

During the past year I have spoken to a few new GolfWeek raters who spent considerable time on a questionaire that they had to fill out prior to being accepted. I don't know the criteria for selection but it at least indicates a level of concern regarding the backgrounds of those chosen.  Of course Golf Magazine has a who's who of extraordinarily capable course evaluators but as with every thing we all have different views.

[Tom_Doak]

My analysis is simple:  who are the raters?  Are they people whose opinion matters to me?


And the answer, for pretty much all of these rankings, is no.


GOLF Magazine does have some people whose opinion I would be interested to hear, but also there are a lot with whom I am completely unfamiliar -- which seems strange, considering how involved I am in golf course design, and how many people I know.


When I started doing the rankings, I inherited a panel that included Ballesteros and Greg Norman and Ben Crenshaw and Tom Weiskopf and Tony Jacklin and Michael Bonallack, among others.  None of them had seen as many courses as I've seen now, but their opinions carried a bit more weight than anyone doing it now.  I mean, wouldn't you want to know what Tiger Woods had to say about what were the best courses?  But that's kind of at odds with averaging the votes from a thousand people who are not Tiger Woods.

[Ted Sturges]

Maybe Facebook can send over some of their fact checkers, now that they have banned Trump for longer, and probably don't have a lot to do?


A bit more seriously....but who would rate the raters who rate the raters?

Made me laugh out loud Jeff Brauer. 

[Carl Rogers]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

[Tom_Doak]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

That's a good question.  Mostly now it is defined as having gone to see a lot of courses around the world, so they'll know what the baseline of a top-100 course really is.  But just because someone can afford to travel does not make their opinion valuable.


If you can find people who are both curious and accomplished at something in the world of golf, that's the ticket.  They don't have to be an accomplished player; they could be an accomplished writer, or photographer, or designer, or caddie, or superintendent, or even an historian [though historians tend to be biased toward the work of their favorite subject].

[Peter Pallotta]

I just read the roll-call (and occasional profiles) of GOLF's panelists. It's an impressive group -- and the very notion of publicly listing them like that has the effect of setting the select group apart, and making the panel seem special, especially in comparison to Digest's much larger group of nameless & faceless raters. (I think Ran is doing effective work in this regard, ie promoting the people to promote the brand.) And sure enough, the two Top 100s seem to reflect this, even though GOLF's current one is for courses 'you can play': Digest suddenly seems to be the blue collar collection, ie raters who have no connections and have to pay for access and are impressed by exclusivity and championship pedigree; while GOLF's panelists are the sophisticates, ie well travelled white collar & industry types who can praise the subtle and little-known because they have nothing to prove to themselves or others. And in this latter case, the 1 to 100 ranking system seems to work just fine; a special select panel would know what it's doing well enough to justify it!


 

 

[Tim Martin]

I just read the roll-call (and occasional profiles) of GOLF's panelists. It's an impressive group -- and the very notion of publicly listing them like that has the effect of setting the select group apart, and making the panel seem special, especially in comparison to Digest's much larger group of nameless & faceless raters. (I think Ran is doing effective work in this regard, ie promoting the people to promote the brand.) And sure enough, the two Top 100s seem to reflect this, even though GOLF's current one is for courses 'you can play': Digest suddenly seems to be the blue collar collection, ie raters who have no connections and have to pay for access and are impressed by exclusivity and championship pedigree; while GOLF's panelists are the sophisticates, ie well travelled white collar & industry types who can praise the subtle and little-known because they have nothing to prove to themselves or others. And in this latter case, the 1 to 100 ranking system seems to work just fine; a special select panel would know what it's doing well enough to justify it!


 

The Golf Magazine list of the Top 100 you can play has C&C with the most modern courses and Donald Ross for the Golden Age.

[Ira Fishman]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

That's a good question.  Mostly now it is defined as having gone to see a lot of courses around the world, so they'll know what the baseline of a top-100 course really is.  But just because someone can afford to travel does not make their opinion valuable.


If you can find people who are both curious and accomplished at something in the world of golf, that's the ticket.  They don't have to be an accomplished player; they could be an accomplished writer, or photographer, or designer, or caddie, or superintendent, or even an historian [though historians tend to be biased toward the work of their favorite subject].

Back 8 or 9 years ago, Golf Architecture magazine surveyed architects. The list of course was not perfect because we know that no list can be, but I am surprised that the exercise has never been repeated by someone.


Ira

[Will Spivey]

Maybe Facebook can send over some of their fact checkers, now that they have banned Trump for longer, and probably don't have a lot to do?


A bit more seriously....but who would rate the raters who rate the raters?

The raters who rate the raters have been sacked....

[David Wuthrich]

Well said Peter!

[Bill Seitz]

The raters who rate the raters have been sacked....

A moose once bit my sister!

[Sven Nilsen]

The raters who rate the raters have been sacked....

A moose once bit my sister!

Did you mean a møøse?

[Kalen Braley]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

Carl,

I think this will always be subjective given that for someone like Tom D or the handful of other veteran architects who participate here, they will have far more stringent criteria to determine who is credible vs someone like me who doesn't work in the biz and would have a larger pool of people whose opinion I would trust.

But then again if we're talking about stuff in my area of expertise, Software/Product Development Lifecycle, that's going to be visa versa...

[Steve Lapper]

Other than owning a piece of several courses, and traveling a bit, and having rare flashes of Seve, I probably don't satisfy Tom Doak's qualifications.


That said, I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....so I have that going for me!

[Tom_Doak]

Back 8 or 9 years ago, Golf Architecture magazine surveyed architects. The list of course was not perfect because we know that no list can be, but I am surprised that the exercise has never been repeated by someone.

The people who voted in that were pretty good judges, but the methodology for doing it was poor.  They basically asked everyone to vote for their ten favorite courses.  So, the courses that were seen by the most did better, and whereas I am not going to rate Cruden Bay as one of the top ten courses I've seen, some guys who have seen far fewer courses would, so it was their votes that determined the bottom half of the list.  Also, based on the results, I think it was skewed a bit toward Europe because they included everyone in the business in the UK and Europe, and not as wide a cross-section in the U.S. or Australia or Asia.

[Kalen Braley]

Other than owning a piece of several courses, and traveling a bit, and having rare flashes of Seve, I probably don't satisfy Tom Doak's qualifications.

That said, I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....so I have that going for me!

That's hilarious Steve.

And its certainly nothing unusual to this scenario. 

I've read that perhaps the worst niche is the fine dining/cooking niche.  Of course they all put on happy smiles and joke with each other in front of the cameras, but behind the scenes apparently its beyond catty and vicious with nasty rivalries.  Meanwhile us everyday joes just love watching Chopped or Beat Bobby flay and regard Michelin ratings as gospel.

[Tom_Doak]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

Carl,

I think this will always be subjective given that for someone like Tom D or the handful of other veteran architects who participate here, they will have far more stringent criteria to determine who is credible vs someone like me who doesn't work in the biz and would have a larger pool of people whose opinion I would trust.

Kalen,


When I had a say in who was on the GOLF Magazine panel, I would send someone interested a ballot and ask them to check off which courses they had seen, but not to vote on any of them, because I didn't want to stack the deck putting people on the committee who agreed with my views.  The most important thing was to see if they were covering ground in places we needed to cover ground.  But, almost half of the respondents would put their votes on courses anyway, to try and show how sharp they were . . . and none of those guys ever made the panel.   

[Kalen Braley]

How does an individual obtain sufficient credibility / experience to be a respected rater whose opinion is valued?

Carl,

I think this will always be subjective given that for someone like Tom D or the handful of other veteran architects who participate here, they will have far more stringent criteria to determine who is credible vs someone like me who doesn't work in the biz and would have a larger pool of people whose opinion I would trust.

Kalen,

When I had a say in who was on the GOLF Magazine panel, I would send someone interested a ballot and ask them to check off which courses they had seen, but not to vote on any of them, because I didn't want to stack the deck putting people on the committee who agreed with my views.  The most important thing was to see if they were covering ground in places we needed to cover ground.  But, almost half of the respondents would put their votes on courses anyway, to try and show how sharp they were . . . and none of those guys ever made the panel.   

Tom,

I don't blame you one bit for having high standards in a world that is drowning in mediocrity...although there are some virtues to be found in that.  From the Patron saint of Mediocrity. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW0-K-mx4eI

[Ira Fishman]

Back 8 or 9 years ago, Golf Architecture magazine surveyed architects. The list of course was not perfect because we know that no list can be, but I am surprised that the exercise has never been repeated by someone.

The people who voted in that were pretty good judges, but the methodology for doing it was poor.  They basically asked everyone to vote for their ten favorite courses.  So, the courses that were seen by the most did better, and whereas I am not going to rate Cruden Bay as one of the top ten courses I've seen, some guys who have seen far fewer courses would, so it was their votes that determined the bottom half of the list.  Also, based on the results, I think it was skewed a bit toward Europe because they included everyone in the business in the UK and Europe, and not as wide a cross-section in the U.S. or Australia or Asia.

It seems that the methodology would be relatively easy to improve. It just strikes me as odd that no one has made the effort to survey those who do know best: architects. I think Superintendents might be second, but I would guess that they have less opportunity to see courses.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting:
While I too would value a Top 100 compiled by a ranking panel comprised of well-travelled architects & industry professionals, this preference of mine seems to raise a 'philosophical' question, ie

If one has seen a great many courses and is thus able to meaningfully compare the very best courses one to the other, doesn't that not only foster but essentially guarantee a resulting 'relative ranking' instead of an 'absolute rating'?

And if so, why is that a good thing, given that what I most want from these experts is a sense of the *great* courses-architecture, not which is one is *better*?

In other words: if one of the qualities of a great course is its uniqueness and individuality, why is *comparing* it to other courses all that relevant, and why is there a high value placed on having well-travelled panelists who *can* make such comparisons?

Is great architecture 'self evident', or only evident in comparison to lesser examples? Can a great course be great in 'absolute terms' or only so relative to other courses? If I played Pine Valley or NGLA or St Andrews but almost no other golf courses, could I legitimately see any of those 3 courses as great?

[Jim Franklin]

Since Ted has stated none of the panels got the rankings right, please share with the group your Top 100 and then we can rate you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()