News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2021, 07:45:27 AM »
Mark,
I would say that Brian's work allows a reader to quickly decide which list would be best for them in choosing a dream play list for themselves.
When I see Eastward Ho, Kingsley and Piping Rock(Ohoopee was just a case of too few panelists' visits) excluded from a list it gives me pause-that combined with having(by far) the most courses NOT listed elsewhere(several of which I wouldn't even put in a Top 500 list)
it seems the lists have the added benefit of being a guide to one's own specific tastes.
Golf Digest's simply don't align with mine, and that's OK.
That is one reason I use the Top 100.com list when visiting a region(especially overseas)-mainly for the text and description in the comments-as a starting point. They continue to improve as a resource.

"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

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2021, 08:23:24 AM »
Yes, Brian’s work illuminates what we generally knew were differences in philosophy between GD and the others as well as the prevailing philosophy on this site. Correspondingly, the side by side lists also highlight the preference of GD raters for Fazio. I was a bit surprised though how well Mr. Dye’s courses fared on GD.


Ira

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2021, 08:28:44 AM »
Jeff and Ira,
Well stated.  It is a matter of what you like not what is right.  My own personal Top 100 or Top 200 list is different then these just like either of your’s is or Ran’s or anyone else’s.  Mine might not be right for you but it’s right for me.  But I bet both of ours have a lot of great courses on them  :D

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2021, 09:39:23 AM »
First I don't know how the heck you got the formatting correct right out of the box! I struggle with that every time I post some list or something. So kudos on that alone! ;D

Some impressions:
  • As GD certainly has the most variance from the other three, if we removed GD and just had the other three, what would the results be? You could compare GD to the consensus of the other 3 lists and I think big disparities would be noticed. Ohoopee, Cal GC etc. would rocket higher on the other 3, and the 17 that are only mentioned on GD would become even more polarizing.[/l][/l][/l][/l][/l]

Thanks, Jeff. 

Regarding "GD vs. the other 3" I am not going to go down that path.  My aim was to present the blended results and let everyone draw their own conclusions.  Everyone has their preferences, and I find each list useful in one way or another.

In posts #5 and #6, I list all of the courses excluded from only one list, along with their average ranking from the 3 sources that did include them.  Similarly, I showed the courses that were most negatively impacted by a very low ranking on one list, along with their average ranking from the other 3 sources (i.e. where they would be excluding the "outlier").  That's about as far as I wish to take that one myself.  The data is all there, if folks want to bring up additional observations. 

Note:  I had a lengthier response, which for some reason disappeared when trying to post it.  I am taking that as a sign and kept this one shorter.   ;D

« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 09:41:33 AM by Brian Finn »
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2021, 09:58:26 AM »
Brian

Thanks for the work on this. It seems the Top50 courses is pretty consistent across the mags.

What happened to the Alotian & Nanea of GW's list - I thought they were previously considered in the Top20 modern courses?
I am not certain about Alotian or Nanea's exclusion from the GW 2021 list.  They are still included in GW's best courses by state (each #1 in their state), which might suggest they lacked sufficient current ballots to be on the Top 200 Modern list. 

If we were to add in their 2020 ratings, they would fall 43rd and 47th on the GW Top 100 (combined classic and modern).  This would move Alotian up my list from 84th to 65th, and Nanea from 97th to 71st.

I figured I would check on these two, but considering we are talking about where courses fall among a list of great courses (i.e. splitting hairs), I'm not likely going to research many other similar instances. 
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2021, 10:40:06 AM »
Brian - fantastic work!


In regards to Oak Hill - I wonder which lists are looking at the course post-renovation? Since the GD list is new and I know they've had a lot of people through since last year at this time I am sure that is skewing them (possibly rightly so) to the lower #.
Integrity in the moment of choice

David Wuthrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2021, 11:06:19 AM »
Brian,  I echo everyone else, thanks and great work.  Very interesting.
I agree with Jeff Warne, this allows people to pick the list that fits them the best!

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2021, 11:27:33 AM »
Brian - fantastic work!

In regards to Oak Hill - I wonder which lists are looking at the course post-renovation? Since the GD list is new and I know they've had a lot of people through since last year at this time I am sure that is skewing them (possibly rightly so) to the lower #.
I'm sure many others know better than I, but as you allude to, it must be related to the volume of old (rolling off) and new (rolling on, post restoration).  I am not sure if any of the sources actively eliminate old ballots once they have enough new ones to qualify a course for a list, or if they wait for (whatever period they predetermine) older ballots to expire.  With so many renovations and restorations, this would be an interesting nuance of the process(es) about which to get more detail.
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2021, 12:35:02 PM »
Kudos to you Brian. Thanks for compiling this into one spot.
Mr Hurricane

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2021, 12:49:02 PM »
I wonder what the Doak Score is for each of the 147 that make one of the lists. I would do the work, but my CG is at home and I am not.


Ira

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2021, 12:59:10 PM »
I wonder what the Doak Score is for each of the 147 that make one of the lists. I would do the work, but my CG is at home and I am not.

Ira
I would like to add this, and will do so when I have time.  Thanks for the reminder. 

Edit:  I am not sure if providing a bulk list of Doak scores (from the book) would be inappropriate.  I tried to DM Tom, but it seems I can't.  Perhaps I should wait on this until Tom says whether it is ok or not.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 02:01:34 PM by Brian Finn »
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2021, 02:35:22 PM »
I wonder what the Doak Score is for each of the 147 that make one of the lists. I would do the work, but my CG is at home and I am not.

Ira
I would like to add this, and will do so when I have time.  Thanks for the reminder. 

Edit:  I am not sure if providing a bulk list of Doak scores (from the book) would be inappropriate.  I tried to DM Tom, but it seems I can't.  Perhaps I should wait on this until Tom says whether it is ok or not.


Good point.

Phil Burr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2021, 01:14:00 AM »
Brian,


I like how you followed up with a listing of courses that made all four lists whose overall score was significantly impacted by a single lower ranking.  My related takeaways was to look at courses that made all four lists but had the tightest range of scores.  I didn't look at the top 50 but instead zeroed in on the second 50.  Monterey Peninsula (Dunes) jumps out as all four lists rank it in the same quartile (76-100) of the their top 100.  No other course apart from the head & shoulders standouts at the very top of the list had the same consistency across all four lists.  Milwaukee and Kittansett almost had all four rankings in the same quartile, but not quite.  The uniformity of MPCC's ranking was striking to me.

Michael Wolf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2021, 10:02:35 AM »

Worldwide on the Doak scale:


17 with scores of 9.00 or higher
57 with scores of 8.00 or higher
70 with scores of 7.75 or higher
The 100th would fall somewhere in the 8777 or 87-7 categories
BUT remember the figures used above do not yet include continental Europe or Africa


For the United States:


4 with perfect "10's" (out of 5 worldwide)
10 with scores of 9.00 or higher
18 with scores of 8.00 or higher
To crossover the 100th you'd be somewhere in the 7766 or 7-66 or similar categories


ALSO not included are courses opened since Volumes 1,2,3&5 were published. In some cases those #'s are creeping sneaky high - the first edition of V1 was copywriten (sp?) in 2014. Time flies!




Michael
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 01:06:52 PM by Michael Wolf »

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2021, 10:22:26 AM »
For the United States:

4 with perfect "10's" (out of 5 worldwide)
10 with scores of 9.00 or higher
18 with scores of 8.00 or higher
To crossover the 100th you'd be somewhere in the 7766 or 7-66 or similar categories

ALSO not included are courses opened since Volumes 1,2,3&5 were published. In some cases those #'s are creeping sneaky high - the first edition of V1 was copywriten (sp?) in 2014. Time flies!

Michael
Thanks, Michael.  Good idea to just provide some high level numbers, instead of full list.

Excluding courses without scores (e.g. Ohoopee, Congaree, et al), average score by group (for blended top 100):

Top 10:  9.4
11-25:  8.4
26-50:  7.4
51-100:  6.8
101-147:  6.4



New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2021, 10:44:17 AM »
Brian,


This is the best thread I have seen on Top 100 Courses.  I am impressed, especially with the way you got the formatting.  This list is going to compete with Rudo's spreadsheet.


With Golfweek, did you combine the Modern and Classic to form the Top 200 or did you take the Top 200 from each list?


Hopefully the list will improve as more people get to see the courses that had too few evaluations to make the Top 100.


This is a very thought provoking post - Thank You !!!
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2021, 11:12:53 AM »
Brian,

This is the best thread I have seen on Top 100 Courses.  I am impressed, especially with the way you got the formatting.  This list is going to compete with Rudo's spreadsheet.

With Golfweek, did you combine the Modern and Classic to form the Top 200 or did you take the Top 200 from each list?

Hopefully the list will improve as more people get to see the courses that had too few evaluations to make the Top 100.

This is a very thought provoking post - Thank You !!!
Nothing will compete with Rudo's list! (Can I call him Rudo if I've never met him - what is the nickname etiquette here?  ;D )

For Golfweek, I combined the list, stacked by rating, to arrive at top 100 US (combined).
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Kurt Everett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2021, 12:59:37 PM »
Love it.  Great work Brian.  Copies and pastes right into Excel.
Next time add City, State and Architect, Lol.  Kidding

Paul Rudovsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2021, 05:19:38 AM »
More than fine to call me Rudo (far far better than what some others call me ;D ).  My bride calls me Rudo as well as many friends in Pinehurst call her Mrs. Rudo!!


More importantly, I totally agree that Brian's presentation is fabulous...in large part because it is so very simple.  I sent him my spreadsheet two days ago and would love to make it universally available on this site but not sure how to do so. 

I am in the middle of updating it for the recent GW and GD lists...but it has gotten so large that it is difficult to deal with...especially while I have been going slightly crazy (I know...been there for a while without the word "slightly") working my bucket lists...have played 27 courses for the first time over the last 45 days or so in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Utah,  Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas.. 

Way way behind on my blog!

Working with a friend to convert the excel spreadsheet into a database and that will take time but is necessary...the thing has gotten way to large and unwieldy for Excel.  Any thoughts on a place/way to post it (it is about 2.8 MB in size).

Some other thoughts and answers to ??? raised above by others:

1.  both Brian and I use essentially the same technique to "merge" the GW modern and classic lists...we use the "numerical ratings" (0-10 scale) available starting w the 2005 list (GW started publishing their lists in 1997).  I resolve ties as follows (and there are lots of ties as GW carries  numbers to only 1 decimal place...so 7.2 instead of 7.23).  First, I noticed that ties are not listed alphabetically by course name which says to me that they must be based on the unrounded numbers...as I cannot think of any other "rational" way to list them.  Then I list all Classics with a certain score (say 7.2) ahead of all Modern...reflecting my bias.  I think Brian lists all ties as "T23".

2.  Some of the points about comparing Brian's tables with the Doak Scale are very good...but I would point out that the flurry of restoration/renovation probably has an even greater impact on the "current-cy" of the Doak list. 

3.  At least w GD clubs/course have the option of dropping all prior evaluations from the GD database (which some want to do after a reno/resto)...the advantage is you clear out the old outdated evaluations but the disadvantage is you need to attract and host a bunch of new raters to get to the minimums.

4.  On GOLF Mag, we are instructed not to "vote" for some 50 or so candidates that have had recent major restorations/renovations unless we played them after that recent work was done.

This brings up another point about all "lists".  I am making this point simply to point out that every list, whether the joint work of a panel (like the GD, GM, or GW lists) of the work of 1, 2 or 3 people (like Tom's books) has flaws.  No one person, or three person or 100 person panel or 1800 person panel has a total perspective that is consistent and current.  There just ain't enough time in the day or days.  Some have implied on GCA that if they had played every course ever included by any good list, they would have the ability to create a perfect top 100.  Having just about done that (play everything at least for USA and World lists) I can tell you it is not true...even forgetting personal biases.  There are so many that I have only played 1x or 2x...or have not played in 5, 10, 20 or more years.  And I have spent a LOT of time doing this (ask me bride).  Panels spread the work load but end up with consistently issues (between different panelists)...but it should be noted that having a good number of panelists (and IMHO 1800 is way way too high a number) helps w the bias issue (although IMO setting up criteria like GD and GW do really introduces a new type of bias that I think is wrong...it basically "defines" greatness which is like beauty...it is in the eyes of the beholder).  Tom's scale is in between but also has a big delay in publication thereby affecting its recency.

Net net...if you are looking for the perfect list...it does not and will NEVER exist,  But we should keep trying (keeps our minds active and bodies off the streets).

Time to stop lecturing and get back to my damn spreadsheet!!


 

Michael Wolf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2021, 09:48:33 AM »
You're on the right track with moving to a database Paul. But the best long term scaleable solution is for an organization to copy the Amazon or Travelocity model and create an algorithm.


This algorithm would provide a mathematical solution to acheive the flexibility needed to benefit the user. This is achieved by weighting the inputs of all users differently depending on their skill and experience levels on multiple interlocking scales. And by providing results that can be individually tailored to the desires of the user.


Examples:


A) My fathers ratings of Cincinnati golf courses on conditioning vs value would be heavily considered, because he's been playing and closely comparing them a couple of times a week for 50 years. But his ratings of Camargo vs Pebble Beach vs Carnoustie in most categories would be heavily discounted, because he's only played Pebble and Carnoustie once.


B) My wife scores for most evaluation categories would be heavily discounted, because she's relatively new to the game. But they'd still count things like aesthetics or walkability, because anyone can have an opinion on whether a place is enjoyable to spend 4 hours walking around. And she's qualified to opine on which of Bermuda's courses are the prettiest walks.


C) Ben Crenshaw's ratings of the top 1,000 golf courses would be heavily considered against each other in categories like strategy, difficulty etc. He'd be a "prime link". But probably pretty discounted in value, or for a course in Louisiana that he hasn't visited in 30 years.


The algorithm identifies and eventually completely ignores the scoring of someone who's continually entering exaggerated positive or negative scores from a course or courses. The same as travelocity ignoring the scores from the 3rd shift manager who's punching in positive reviews for his own hotel every night. Similarly, the algorithm can increase or decrease the weight of specific scores depending on their variance from a trend line. This can be done for the courses and from the raters own trends. This quiets the effects of a bad weather or "played great" day.


And the algorithm can continually rebalance the scores of a course AND of a rater as the rater gains more experience.


My understanding is there is a group that's already in the process of trying to raise capital for a for-profit website/app that would follow this model. I think it has potential.


BUT, isn't one of the simplest short term solutions for some of the existing ratings providers to just make their rankings more easily sortable by the users personal priorities? Tom Doak has already done this in his scores - he's plainly stated up front that his scores are meant to be used as a guide for helping you choose where to play while traveling. For the bigger media outlets, why not release the data by category for every course and let the user decide how to weight each category? Seems simple?


Michael






Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #45 on: May 13, 2021, 10:48:31 AM »
Brian, this is really cool and very well done! I think this is a really great way to look at things.


In regards to GD, I am sure they are trying to improve things internally, but the big ad they put out a few years ago for new raters did nothing to help them (other than bring in a bunch of people paying $1000+ to the magazine). Anecdotally, I have run into several different golfers who were new to the GD rating panel. I can say that none of them could have told you anything significant about golf course architecture. It made me quite sad each time.

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2021, 07:58:39 AM »
Brian, this is really cool and very well done! I think this is a really great way to look at things.


In regards to GD, I am sure they are trying to improve things internally, but the big ad they put out a few years ago for new raters did nothing to help them (other than bring in a bunch of people paying $1000+ to the magazine). Anecdotally, I have run into several different golfers who were new to the GD rating panel. I can say that none of them could have told you anything significant about golf course architecture. It made me quite sad each time.




Great work and far more readable (and relatable) than my friend Rudo's list. ;D


GD can say they are trying to improve things internally all they want. Such efforts are far closer to bullcrap than to reality.


  We all saw how they publicly "screamed out" seeking people to pay $1300 once, and hundreds more every year regardless of ability to understand golf architecture. They even literally described it as a "Golden Ticket" and made only a low hcp. and deep pockets a prerequisite to qualify. They don't screen their applicants with any kind of true determination. Lastly there are documented screenshots seeking to censor their more thoughtful raters for any public criticism of their results or critically-flawed methodology. Let's call it what it is...a blatant grift.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2021, 08:00:20 AM by Steve Lapper »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2021, 08:34:33 PM »
It just occurred to me that if GOLF DIGEST were compiling this "list of lists" they would insist on throwing out the "outlier" votes . . . and those are mostly their own results.  :D

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2021, 02:27:57 AM »
You're on the right track with moving to a database Paul. But the best long term scaleable solution is for an organization to copy the Amazon or Travelocity model and create an algorithm.


This algorithm would provide a mathematical solution to acheive the flexibility needed to benefit the user. This is achieved by weighting the inputs of all users differently depending on their skill and experience levels on multiple interlocking scales. And by providing results that can be individually tailored to the desires of the user.


Examples:


A) My fathers ratings of Cincinnati golf courses on conditioning vs value would be heavily considered, because he's been playing and closely comparing them a couple of times a week for 50 years. But his ratings of Camargo vs Pebble Beach vs Carnoustie in most categories would be heavily discounted, because he's only played Pebble and Carnoustie once.


B) My wife scores for most evaluation categories would be heavily discounted, because she's relatively new to the game. But they'd still count things like aesthetics or walkability, because anyone can have an opinion on whether a place is enjoyable to spend 4 hours walking around. And she's qualified to opine on which of Bermuda's courses are the prettiest walks.


C) Ben Crenshaw's ratings of the top 1,000 golf courses would be heavily considered against each other in categories like strategy, difficulty etc. He'd be a "prime link". But probably pretty discounted in value, or for a course in Louisiana that he hasn't visited in 30 years.


The algorithm identifies and eventually completely ignores the scoring of someone who's continually entering exaggerated positive or negative scores from a course or courses. The same as travelocity ignoring the scores from the 3rd shift manager who's punching in positive reviews for his own hotel every night. Similarly, the algorithm can increase or decrease the weight of specific scores depending on their variance from a trend line. This can be done for the courses and from the raters own trends. This quiets the effects of a bad weather or "played great" day.


And the algorithm can continually rebalance the scores of a course AND of a rater as the rater gains more experience.


My understanding is there is a group that's already in the process of trying to raise capital for a for-profit website/app that would follow this model. I think it has potential.


BUT, isn't one of the simplest short term solutions for some of the existing ratings providers to just make their rankings more easily sortable by the users personal priorities? Tom Doak has already done this in his scores - he's plainly stated up front that his scores are meant to be used as a guide for helping you choose where to play while traveling. For the bigger media outlets, why not release the data by category for every course and let the user decide how to weight each category? Seems simple?


Michael

Or, you could engage people who's oinions you trust and just let them get on with it. No categories. Create compelling stories with the rankings. The idea of purely data/stats driven ranking has had its time.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield & Alnmouth,

Paul Rudovsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: List of Lists: Blended Top 100 US Courses
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2021, 05:44:03 AM »

Brian--


really superb piece of work.  must say the more I look at the GD list the worse it looks!



Ditto on the list..... Paul, what took you so long?

Steve--Your memory is fairly short.  I would suggest that in the 2018 and prior days, there were real clunkers in all of the 4 major sources...although the GM ones were mainly in its World listings.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back