Golfweek Best Classic

[Jeff Schley]

Another omission, no Indian Creek CC?  Even in the top 200 from that era?  Only need 25 votes in last 10 years it appears.

Jeff-It’s not easy to access.

Very true, although a 10 year runway I would think raters would be able to figure it out. However, I guess we can assume lack or ratings is the reason.

[jeffwarne]

Augusta CC, in its umpteenth renovation in my lifetime , rated 70 spots ahead of Palmetto?
I happen to have grown up at ACC and am a member at both so no dog in the fight but....



I do hope the current renovation at ACC is successful enough to improve the course enough to justify its current somewhat lofty rating.

[Sean_A]

Augusta CC, in its umpteenth renovation in the last 40 years, rated 70 spots ahead of Palmetto?
I happen to have grown up at both and am a member at both so no dog in the fight but....



Credibility of Golfweek just left the building. Perhaps they are fans of zoysia?


I do hope the current renovation at ACC is successful enough to improve the course enough to justify its current rating.

Why does Palmetto lag so far back?

Ciao

[MCirba]

jeffwarne,


Who is doing the latest updating of Augusta Country Club?   I haven't played there but a good friend moved to Aiken recently so it's likely I will before too long.   


Agree that Palmetto is undervalued.

[jeffwarne]

jeffwarne,


Who is doing the latest updating of Augusta Country Club?   I haven't played there but a good friend moved to Aiken recently so it's likely I will before too long.   


Agree that Palmetto is undervalued.

Mike,
Tripp Davis is doing the work.
Greens changing to bermuda from bent, very close in surrounds changed back to bermuda from zoyzia.(they went zoyzia fairways a few years back)
greens appear in general to be getting smaller, which I'm not opposed to.
Greenside bunkers being redone as well.


I don't think Palmetto is undervalued in general-just in this one ranking list.
There is no reason ACC couldn't be in similar prominence(elsewhere) with the right TLC.
Still one of my favorite courses.

[MCirba]

Thanks, Jeff.


Yep, agreed undervalued on the GW list.


If all goes well playing Ocala next Saturday.  I know you're a fan.   Is Palatka as good?  I may try to squeeze that in, as well.

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks, Jeff.


Yep, agreed undervalued on the GW list.


If all goes well playing Ocala next Saturday.  I know you're a fan.   Is Palatka as good?  I may try to squeeze that in, as well.

All will go well. I’d join you at Palatka, as well. Never been.

[mike_malone]

XM radio is playing the top 76 concertos. No way Rodrigo’s is #19!!!!

[Rees Milikin]

Thanks, Jeff.


Yep, agreed undervalued on the GW list.


If all goes well playing Ocala next Saturday.  I know you're a fan.   Is Palatka as good?  I may try to squeeze that in, as well.

Both are good and since moving away from FL there are only a handful of courses I really miss playing, and Palatka is one of them. To me it's the Aiken Golf Club of Florida, about the only way I can describe it.

[Mike Sweeney]

Post removed.

[Sean_A]

A few things

Ordinal ranking doesn't make sense. Get a data guy to determine the natural breaks in the list and group courses. Ordinal ranking implies the math determines the number 1 course and it ain't so.

List courses that would have made the list by the scores if not for whatever internal reason the course wasn't considered.

Allow raters to fiddle the criteria. One of the biggest problems with set point criteria is sometimes some elements of a design are more important than 10 or whatever points. Allow the rater to assign point value to the criteria. This is one of my main frustrations as a rater. For instance, I may think the terrain or the greens are more than important than X and would rather focus attention on what is important about a design rather than what is less important.

Ciao

[Anthony Fowler]

Ordinal ranking doesn't make sense. Get a data guy to determine the natural breaks in the list and group courses. Ordinal ranking implies the math determines the number 1 course and it ain't so.

Sean, I see your point here, but I would push back in a few ways. (1) If they did this, everyone would complain and ask them to show the rankings within the groups.  (2) There might not be natural breaks. Wherever you decided to try to draw those lines, there would be courses that are just on either side of the threshold. So isn't it better to provide more information, not less, to the readers. (3) Golfweek provides the average rating, so readers can see how far apart the courses are. In some cases, they can see that the differences between different parts of the list are negligible, and in other cases, they can see where there are meaningful differences in the average rating.

[Anthony Fowler]

Allow raters to fiddle the criteria. One of the biggest problems with set point criteria is sometimes some elements of a design are more important than 10 or whatever points. Allow the rater to assign point value to the criteria. This is one of my main frustrations as a rater. For instance, I may think the terrain or the greens are more than important than X and would rather focus attention on what is important about a design rather than what is less important.

Golfweek asks raters to provide ratings on a number of different factors, but they also ask for an overall rating. The overall rating need not be an algorithmic combination of the factor-specific ratings. So each rater is free to weigh the different factors however they would like (or incorporate other things not explicitly listed by Golfweek). The overall rating is the only thing that influences these rankings that we're talking about, so in a way, Golfweek is already taking your suggestion here.

I agree that it would be a big mistake for the magazine to specify the factors and the weight of each factor. This appears to be what Golf Digest does (golfdigest.com/story/how-our-panel-ranks-the-courses). They specify seven different factors and they weigh them all equally. Three of those factors are challenge, aesthetics, and conditioning, so it's not surprising that their rankings differ significantly from those of their competitors.

[Mike Hendren]

Did I somehow miss Idle Hour?


Who says tinkering doesn’t pay - Holston Hills and Beverly have essentially swapped 50 spots.

Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

Idle Hour what? Is it ranked? Please no. In all fairness I only remember one god awful
hole and getting killed at the track soon after.

[Mike Hendren]

Barney, sorry about the pony amnesia. Idle Hour is a broad shouldered course with numerous examples of Ross’ stern two shotters.  Rock solid with no disco.  Surprised you didn’t like it  the way you love to golf your ball.


BTW I’m hurt that you haven’t acknowledged that I’m using my last name here.  Retirement will do that for you.


All the best bud.


Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve forgiven active raters for not using their full names. Upon reflection, I wouldn’t either.


I don’t remember why I disliked Idle Hour as much as I did. I’m sure that if I had been representing someone besides myself my feelings would have been closer to that of my peers.