Ranking Courses in Windy Places, Bad Condition, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't have a real dog in the Cape Wickham fight but curious as to why you think you should discount a golf course for being difficult in the wind on the day of your visit, however at the same time you could rate Sand Hills a '10' before it was even fully built? How did you know Sand Hills wasn't going to be too windy of a site for the golf course being built?

Just curious on the rationale.

First off, I gave Sand Hills a 9 before it was built.  But I could see that it was likely to be playable in pretty strong winds, as long as they didn't put a lot of bunkers in front of the greens, because the contours were conducive to it and the fairways were wide enough that you wouldn't be looking for balls all day.


I've played maybe ten rounds there in the years since, and I have never experienced a day that it wasn't a great course.  My first rating was based on the conditions I saw that day.

[Bill Seitz]

Just a couple of thoughts. I have been on the GOLF DIGEST panel since 1992. I judiciously decide when not to play a course. If a course has just had a deluge, I generally will try and go back on another date if I can. Generally, the club appreciates it. 
Over the years, I have figured out how to rate a course that isn't in the best condition.

Reading this, I think I would make a distinction between "the best condition" and "somewhat less than its normal/best condition".  If course is poorly conditioned and that is representative of its usual state, I don't think you can give it some pity rating in that category.  But it's not an easy question.  I've played Straits three times, but always in early May when it's fine, but not in the condition that people pay $500 mid-summer.  I can really only rate what I see, but I'm not sure that's entirely fair. 


And look, I've got plenty of issues with the way GD handles conditioning as a category, largely in that I don't think the panel as a whole takes to heart the intended criteria for the category, but I don't think that's Derek's or Stephen's fault.  If you're asking a couple thousand people for their subjective opinions, it's hard to tell them their opinions are wrong.

[John Handley]

I am not a rater BUT I do absolutely believe that a certain bias does play a part.  For example, if the weather is great and you play well, you may have a little more positive feeling about a course.  If the weather sucks and you play poorly, again it may contribute to a less rating towards a course.  Inherent bias is always going to be part of ratings and that's why they are subjective.  Weather should also be looked at from an everyday perspective instead of one bad day/storm.  Does the wind blow 40 almost everyday? Then that's a beat down.  Is it 50/50?  I'd go and hope I get lucky like I did at Old Head.   


I do believe; however, that conditioning of the golf course should be factored into the ratings. A great layout in poor shape is not a top level course in my opinion.  I think rewarding (and we are splitting hairs here and mostly talking about Top 100 type courses) a course for investing in the turf and playing conditions makes a true impact on the golf.  When I played Maidstone, I was disappointed in the conditioning and felt a course in the top 100 should be better.  Maybe I caught it on a bad month or year, whatever, it made an impact on my feeling about the course.  It happens.


To be the best of the best (Top 100) I am ok with including the design, layout, conditioning, and experience as factors.  I know some don't acknowledge the experience but I think it's all part of the equation.  I've heard many stories of guys going to a top 100 course and being treated like shit and the guys said they would never play it again and don't recommend to their friends. Who really wants that unless you are just ticking off boxes. 

[Kalen Braley]

This thread has provided some interesting learning and insights...that the rating system(s) are far more subjective and suspect than I previously thought.

It is what it is I guess.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post?

I was definitely misunderstanding it though not deliberately. Your response is well taken.

I had in my head that priming and context for a course can set expectations and make a course work that would otherwise not work (I'm thinking of Iona GC and their intentionally unkept greens). I was assuming there was a general criteria that might be missed if the course was being misunderstood, but I see now that there isn't a criteria and that GOLF fully trusts their raters to be deferential and understand what the courses are going for.

That makes sense.

I hope that courses doing non-standard things are in communication with raters about these things (and perhaps the sign is still a good idea).

[Ted Sturges]

Question for Tom:


Are there sites (and is CW one of them) where out of 30 days, there are not enough "reasonable wind days" to justify building a course there?  Have you ever encountered a site like that?  Just curious.


TS

[Ira Fishman]

To be the best of the best (Top 100) I am ok with including the design, layout, conditioning, and experience as factors.  I know some don't acknowledge the experience but I think it's all part of the equation.  I've heard many stories of guys going to a top 100 course and being treated like shit and the guys said they would never play it again and don't recommend to their friends. Who really wants that unless you are just ticking off boxes.



John,


Are the stories you have heard about the courses in the Top 100 that are accessible to the public? I certainly have never had anything but great treatment which makes sense just from a market driven standpoint. But I also have had the good fortune to play some of the Top 100 that are private and always have had a great experience. And I am not a rater either. I guess specific stories could be helpful.


Ira

[Buck Wolter]

I found 5 year avg Wind data for King Island
2% Calm
16% Light (1-12 kph)
21% Gentle (12-20kph)
30% Moderate (20-29kph)
20% Fresh (28-38 kph)
9% Strong (39-50 kph)
2%  Near Gale/Gale


Bridport TAS (I think that's Barnbougle)
4% Calm
48% Light
32% Gentle
14% Moderate
2% Fresh
2% Strong or above


Hobart TAS (7 mile Beach)
2% Calm
34% Light
32% Gentle
24% Moderate
6% Fresh
2%Strong +

[John Handley]

John,


Are the stories you have heard about the courses in the Top 100 that are accessible to the public? I certainly have never had anything but great treatment which makes sense just from a market driven standpoint. But I also have had the good fortune to play some of the Top 100 that are private and always have had a great experience. And I am not a rater either. I guess specific stories could be helpful.


Ira





Ira, the courses I am referring to are not public but private ones in the Top 100 in the US. I'm not going name names since I wasn't the person with the first hand experience.  The times I've played courses like Oakmont, Merion, Cypress Point, etc. I have been treated well but I'm sure you can imagine there are some clubs that might not be as welcoming.  I'll put it like this, it was described to me as "they want you to think you are lucky just to play here" type of vibe. 

[Peter Flory]

If you prefer wind on links courses as a rater, would it be OK to give a course a lower score if you happened to catch it on a calm day?

[Tom_Doak]

If you prefer wind on links courses as a rater, would it be OK to give a course a lower score if you happened to catch it on a calm day?

I think people do this routinely - they decide the course is “not challenging enough” for very good players, because they saw it on a calm or soft day and don’t  understand why the bunkers aren’t right up against the front of the green.

[Tom_Doak]

I found 5 year avg Wind data for King Island
2% Calm
16% Light (1-12 kph)
21% Gentle (12-20kph)
30% Moderate (20-29kph)
20% Fresh (28-38 kph)
9% Strong (39-50 kph)
2%  Near Gale/Gale


Bridport TAS (I think that's Barnbougle)
4% Calm
48% Light
32% Gentle
14% Moderate
2% Fresh
2% Strong or above


Hobart TAS (7 mile Beach)
2% Calm
34% Light
32% Gentle
24% Moderate
6% Fresh
2%Strong +

I’m surprised the numbers for Bridport are that much lower - but the town is more sheltered than the golf courses so that might be a factor.

[Tom_Doak]

Question for Tom:

Are there sites (and is CW one of them) where out of 30 days, there are not enough "reasonable wind days" to justify building a course there?  Have you ever encountered a site like that?  Just curious.

Ted:


I have been a couple of places where I wondered if the project was really viable because of the wind.  Neither of those was built on.


I know of three projects where they were concerned enough to put up a wind gauge to figure out how many days they’d lose to the wind.  Those three were Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, and Barnbougle!  There is really only the occasional day when it’s just impossible to play, and even on those days, people go out to have the experience they can tell their friends about forever.


But if you traveled all that way and got it for 2-3 days in a row, you wouldn’t be happy, so the impact is situational.

[PCCraig]

I don't have a real dog in the Cape Wickham fight but curious as to why you think you should discount a golf course for being difficult in the wind on the day of your visit, however at the same time you could rate Sand Hills a '10' before it was even fully built? How did you know Sand Hills wasn't going to be too windy of a site for the golf course being built?

Just curious on the rationale.

First off, I gave Sand Hills a 9 before it was built.  But I could see that it was likely to be playable in pretty strong winds, as long as they didn't put a lot of bunkers in front of the greens, because the contours were conducive to it and the fairways were wide enough that you wouldn't be looking for balls all day.


I've played maybe ten rounds there in the years since, and I have never experienced a day that it wasn't a great course.  My first rating was based on the conditions I saw that day.

Maybe a dumb question, but how did you know how wide the fairways were if the course wasn't built yet? (Guessing maybe rough irrigation or something along those lines, but I'm trying to get a sense of how not built it was.


I suppose it's interesting that it's being insinuated that a course fell from the Top 100 for (now?) being too windy of a site. Meanwhile brand new (in some cases still in preview play) are making the list. Is Cabot St. Lucia not a windy site?


It could be argued, perhaps, that maybe it's in a ranking panel (and a course's) best interest to not rank/rate a course on a Top 100 list for the first 4-5 years of existence until it fully matures and enough people can visit to see in a variety of conditions. That way these types of CW scenarios might be avoided.

[Tom Hooker]

If you prefer wind on links courses as a rater, would it be OK to give a course a lower score if you happened to catch it on a calm day?

I think people do this routinely - they decide the course is “not challenging enough” for very good players, because they saw it on a calm or soft day and don’t  understand why the bunkers aren’t right up against the front of the green.

The fact that many raters apparently can't separate their evaluation of the painting from the frame, the lighting in the gallery, or even the dirt on the floor sheds a lot of light on the entire rating enterprise. It shouldn't even be that hard to consider how a design might play in different, plausible conditions than the ones you saw the one day you visited.


What's always struck me is the extent to which ratings really just serve to make the game more exclusive and "aspirational" by driving demand for a very limited number of courses. The fact that rater "credentials" seem to depend largely on one's exposure to the most exclusive corners of the game rather than on foundational knowledge of golf course architecture/design/history speaks to the problem. The only other corner of the cultural universe that engages in this absurd game is fine dining, and, well, imagine The Menu for GCA.


And at least restaurants (like museum exhibitions, theatrical productions, films, etc.) are also subject to authored reviews that address these kinds of questions with nuance and consideration. It'd be infinitely more interesting and valuable for all of us if the mags/websites/podcasts had to cram their impressions into 500-1000 words instead of throwing up a bunch of anonymous and arbitrary numbers.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I find this whole conversation a matter of negligible differences.


It has always been my experience that the game becomes unplayable in wind (i.e. I can’t swing or even stand) before most courses become unplayable.

[Tim Gallant]

(This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)

Tom,


Going one step further, I think panellists shouldn't be able to contact the course (or anyone associated with the course), or, tell anyone they are on the panel, and go alla Michelin (caveat, I have little understanding of how Michelin actually works, but I'm pretty sure they don't contact the restaurants in advance for a rating).


It helps your argument in a few ways: one, it removes the decision by the course on whether it's ready to be 'rated', and will give a better reflection of the overall day-to-day, and as you note above, the scores will average out in line with conditions (in the case of wind as an example).


Also, it can allow the rater to focus just on that specific day/visit. In the restaurant example, if someone gets overcooked pasta one day, it might just be a bad day for the kitchen, and not reflective of their usual standards. But one slightly lower score won't kill a course, and if it's really a T100 course, it won't matter in the long run (even if it means it has to wait another 2-year cycle). Cream always rises to the top.


It would reduce the ability for raters to see a course early, or too early, and either force them to book with the public, or find a member. It would also weed out those just looking for access, from those who genuinely have a passion for seeing new places and understanding the unique qualities that make each course special.

[Thomas Dai]

If you prefer wind on links courses as a rater, would it be OK to give a course a lower score if you happened to catch it on a calm day?

I think people do this routinely - they decide the course is “not challenging enough” for very good players, because they saw it on a calm or soft day and don’t  understand why the bunkers aren’t right up against the front of the green.

Yip. See reply 13.
atb

[Sean_A]

(This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)

Tom,


Going one step further, I think panellists shouldn't be able to contact the course (or anyone associated with the course), or, tell anyone they are on the panel, and go alla Michelin (caveat, I have little understanding of how Michelin actually works, but I'm pretty sure they don't contact the restaurants in advance for a rating).


It helps your argument in a few ways: one, it removes the decision by the course on whether it's ready to be 'rated', and will give a better reflection of the overall day-to-day, and as you note above, the scores will average out in line with conditions (in the case of wind as an example).


Also, it can allow the rater to focus just on that specific day/visit. In the restaurant example, if someone gets overcooked pasta one day, it might just be a bad day for the kitchen, and not reflective of their usual standards. But one slightly lower score won't kill a course, and if it's really a T100 course, it won't matter in the long run (even if it means it has to wait another 2-year cycle). Cream always rises to the top.


It would reduce the ability for raters to see a course early, or too early, and either force them to book with the public, or find a member. It would also weed out those just looking for access, from those who genuinely have a passion for seeing new places and understanding the unique qualities that make each course special.

It also means only those with contacts can play the privates. Strikes me as exclusive. That is the big difference with restaurants. What it costs and access don’t matter.


Ratings will never be anywhere near perfect. Despite all the numbers it’s a subjective process. All an editor can really do is choose a varied panel, accept their judgement and move on. It will be a good day when publishers drop “best” and use favourites. Editors will no longer feel the need use a system to justify courses making or missing the list.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think a lot of people here (including myself) just wish GOLF used a more objective criteria.


What I missed before, and what I gather from Tom is that, well, that’s just not the system. GOLF rates courses on raters’ good-faith and that’s it, period, end of discussion.


I suppose it’s tilting at windmills to wish they did it another way, as the only thing we can do is discount, or take less seriously, their ratings. Which I’m sure they’d be happy if we did.


Our baggage on how things should be is exactly that, and I would not be surprised that if we forced our rules onto raters, then the raters who give credibility to the ratings themselves would probably not want to participate.


When I recontextualize it in that framework, it just seems like a bit of fun, that we’ve started taking way too seriously. That isn’t to say people who wish it were different don’t have a valid point, it’s just that, GOLF’s brand and credibility aren’t our business.

[Sean_A]

I think a lot of people here (including myself) just wish GOLF used a more objective criteria.


What I missed before, and what I gather from Tom is that, well, that’s just not the system. GOLF rates courses on raters’ good-faith and that’s it, period, end of discussion.


I suppose it’s tilting at windmills to wish they did it another way, as the only thing we can do is discount, or take less seriously, their ratings. Which I’m sure they’d be happy if we did.


Our baggage on how things should be is exactly that, and I would not be surprised that if we forced our rules onto raters, then the raters who give credibility to the ratings themselves would probably not want to participate.


When I recontextualize it in that framework, it just seems like a bit of fun, that we’ve started taking way too seriously. That isn’t to say people who wish it were different don’t have a valid point, it’s just that, GOLF’s brand and credibility aren’t our business.

What is more objective criteria? All the criteria is subjective and the ratings based on the criteria is subjective. I think what people want, knowing that objectivity is impossible, is transparency. For some reason seeing a weighted list of criteria makes some people feel better about the process. I don’t know why. It’s all number crunching to no avail.


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I think a lot of people here (including myself) just wish GOLF used a more objective criteria.

There is no such thing. Even if you have strict criteria and your raters rate wholly according to those criteria, the criteria themselves are subjective. There is no objective measure of what makes a good golf course.

As soon as people get over this 'objectivity' fallacy we will be in a better place.

[Tim Martin]

(This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)

Tom,


Going one step further, I think panellists shouldn't be able to contact the course (or anyone associated with the course), or, tell anyone they are on the panel, and go alla Michelin (caveat, I have little understanding of how Michelin actually works, but I'm pretty sure they don't contact the restaurants in advance for a rating).


It helps your argument in a few ways: one, it removes the decision by the course on whether it's ready to be 'rated', and will give a better reflection of the overall day-to-day, and as you note above, the scores will average out in line with conditions (in the case of wind as an example).


Also, it can allow the rater to focus just on that specific day/visit. In the restaurant example, if someone gets overcooked pasta one day, it might just be a bad day for the kitchen, and not reflective of their usual standards. But one slightly lower score won't kill a course, and if it's really a T100 course, it won't matter in the long run (even if it means it has to wait another 2-year cycle). Cream always rises to the top.


It would reduce the ability for raters to see a course early, or too early, and either force them to book with the public, or find a member. It would also weed out those just looking for access, from those who genuinely have a passion for seeing new places and understanding the unique qualities that make each course special.

Tim-Is it reasonable to think that course raters be left to their own devices to set up play themselves and go around unannounced? Far less ballots will get turned in to the point where a panel may no longer be functional using that model. In a perfect world it sounds good but to diminish access isn’t the solution IMO.

[John Kirk]

Posting this here, partly, to stop the back and forth on the Cape Wickham thread and hope it will go away.  But I have thought a lot about this over the years, and my take is:


A rater should rate the course as he or she experiences it on the day in question.  Anything else is dishonest.


Cape Wickham was one of the courses that forced me to think about the question, when I visited a few years ago.  I was there for a day and a half and the wind grew from pleasant, to difficult, to only the club professionals in the groups being able to break 100.


Many would argue that you should dismiss days like that, and I think that’s the general view of people on the rating panels.  If it happens 1 day out of 100, surely it should be dismissed- but in that case presumably only one rater out of 100 would experience those conditions, and any negatives would be irrelevant.  It’s when it happens 10% or 20% of the time (or even more) that it would start to be a real factor, and that would reflect the real average of conditions.  (This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)


Also, as Tim Gallant noted, a strong wind is the ultimate proving ground for a great course.  Is it still fun and interesting even when things get weird?  If so, that’s a mark of great quality.  Most links courses are better in the wind (within reason) than on a calm day.


The same logic can be applied to turf conditions.  Assuming that conditions are usually better than what you’ve seen is either optimistic or dishonest, but it isn’t representative of how the course plays, and that is what you’re supposed to be rating, isn’t it? 


Golf course rankings should not be reduced to a beauty contest. Rating what you played is the only sensible approach.  Of course, that’s more easily done in a venue like The Confidential Guide, where we would make a caveat about the conditions.

Tom, this a great thread and thanks for starting it.

In practice, I believe that downgrading one's overall opinion of a golf course due to non-ideal playing conditions happens, though that practice may be applied inconsistently.  Let me give an example.  Here in the Pacific Northwest, parkland courses get soft and wet for several months a year, and though they remain pleasing to the eye, winter and spring golf can be like a game of darts.  High shots are often embedded in the turf, and must be pulled up and cleaned before the next shot.  It's a drag, and I'd suggest it may be one reason that Pacific Northwest inland courses are virtually non-existent on national best-of lists.

When I have traveled a long way to see a concert or play a golf course, there's a certain sense of awe one feels with that knowledge.  It can affect how you perceive the event, and we all want our efforts to be rewarded.  I'd argue that the tendency is to overrate such an experience.

I have played a well-known Top 100 caliber course in California twice.  The first time I played it as an unaccompanied twosome in the afternoon.  The greens were bumpy, our caddie was disinterested and the course was wet and soft.  I had a pretty lousy time and felt the course was overrated.  The second time I played it on an unseasonably warm day in September.  The rough was trimmed short, the greens were fast and smooth and the course played very bouncy.  It was then I could see the greatness in the place, and have held the course is much higher esteem since.

[John Kirk]

I think a lot of people here (including myself) just wish GOLF used a more objective criteria.


What I missed before, and what I gather from Tom is that, well, that’s just not the system. GOLF rates courses on raters’ good-faith and that’s it, period, end of discussion.


I suppose it’s tilting at windmills to wish they did it another way, as the only thing we can do is discount, or take less seriously, their ratings. Which I’m sure they’d be happy if we did.


Our baggage on how things should be is exactly that, and I would not be surprised that if we forced our rules onto raters, then the raters who give credibility to the ratings themselves would probably not want to participate.


When I recontextualize it in that framework, it just seems like a bit of fun, that we’ve started taking way too seriously. That isn’t to say people who wish it were different don’t have a valid point, it’s just that, GOLF’s brand and credibility aren’t our business.

What is more objective criteria? All the criteria is subjective and the ratings based on the criteria is subjective. I think what people want, knowing that objectivity is impossible, is transparency. For some reason seeing a weighted list of criteria makes some people feel better about the process. I don’t know why. It’s all number crunching to no avail.


Ciao

Sean and Matt,

I disagree with both of you, and believe golf course rating is primarily objective.

"These are trained professionals..."   

The raters are given the latitude to apply their own weighting to the various features of a course, and arrive at an integrated overall evaluation.  That's OK.  But the criteria for what constitutes great golf is well established.   These are generally not quantifiable characteristics but they are certainly qualitative ones, and the qualitative assessment is translated into a quantitative framework.

Matt, since you are a relative newcomer to the site, I highly recommend an essay found in the "In My Opinion" section of the site called "Joshua Crane in the Golden Age" by Bob Crosby.  Among other things, it discusses early attempts at the quantitative evaluation of golf courses.  It's one of the finest contributions ever made to this longstanding website.