Ranking Courses in Windy Places, Bad Condition, etc.

[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

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.

Hey John

Last I checked qualitative doesn’t equate objective. Regardless, what are the well known criteria of greatness and how are these criteria weighted?

I think determining greatness is highly personal and likely not fully explainable. Certainly not in the way rating panels operate.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

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?

Pat:


Nothing was built at Sand Hills the first time I saw it.  But they did have the fairways mowed out in the native grass, and it was clear they weren't going to change much of the contours.  I counted 14 greens out of the 18 where they didn't have to shape anything!  It still amazes me.


Also, for the record, I actually DID vote for Cape Wickham as one of the top 100 courses in the world.  It's a terrific site, and a good routing, though it's not one of the most interesting sets of greens you'll see.  And I did knock it down a bit for not being much fun to play in the strong winds that are pretty common there, by the logic I've outlined here.

[Tom_Doak]

(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: 


I think it's a great suggestion that the panelists remain anonymous, though I am sure it would never get adopted.  We always printed the list of panelists because we wanted the READERS to know it wasn't just a bunch of nobodies . . . in the end, a subjective ranking is only as good as the people who vote on it, which is why the huge panels at GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK make no sense to me.


When I was running things for GOLF, George Peper asked me once if we should give cards to our raters [my memory is that some company wanted to SPONSOR the cards], and I responded that I thought it would be pretty embarrassing to send such a card to Arnold Palmer.  That's to Tim Martin's objection:  if the panelists aren't important enough in golf to be welcome at great courses, who needs them as a rater?


Indeed, that would eliminate the problem of private places like Ellerston and Ardfin, too . . . they wouldn't get rated unless they invited a bunch of people to play, but they wouldn't know whom to invite!


I am trying to think of where this might have prevented me from going over the years.  Not many.  I managed to talk my way into invitations from the most private clubs in the U.S. when I was 19 or 20, on the basis of studying to be a designer.  I even went to Shanqin Bay as the guest of the superintendent, deliberately avoiding their protocol of "handling" panelists. 


The only place that comes to mind is Japan:  they love their business cards over there, and the private clubs wanted to see my card as being with GOLF Magazine, although that wouldn't be an issue at Kawana, and I think Masa could have gotten me into Tokyo Golf Club.


It would be a shame if a place like Hirono were not on the list, but in exchange for eliminating all the baloney that goes with the rating game nowadays, I would totally make that trade.

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter if there is a quantitative element to a rating. It is still subjective because the criteria are set subjectively. There is no objective way to 'measure' the quality of a golf course.

[Peter Sayegh]

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



...in that case presumably only one rater out of 100 would experience those conditions, and any negatives would be irrelevant.

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? 

Things have certainly changed through the years.
How many threads here were dedicated to the absurdity of evaluating a course on (one/three/five/pick your number) rounds played.

Weather (persons) at least have some science on their side, but they and golf raters have no idea of my tolerance and enjoyment level.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

When the Seniors Open was held at Muirfield we went to watch on a day with a very strong westerly.  I believe the stats for that day showed that one player hit the first fairway.  We watched a number of players (perhaps 4 groups) tee off on the 1st.  NOt one reached the fairway (as in, they were all short, rather than missing wide).  I was astonished play continued.  To me, if the top senior golfers in the world can't hit a fairway because of the wind, the course in unplayable.

[John Kirk]

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.

As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter if there is a quantitative element to a rating. It is still subjective because the criteria are set subjectively. There is no objective way to 'measure' the quality of a golf course.

Hi Adam,

I suspected I might get drawn into a complex argument.  Unfortunately, I am very busy these days, and struggle to find an opening to contribute.  I will try my best to make a few comments, since I am part of the group that focuses on course evaluation.

The Merriam-Webster definition of objective is compelling.  Here are the relevant definitions:
 
                    1a.  expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
             
1b.   of a test   : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
                         
2a.  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

                                       … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.—   

•   Marvin Reznikoff
     
                2b.  involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
  
  
  
  
  Objective can mean that we are reducing subjective feelings to a bare minimum.  I don't have time to write down 15-20 qualities that I subconsciously measure when I see a new golf course.  The total number of considerations when making a complex evaluation is much higher than that.  The evaluator is comparing the golfing experience to previous experiences.  Also, the experienced rater should be disciplined and understand their biases, including whether or not they are in a good or bad mood.
  
  Just because it is not perfectly measurable and quantifiable does not mean that an objective evaluation cannot be accomplished.  I can play a course with an experienced evaluator and we will generally assign a Doak rating to the course the same or within one category of the same.  If it wasn't objective, how would we do that?
             

[Rob Marshall]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

[Bill Seitz]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

Sell magazines, of course.

[Rob Marshall]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

Sell magazines, of course.

I can read it online for free

[Dan_Callahan]

What would be helpful to me would be to require everyone who aspires to be a rater to make two assessments:


1. Play three rounds at Tobacco Road in a variety of weather conditions and give it a rating on a scale of 1 to 10.


2. Play three rounds at North Berwick in a variety of weather conditions and give it a rating on a scale of 1 to 10.


Publish those scores as a sidebar to any other courses they rate, which would help me better understand how they view golf courses so I could calibrate accordingly.

[Matt Schoolfield]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

If I’m trying to view them generously, I’d say, well, art museums and history museums have a blurb next to the artwork/artifact that explains why the item is exceptional (especially when it’s not readily apparent). The same is reasonable for golf courses. There is no museum of golf courses, but “Top 100” lists can serve as a bit of curation for those of us fascinated with the game and history. Bona fides of raters are obviously required for this.

[Tony_Muldoon]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

If I’m trying to view them generously, I’d say, well, art museums and history museums have a blurb next to the artwork/artifact that explains why the item is exceptional (especially when it’s not readily apparent). The same is reasonable for golf courses. There is no museum of golf courses, but “Top 100” lists can serve as a bit of curation for those of us fascinated with the game and history. Bona fides of raters are obviously required for this.

I have to completely reject this analogy.  For a start you should edit it to say "some ...museums have a blurb".

To be historically important is not the same as being exceptional or even good.

Lists are puff pieces that mean little. The No 1 Painting in the World is always the Mona Lisa right?  Well before it was stolen in 1911, it wasn't even regarded as 'exceptional', except for the fact it was one of the very few paintings by Da Vinci.  From that theft, its fame grew.  Now the media regards its position as unassailable and use most famous and greatest interchangeably.

Personally I can't see how any painting/piece of music/food/car/golf course can be the best. 
Lists are a way of selling more papers and mean nothing the day after.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Hence me couching the suggestion as being generous. I’m extremely hostile to ratings and rankings (why I’m trying to build a wiki), but, to my chagrin, I’ve really started to enjoy the Fried Egg’s course profiles… after being critical of their egg system (which I still think is sub-optimal, but ultimately is fine).


Their 0 egg review of Dairy Farm really showed me that they weren’t really rating courses, but were telling their story, and that all the courses they cover are exceptional in some way. I think it’s a very decent way to do a system that gives people a number if they want one, but showcases courses doing something notable.


Still, I hope the Dairy Farm has their 0 egg rating framed or something. 

[Charlie Goerges]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

If I’m trying to view them generously, I’d say, well, art museums and history museums have a blurb next to the artwork/artifact that explains why the item is exceptional (especially when it’s not readily apparent). The same is reasonable for golf courses. There is no museum of golf courses, but “Top 100” lists can serve as a bit of curation for those of us fascinated with the game and history. Bona fides of raters are obviously required for this.

I have to completely reject this analogy.  For a start you should edit it to say "some ...museums have a blurb".

To be historically important is not the same as being exceptional or even good.

Lists are puff pieces that mean little. The No 1 Painting in the World is always the Mona Lisa right?  Well before it was stolen in 1911, it wasn't even regarded as 'exceptional', except for the fact it was one of the very few paintings by Da Vinci.  From that theft, its fame grew.  Now the media regards its position as unassailable and use most famous and best interchangeably.

Personally I can't see how any painting/piece of music/food/car/golf course can be the best. 
Lists are a way of selling more papers and mean nothing the day after.

To be fair, Tony, he did say he was being generous.


That said, I think the lists are more important than that. For me, they were the first indication that golf course architecture was even a thing. Growing up, I lived in an area with no really good courses. As far as I was concerned, the thing which made a course better or worse had little to do with strategy or design. The lists (in my case golf digest was the magazine I subscribed to) were a window, however small, into an area that essentially didn't exist otherwise.


I won't try and defend the indefensible or claim that they are great literature, but they have a purpose. They have been many people's introduction to the wider world of golf architecture.

[Rob Marshall]

What purpose does the list actually service other than promotion of the courses that are playable or stroke a private’s ego?

If I’m trying to view them generously, I’d say, well, art museums and history museums have a blurb next to the artwork/artifact that explains why the item is exceptional (especially when it’s not readily apparent). The same is reasonable for golf courses. There is no museum of golf courses, but “Top 100” lists can serve as a bit of curation for those of us fascinated with the game and history. Bona fides of raters are obviously required for this.

90% of us have no chance to ever see them in person.

[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.

Hey John

Last I checked qualitative doesn’t equate objective. Regardless, what are the well known criteria of greatness and how are these criteria weighted?

I think determining greatness is highly personal and likely not fully explainable. Certainly not in the way rating panels operate.

Ciao

Hi Sean,

After sleeping on it, I want to amend my thoughts about this.

As far as "well-known criteria" to determine greatness, we can start with a courses that present varied and compelling challenges for players of all abilities, as well as offering a pleasant and beautiful environment to enjoy the game.  But I think we could come up with a list of dozens of specific criteria that might come to mind.  For me, the wildlife watching, especially birds, matters in my experience.  It's a low to medium factor on my list.  There's lots of time to look around and not think about golf during a round. 


I'm currently reading a book by Daniel Kahneman called "Noise" that is a companion book to the better-known "Thinking, Fast and Slow."  So far, the book's entire focus is on the considerable imperfections of human judgement.  There's quite a bit in the book that is relevant to the ratings discussion.  Rating and ranking things like golf courses is a bit different than predicting outcomes, but there are clear parallels you can draw.  One of the chapters in the book discusses how there is wisdom in groups, and that the predictions of two people are on average more accurate than a single prediction.  It would be fair to propose this translates to group evaluation of golf courses.  You have different criteria than I do, but we both pride ourselves on being experienced golfers and enjoy offering our opinion.  Together we probably would arrive at a better list than we would separately.

Finally, the words objective and subjective are used here as absolutes too often.  It's clear that there is a spectrum of possibilities between fully objective and fully subjective.  Evaluating baseball players is largely objective, but I don't think you can say it is completely objective.  My opinion is that judging food and wine quality is a largely subjective taste, though for experienced connoisseurs that may not be true.  Perhaps subjectivity of evaluation decreases with one's experience.  We have some golf course raters here who have seen most of the best courses in the world.  They can compare a new course to their previous experiences, and gauge how much fun they're having and how beautiful it is.  They are well educated to the various challenges that a golf course can present.


In summary, the better one knows the subject, the more objective the evaluation should be.  I think of golf course evaluation as "substantially objective," but clearly my individual analysis has subjective elements based on my preferences.

[Tony Ristola]

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.

I think there's an over-emphasis on maintenance.


Most considered for these top lists tend to be decently maintained. That should be enough. No extra points for overkill.


If a club hits a bad patch or season, I don't think it should take quite a hit. Someone qualified to rate these courses ought to be able to look past the problems and to the core of the golf course.


Established courses in the Top 100, should they run into some disease problems and lose turf, are they going to take it in the teeth? Likely not.


Then it comes down to... what is good maintenance? Courses half brown with purples and varying shades of green is common in Europe, but would get many superintendents fired in the US.


Personally, I'd largely gut maintenance from the rating equation, unless it's something like Pinehurst Nr. 2 growing light rough around greensites instead of having short turf.

[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

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.

Hey John

Last I checked qualitative doesn’t equate objective. Regardless, what are the well known criteria of greatness and how are these criteria weighted?

I think determining greatness is highly personal and likely not fully explainable. Certainly not in the way rating panels operate.

Ciao

Hi Sean,

After sleeping on it, I want to amend my thoughts about this.

As far as "well-known criteria" to determine greatness, we can start with a courses that present varied and compelling challenges for players of all abilities, as well as offering a pleasant and beautiful environment to enjoy the game.  But I think we could come up with a list of dozens of specific criteria that might come to mind.  For me, the wildlife watching, especially birds, matters in my experience.  It's a low to medium factor on my list.  There's lots of time to look around and not think about golf during a round. 


I'm currently reading a book by Daniel Kahneman called "Noise" that is a companion book to the better-known "Thinking, Fast and Slow."  So far, the book's entire focus is on the considerable imperfections of human judgement.  There's quite a bit in the book that is relevant to the ratings discussion.  Rating and ranking things like golf courses is a bit different than predicting outcomes, but there are clear parallels you can draw.  One of the chapters in the book discusses how there is wisdom in groups, and that the predictions of two people are on average more accurate than a single prediction.  It would be fair to propose this translates to group evaluation of golf courses.  You have different criteria than I do, but we both pride ourselves on being experienced golfers and enjoy offering our opinion.  Together we probably would arrive at a better list than we would separately.

Finally, the words objective and subjective are used here as absolutes too often.  It's clear that there is a spectrum of possibilities between fully objective and fully subjective.  Evaluating baseball players is largely objective, but I don't think you can say it is completely objective.  My opinion is that judging food and wine quality is a largely subjective taste, though for experienced connoisseurs that may not be true.  Perhaps subjectivity of evaluation decreases with one's experience.  We have some golf course raters here who have seen most of the best courses in the world.  They can compare a new course to their previous experiences, and gauge how much fun they're having and how beautiful it is.  They are well educated to the various challenges that a golf course can present.


In summary, the better one knows the subject, the more objective the evaluation should be.  I think of golf course evaluation as "substantially objective," but clearly my individual analysis has subjective elements based on my preferences.

You are right, there are no absolutes in course rating, but that supports the concept that rating is subjective. We all bring our own baggage to the table. Which means terms like variety, challenge, beauty, conditions, playability etc are highly subjective…even if an editor (unwisely imo) drills down on each concept and (even more unwisely) tries to weight each component.

I find weighing the components highly frustrating. To me, the importance of each aspect of a course is different from course to course. For example, on some courses the bunkering is more important than on other courses. Same could be said for greens, hazards, shaping etc. To pidgeon hole various elements to a specific level of importance is nothing less than folly.

Even the ultimate reason for all the fake math is spurious. Trying to determine the best course(s)? Why? Is it not enough to say a course is great and why? Do we really need to pad out the why with fake math? It never made sense to me….and I have tried to make sense of it for a long time. Maybe worst of all, I learn virtually nothing from best courses rankings. I learned more from a few most fun and good value lists than I have in 30 years of best courses rankings.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

Hey John

Last I checked qualitative doesn’t equate objective. Regardless, what are the well known criteria of greatness and how are these criteria weighted?

I think determining greatness is highly personal and likely not fully explainable. Certainly not in the way rating panels operate.

Ciao

Hi Sean,

After sleeping on it, I want to amend my thoughts about this.

As far as "well-known criteria" to determine greatness, we can start with a courses that present varied and compelling challenges for players of all abilities, as well as offering a pleasant and beautiful environment to enjoy the game.  But I think we could come up with a list of dozens of specific criteria that might come to mind.  For me, the wildlife watching, especially birds, matters in my experience.  It's a low to medium factor on my list.  There's lots of time to look around and not think about golf during a round. 


I'm currently reading a book by Daniel Kahneman called "Noise" that is a companion book to the better-known "Thinking, Fast and Slow."  So far, the book's entire focus is on the considerable imperfections of human judgement.  There's quite a bit in the book that is relevant to the ratings discussion.  Rating and ranking things like golf courses is a bit different than predicting outcomes, but there are clear parallels you can draw.  One of the chapters in the book discusses how there is wisdom in groups, and that the predictions of two people are on average more accurate than a single prediction.  It would be fair to propose this translates to group evaluation of golf courses.  You have different criteria than I do, but we both pride ourselves on being experienced golfers and enjoy offering our opinion.  Together we probably would arrive at a better list than we would separately.

Finally, the words objective and subjective are used here as absolutes too often.  It's clear that there is a spectrum of possibilities between fully objective and fully subjective.  Evaluating baseball players is largely objective, but I don't think you can say it is completely objective.  My opinion is that judging food and wine quality is a largely subjective taste, though for experienced connoisseurs that may not be true.  Perhaps subjectivity of evaluation decreases with one's experience.  We have some golf course raters here who have seen most of the best courses in the world.  They can compare a new course to their previous experiences, and gauge how much fun they're having and how beautiful it is.  They are well educated to the various challenges that a golf course can present.

In summary, the better one knows the subject, the more objective the evaluation should be.  I think of golf course evaluation as "substantially objective," but clearly my individual analysis has subjective elements based on my preferences.

I only just saw this post, so thank you Sean for bringing back to the top. I do agree that objective/subjective is a sliding scale, not an absolute, and there is a lot of work in philosophy on this, though I can't remember the names of the people involved, which annoys me (getting older is a bitch). The analogy I like is with the concept of the 'canon' in literature: if a group of experts general agrees that something belongs, it belongs.


We can, of course, argue where on the subjective/objective scale a particular type of criticism lies, and I think that I would put golf  course ranking significantly further towards the subjective side than John does. But I think also it is important to agree that subjectivity and objectivity are not absolutes.

[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

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.

Hey John

Last I checked qualitative doesn’t equate objective. Regardless, what are the well known criteria of greatness and how are these criteria weighted?

I think determining greatness is highly personal and likely not fully explainable. Certainly not in the way rating panels operate.

Ciao

Hi Sean,

After sleeping on it, I want to amend my thoughts about this.

As far as "well-known criteria" to determine greatness, we can start with a courses that present varied and compelling challenges for players of all abilities, as well as offering a pleasant and beautiful environment to enjoy the game.  But I think we could come up with a list of dozens of specific criteria that might come to mind.  For me, the wildlife watching, especially birds, matters in my experience.  It's a low to medium factor on my list.  There's lots of time to look around and not think about golf during a round. 


I'm currently reading a book by Daniel Kahneman called "Noise" that is a companion book to the better-known "Thinking, Fast and Slow."  So far, the book's entire focus is on the considerable imperfections of human judgement.  There's quite a bit in the book that is relevant to the ratings discussion.  Rating and ranking things like golf courses is a bit different than predicting outcomes, but there are clear parallels you can draw.  One of the chapters in the book discusses how there is wisdom in groups, and that the predictions of two people are on average more accurate than a single prediction.  It would be fair to propose this translates to group evaluation of golf courses.  You have different criteria than I do, but we both pride ourselves on being experienced golfers and enjoy offering our opinion.  Together we probably would arrive at a better list than we would separately.

Finally, the words objective and subjective are used here as absolutes too often.  It's clear that there is a spectrum of possibilities between fully objective and fully subjective.  Evaluating baseball players is largely objective, but I don't think you can say it is completely objective.  My opinion is that judging food and wine quality is a largely subjective taste, though for experienced connoisseurs that may not be true.  Perhaps subjectivity of evaluation decreases with one's experience.  We have some golf course raters here who have seen most of the best courses in the world.  They can compare a new course to their previous experiences, and gauge how much fun they're having and how beautiful it is.  They are well educated to the various challenges that a golf course can present.

In summary, the better one knows the subject, the more objective the evaluation should be.  I think of golf course evaluation as "substantially objective," but clearly my individual analysis has subjective elements based on my preferences.

I only just saw this post, so thank you Sean for bringing back to the top. I do agree that objective/subjective is a sliding scale, not an absolute, and there is a lot of work in philosophy on this, though I can't remember the names of the people involved, which annoys me (getting older is a bitch). The analogy I like is with the concept of the 'canon' in literature: if a group of experts general agrees that something belongs, it belongs.


We can, of course, argue where on the subjective/objective scale a particular type of criticism lies, and I think that I would put golf  course ranking significantly further towards the subjective side than John does. But I think also it is important to agree that subjectivity and objectivity are not absolutes.

I too often think of the literary canon when trying to find an analogy for golf rankings. But I also understand the inherent issues with the canon being largely set by a relatively narrow range of people.

Ciao

[Peter Sayegh]

"I too often think of the literary canon when trying to find an analogy for golf rankings. But I also understand the inherent issues with the canon being largely set by a relatively narrow range of people."

Well said.

Fortunately, books are more accessible...and cheaper to discover.

[Sean_A]

"I too often think of the literary canon when trying to find an analogy for golf rankings. But I also understand the inherent issues with the canon being largely set by a relatively narrow range of people."

Well said.

Fortunately, books are more accessible...and cheaper to discover.

I guess, like rankings to a newbie golf traveler, the canon is a great place to start.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Played a Nicklaus signature yesterday in windy conditions at Baha Mar in the Bahamas. The resort owns the course  and its a part of an incredible 6 billion dollar build out here. The course is named Royal Blue.




Must say I was pleasantly surprised at how nice it was , architecturally speaking. The conditions were impeccable as expected at this place. We played it in reverse order back nine to front and think it would have been even better in the normal rotation. The front nine is more difficult, with some difficult second shots to the par fours. There is a little commercial development that is visible on the front which isn't so good but the shots themselves have to really good to hit it close.


Really liked the back nine , it was quite good. Plenty of room to hit the tee ball and the course gets tougher as you approach the green. Good for me so I might be a little biased in that respect. It was almost like a nature walk on the back and they don't have any alligators or venomous snakes. Some wonderful solitary trees on more than a few holes. Doubt a lot of people have seen it , but interested in any others opinion on Royal Blue.

[Jeff Schley]

Played a Nicklaus signature yesterday in windy conditions at Baha Mar in the Bahamas. The resort owns the course  and its a part of an incredible 6 billion dollar build out here. The course is named Royal Blue.

6 billion with a b???   That is a lot of coin. Bahamas is a great destination so I'm sure you had a wonderful trip.