"GCA" fans vs. "GCAers" on ranking panels and lists

[Frank M]

Preface that this is my opinion and anecdotal, but I find the vast majority of people on golf course ranking panels fall into two categories: "GCA" fans (fans of golf course ARCHITECTURE) and "GCAers" (those looking for golf course ACCESS).


Over the last decade, through conversation with many raters and being in the golf industry, it has become apparent to me that there are vastly more people looking for access than are fans of architecture. I would put the number around 7 out of 10 being GCAers. I'd prefer a smaller number of GCA fans on a panel then a large number of GCAers.


I also think rankings are subjective and influenced heavily by group think. It would be interesting to see an entire list of rankings opened to everyone. Not just the top 100 or 200, but every course available to be rated and its corresponding rating value. 

[Alex_Hunter]

Frank,


The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.



Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

[Brian Finn]

Might consider changing your acronym / label use, for sake of framing the discussion, as "GCAer" has pretty routinely been used to describe those of us lucky enough to participate here.  When I read your title, I assumed you meant fan = casual, GCAer = serious student.  Yes, the opening post clarified your point, but these things have a way of going sideways quickly.  FWIW, I don't disagree with your general assessment (on % of fans vs access seekers). 

[Ben Sims]

Frank,


A pointed take for sure. And sure to ruffle feathers. I can’t say I disagree. But bottom line, what you’re talking about is why I think Golf Mag is so valuable vs any other list.

[mike_malone]

My encounters with raters at my home course have been overwhelmingly with those interested in the architecture of the course.

[Adam Lawrence]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

Crowdsourcing is useful, but comes with problems. I can't be the only one to note that TripAdvisor ratings are extremely reliable for hotels, but much less so for restaurants. I think this is because one hotel is much more directly comparable to another than one restaurant is. How do you compare a sushi bar to a French restaurant? The only ones who can sensibly do so are the ones who have eaten in enough sushi bars and enough French restaurants to have an idea where those particular places sit in a hierarchy. Possibly golf courses have more in common with hotels than with restaurants, but I should be very suspicious about relying on the opinion of someone who had never before seen a links on the Old course at St Andrews.


It shouldn't be hard to define an algorithm that gives more weight to the votes of those who have rated more courses. That would dramatically reduce the impact of the one-and-doners that screw up lots of crowdsourced stuff, not just golf. It wouldn't make the ranking perfect, no ranking is, because it is inherently so subjective, but it would make it better.

[Frank M]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Alex, I was not suggesting opening up the rankings for the "masses" to submit ratings, but to provide a complete list of all golf courses that ratings can be submitted for by each outlet and the corresponding rating value for each course. Basically, to see the number rating for every course from 1 - infinity instead of just the "top" lists.

[Richard Hetzel]

How can one be a "fan" of a particular course if you never get access? I don't even look at those rankings as they are too subjective anyway.

[Ben Malach]

Frank,


Why does it matter what others think unless their opinions matter.


It's why I don't rate golf courses. I see them, I walk them, I study them. But, I am not a rater and have no desire to be one.


Why because on the whole a majority of the people rating golf courses have no idea about the subject they are being critical. They just want an excuse to go on a nice little trip and to play golf at some fancy exclusive places. 


Even if they are interested in golf architecture, I have my doubts on how valuable their insights would be as most will end up parroting the take of their favorite architect or commentor.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think the film industry has developed the best rating system in having both public aggregation, and critics in every city. I realize this is less feasible for golf, but the proliferation of independent media outlets is changing things. I think what you've touched on makes golf ratings so contentious, there is a sort of reflexivity where the raters influence the ratings, but the ratings seem to influence the raters.

The good news is that it's just golf.

[Scott Warren]

I posted this in relation to the ball rollback but it applies just the same to this idea.


(No way to embed a video here so will have to just link a tweet)


https://x.com/scott___warren/status/1732531224458182917?s=46&t=TYTBZrjN-c-aRiBcGq8E1g

[Stewart Abramson]

Frank,


The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.



Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 




https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"[size=2.5rem][/size]

[Frank M]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

Stewart, as I explained in my response to Alex above, I was not suggesting opening up the rankings for the "masses" to submit ratings, but to provide a complete list of all golf courses that ratings can be submitted for by each outlet and the corresponding rating value for each course. Basically, to see the number rating for every course from 1 - infinity instead of just the "top" lists.

[Stewart Abramson]

Stewart, as I explained in my response to Alex above, I was not suggesting opening up the rankings for the "masses" to submit ratings, but to provide a complete list of all golf courses that ratings can be submitted for by each outlet and the corresponding rating value for each course. Basically, to see the number rating for every course from 1 - infinity instead of just the "top" lists.

 I know you weren't suggesting it. I was just showing an example of what you get when  rankings are opened to the masses.

[John Kirk]

Perhaps a more obvious distinction should be made between the two types.  I think that most of us here who participate in the board regularly are GCA geeks, while the people who seek access rather than discussion or friendship are belt notchers.

[Mark_Fine]

Frank,
There is actually a third category - those interested in Golf Architecture and who need access to study it! 

[Frank M]

Frank,
There is actually a third category - those interested in Golf Architecture and who need access to study it!

True, Mark. I think there are even more categories. It's why I say the "vast majority" fall into two categories, leaving space for the others.

[Brian Finn]

Perhaps a more obvious distinction should be made between the two types.  I think that most of us here who participate in the board regularly are GCA geeks, while the people who seek access rather than discussion or friendship are belt notchers.

I am a NERD not a geek, thank you very much! 

[mike_malone]

Perhaps a more obvious distinction should be made between the two types.  I think that most of us here who participate in the board regularly are GCA geeks, while the people who seek access rather than discussion or friendship are belt notchers.

I am a NERD not a geek, thank you very much! 

Aficionado

[Will Thrasher]

Frank,
There is actually a third category - those interested in Golf Architecture and who need access to study it!

Very much agree with this. I completely agree that there are plenty of raters I've talked to that are far more interested in checking off bucket list courses than truly evaluating and studying architecture. If we're honest, I think most of us have at least a small part that loves to look at the new top 100 lists and see how many we've played, but to me the reason behind this is the key. Is the motivation just checking off the list/buying the tshirt, or is it fueled by passion for architecture? Without this access, how could I say I think Blue Mound is still criminally underrated and deserving of consideration for a top 100 spot, or getting the chance to argue that Cedar Rapids is a better golf course than Davenport?

[Alex_Hunter]

Stewart, as I explained in my response to Alex above, I was not suggesting opening up the rankings for the "masses" to submit ratings, but to provide a complete list of all golf courses that ratings can be submitted for by each outlet and the corresponding rating value for each course. Basically, to see the number rating for every course from 1 - infinity instead of just the "top" lists.

I don't know too many details on how it works for Golf Week, Digest, Golf [dot] com, Top 100 golf courses, etc.. but in Canada there are two major publications who produce lists - SCOREGolf and Beyond the Contour. With SCORE any course in the country can technically be "rated". They encourage raters to submit details for every course they play which they are not affiliated as they get requests for comment/scoring from courses across the country. Some courses will never sniff a list, and it doesn't take too much time to evaluate, so this is fine.


Beyond the Contour panelists are given a list of ~200 courses which in theory are competing for Top 100 (and the next 50) status. Though panelists can submit off board if they deem the course to have substantial value. Ratings are mathematically calculated based on weight of a rater catalogue and where they put them in the list. I do prefer this methodology. You can read more here [size=78%]https://beyondthecontour.com/top-100-methodology-here-is-how-we-ranked-canadas-best/[/size]

[Alex_Hunter]

Frank,
There is actually a third category - those interested in Golf Architecture and who need access to study it!

Very much agree with this. I completely agree that there are plenty of raters I've talked to you that are far more interested in checking off bucket list courses than truly evaluating and studying architecture. If we're honest, I think most of us have at least a small part that love to look at the new top 100 lists and see how many we've played, but to me the reason behind this is the key. Is the motivation just checking off the list/buying the tshirt, or is it fueled by passion for architecture? Without this access, how could I say I think Blue Mound is still criminally underrated and deserving of consideration for a top 100 spot, or getting the chance to argue that Cedar Rapids is a better golf course than Davenport?

I think in part because someone who is interested in architecture gets on a panel like Digest and wants to play with their buddies at all these incredible courses. Then they make a referral to get them on the panel. So panels like Digest having some 2000(?) raters is vastly watered down with guys who just want to check off bucket list courses.


Those truly interested in architecture are the niche in the sport

[Brent Carlson]

From my limited experience almost everyone I've met is in it for the architecture.  What good is access unless you get to see good architecture?  Access for other reasons just isn't worth it, at least in my opinion.

[Michael Moore]

As I get older and become more tuned into life's complexities and subtleties, I am constantly reminded that "two things can be true at the same time".

[Tim Gavrich]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

No apology necessary, Stewart. I was not really a fan of our rankings for several years because of how much they diverged from the mainstream ones.


But then again, we aren't asking golfers to assess only the architecture - as well as the conditioning and the prestige/exclusivity of courses and clubs, which always seeps into the mainstream rankings - but a number of factors. And having visited several golf courses that have been high up on both state lists and the overall U.S. Top 50 you linked to, I have gained a lot of respect from the wisdom of our particular crowd of golfers.


Our Golfers' Choice lists are an interesting counterpoint to the GOLF Mag and other lists. And there are always good examples of golf courses with strong architectural DNA being highly ranked overall.


While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.