My wish for a ranking system

[mike_malone]

  Anyone can suggest a course.
 


  Courses would be exceptional, great , or very good. You have to play the course. Only playing the course matters in the evaluation.


  Some experienced ranking people would contribute their suggested criteria. There would be no need to agree on the criteria. They would just be a reference for those who wanted to add a course. Maybe the existing magazine and Doak rankings would suffice.


There would be some suggested criteria that differentiate the three levels.




Players would have to explain their choice.
They would be asked to have at least three reasons for their view.


I’m fine if someone loves a course because it has an awesome view of the mountains. It just wouldn’t give me a reason to play it.




Maybe Golfclubatlas could host the list.

[mike_malone]

Anyone could add their agreement or disagreement if they state a reason or two.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,


I like the simplicity of your idea. And, asking submitters to give a brief explanation could be interesting. My only reservation is the likelyhood of it turning into yet another “look where I played” thread. Maybe there ought to be a criteria that the courses submitted cannot have appeared on *any* Top 200 list in the past decade…..


Joe

[mike_malone]

 Would be fine if one wants to lay out their credentials. Those that have played the top courses would get my attention.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Sadly most of the well traveled and experienced people who would be needed and who could contribute to something like this have been deterred away from this site.

This will end up as just another list.  Not sure what will be gained from it or what you expect to accomplish.  We have tried here in the past to have posters list their own Top 10 or Top 20 courses but it hasn’t resulted in anything really useful. It did however confirm about where some have played (or not played) but it was mostly viewed as bragging

[Sam Morrow]

Would be fine if one wants to lay out their credentials. Those that have played the top courses would get my attention.

The problem with that is that I've met a lot of idiots who've played the top 100 courses, many times the most important factor to playing those is being rich, not being savvy. I've also met and read on this site many incredibly brilliant architectural minds who play the majority of their golf at the local munis.

[Mark_Fine]

Sam,
I hear what you are saying but that is more the exception than the rule.  Most of those who have played a lot of golf courses have some clue or at least some perspective to share.  If you have not seen or experienced much it is hard to comment with credibility from just photos or what you have read.  I have said many times, if you haven’t experienced the supposed best golf courses (or at least seen a lot of them) how could you possibly rank them or know how good golf can get?  It doesn’t mean that individual’s assessment is accurate but at least they have some basis for judgement and comparison. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Mike Malone...


I'd like to meet you some day, have a beer and a golf with you. You take risks and you don't back down.


That said, this might deter the above from happening, but here goes.


Simply playing the great courses...does that give someone a perspctive on what is Exceptional-Very Good-Good about a golf course?


That has always been, and will always be, the tricky part of rankings. The court jesters found their way into the audience with money or connections, or both. Not always have they been worthy of pulling the sword from the stone.


I went to a World Languages conference at Mohonk Mountain House this past week. The opening and closing keynotes contemplated AI and its inevitable place in learning and instruction. Kids ARE using it, whether they fess up or not. Teachers SHOULD not fear it, even though many do.


How would AI do with creating your ranking? It would aggregate opinions from myriad sources, way more than we can humanly do, and it would do so at an accelerated, some might say blinding, pace.

[Sam Morrow]

Sam,
I hear what you are saying but that is more the exception than the rule.  Most of those who have played a lot of golf courses have some clue or at least some perspective to share.  If you have not seen or experienced much it is hard to comment with credibility from just photos or what you have read.  I have said many times, if you haven’t experienced the supposed best golf courses (or at least seen a lot of them) how could you possibly rank them or know how good golf can get?  It doesn’t mean that individual’s assessment is accurate but at least they have some basis for judgement and comparison.

Mark I agree but unfortunately sometimes that exception is the loudest and most influential too. At the end of the the day it's not a perfect system but I don't have a better plan!

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,


If I may, I’d like to add my wish for a ranking system:


Raters must play courses similar to the ones I already like;


Raters must have skills and abilities that are similar to mine, so I know why they enjoy the course;


Raters must be like like-minded so not too many outliers make it onto the list;


And, finally, Raters must come from a similar income bracket so I know I have half a chance of playing the courses on the list.


While this may seem satirical and sarcastic, it is not intended to be. I think these conditions would produce a list that *I* could be happy with.

[mike_malone]

If some people are affected by those who have experienced the top courses that’s fine. If people are turned off by that that is also fine. I do believe that it is worth knowing.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
I know you joke a bit about what you want as far as uniformity, but that is what GD is trying to do.  One may or may not agree with it, but the idea is to have well defined rating criteria to yield consistency in all assessments.  But as we know, if the criteria is completely objective with no personal subjectivity, there is no need for more than one panelist seeing every course as everyone’s assessment will be identical.  This is a subjective process and always will be.  If AI does the processing, which it could, it is just a matter of what data it uses to make the rankings.  The old saying, garbage in garbage out still holds. 

[mike_malone]

Mike Malone...


I'd like to meet you some day, have a beer and a golf with you. You take risks and you don't back down.


That said, this might deter the above from happening, but here goes.


Simply playing the great courses...does that give someone a perspctive on what is Exceptional-Very Good-Good about a golf course?


That has always been, and will always be, the tricky part of rankings. The court jesters found their way into the audience with money or connections, or both. Not always have they been worthy of pulling the sword from the stone.


I went to a World Languages conference at Mohonk Mountain House this past week. The opening and closing keynotes contemplated AI and its inevitable place in learning and instruction. Kids ARE using it, whether they fess up or not. Teachers SHOULD not fear it, even though many do.


How would AI do with creating your ranking? It would aggregate opinions from myriad sources, way more than we can humanly do, and it would do so at an accelerated, some might say blinding, pace.

Topo Chico for me.

[Andrew Harvie]

When we were putting together Beyond The Contour's Top 100 + Top 100 Public in Canada (there's been Canadian rankings for 40-odd years, but never a Top 100 public & any ranking is generally pretty vapid), we really liked GOLF Magazine's ranking structure of "buckets," ie, top 3, top 5, top 25, top 50—whatever GOLF used, I can't remember off the top of my head. We did it slightly different, asking people to list courses they had seen and how they'd place them in the top 10, and then in buckets from 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-75, 76-100, and then the close calls from 101-125.


Perhaps we did it to differentiate ourselves or just a necessity of such a large land-mass, spread out country with our small panel, but we had every panellist fill out a spreadsheet where they checked off the golf courses they had played/seen from a master list of contenders (based on previous lists and other rankings like SCORE + Top 100 & some regional choices). The more someone saw, the more weight their ranking held. Example:


If someone—say, Panellist A—saw 150 of the 200 courses listed, their weight would be 150. If Panellist B saw 75 courses of the 200, their weight was obviously 75.


Panellist A ranks Cabot Links as the #1 golf course in Canada and Jasper Park Lodge #2. Panellist B ranks Jasper Park at 1, and Cabot Links at 2.


Panellist A


Cabot Links: 1 x 150 = 150
Jasper Park: 2 x 150 = 300


Panellist B


Jasper Park: 1 x 75 = 75
Cabot Links: 2 x 75 = 150


From there, the totals are added up:


Cabot Links: 300
Jasper Park: 375


And divided by the total divisor, ie, the total between the two panellists (150 + 75 = 225):


Cabot Links: 1.33
Jasper Park: 1.66


So, Cabot Links average is lower, and thus, the better golf course. We did that with 30 panellists, 200 golf courses, and it gave us an interesting list.


While not exactly what you're talking about Mayday, we didn't use criteria either, just asked people to slot them into the respective tiers and check off what they had seen. What we found was the top ~10 most travelled people, by the end of the exercise, could move a course up one or two in the top 50 (because generally, in Canada, more people have seen the top 50 given the sharp drop off in quality), and up to 10 spots in the bottom 50. The bottom ~20 panellists likely couldn't shift anything in the top 50 by the end of the exercise, but could move something up or down 2-4 spots, depending on their weight. I would've liked to seen some reasoning on why people did what they did, but the product turned out better than I was hoping for so I didn't really begin to start poking around.


I'm happy to host anything anyone wants to put together, but I think Ran wants a break from rankings for a bit so we might have to hold off while he detoxes from corporate media

[mike_malone]

  There wouldn’t be a specific number in each category or the silly idea that one course is 35th and another 40th.

[Andrew Harvie]

  There wouldn’t be a specific number in each category or the silly idea that one course is 35th and another 40th.

I was just explaining a similar train of thought that we put together, especially in response to this:

Would be fine if one wants to lay out their credentials. Those that have played the top courses would get my attention.

I'd like to see what you're envisioning!

[Peter Sayegh]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

[Sean_A]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me. I  recently played Winterfield. It’s a great walk, but far from a great course. No elevation above great courses because of the walk. Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Peter,


I agree with many of your posts. But on this one, I don’t.


I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

[Peter Sayegh]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me.
Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.
Ciao

Sean, that was what I was thinking. If it's nebulous, disregard it.
Many course evaluations in the last 20 years have shown it impacts one's esteem for a course.

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

Thanks Ally.
I made no mention of "great courses" just a criterion of judging any/all I think is anitiquated.
I may be removed from the DG forever, but I didn't walk a golf course till I was 37.
Your post reminds me of the subtlties I may have missed but not my overall impressions of a particular playing ground.

[Sean_A]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me.
Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.
Ciao

Sean, that was what I was thinking. If it's nebulous, disregard it.
Many course evaluations in the last 20 years have shown it impacts one's esteem for a course.

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

Thanks Ally.
I made no mention of "great courses" just a criterion of judging any/all I think is anitiquated.
I may be removed from the DG forever, but I didn't walk a golf course till I was 37.
Your post reminds me of the subtlties I may have missed but not my overall impressions of a particular playing ground.

Peter

Nebulous? Which criteria is concrete…objective? I understand that some folks into rankings detest the idea of subjective criteria. Imo, that is all there is. If the walk carries no weight for you that’s ok, but for me it’s important.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

I think a ranking that allows totally personal experience of playing the course would be great. Listing the reasons enables others to decide if there is value to the ranking.


Since courses would fall into categories there is no need to limit the number.

[mike_malone]

  There wouldn’t be a specific number in each category or the silly idea that one course is 35th and another 40th.

I was just explaining a similar train of thought that we put together, especially in response to this:

Would be fine if one wants to lay out their credentials. Those that have played the top courses would get my attention.

I'd like to see what you're envisioning!

Andrew,


I want something simple.

[Mark_Fine]

The walkability discussion is yet another example of never being able to agree on what is or is not important.  Let’s just look at all the rankings as lists of courses each likely worthy of checking out if you can.  And let’s stop bashing the panelists who are no different then us and just making their best assessment based of their observations and opinions.  If we do this maybe we will get more of those well traveled guys to contribute here rather than stay away.

[Peter Sayegh]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me.
Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.
Ciao

Sean, that was what I was thinking. If it's nebulous, disregard it.
Many course evaluations in the last 20 years have shown it impacts one's esteem for a course.

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

Thanks Ally.
I made no mention of "great courses" just a criterion of judging any/all I think is anitiquated.
I may be removed from the DG forever, but I didn't walk a golf course till I was 37.
Your post reminds me of the subtlties I may have missed but not my overall impressions of a particular playing ground.

Peter

Nebulous? Which criteria is concrete…objective? I understand that some folks into rankings detest the idea of subjective criteria. Imo, that is all there is. If the walk carries no weight for you that’s ok, but for me it’s important.

Ciao

Again Sean, I agree with you, re subjective/objective rankings.

But I will always argue that "walkability" as a criterion for ranking courses is one that would be lost on the majority of most (US) golfers.
Even as a young, hale and hardy golfer, I grew up playing mandatory cart courses. Green to tee transitions was not something I had the (dis)advantage of knowing/realizing or assessing at the time.


I've been blessed to play Pinehurst #2 about twenty times now.
I've never raved about how walkable it is.