[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Miller,

1. No, but I might take a closer look.

But, who do you look at, those who gave low votes, those who gave high votes, or all of them ?

2. Don't have problem with Yale, might be best thing for the course, still do believe it to be top 25 classic with proper restoration.

Exactly how much needs to be restored before it goes from outside the top 100 to your top 25 list ?

3. No, but if 5 differ significantly from the other 15 or 20 I might take a closer look.

Think about what you're saying, if 5 out of 15, one third of the group feels this way how can you possibly want to take a closer look ?  On what grounds ?  If 5 gave it a 7, 5 gave it a 6 and 5 gave it a 5, how can you possibly recommend only looking at the raters who give it a 5 ?

I  believe there is a fall off after MY top 15-20 classic and top 10 or so modern. The difference between Great and very good.

I think the actual rating numbers, down to thousanths of a percent will prove you wrong.

[DMoriarty]

JohnV;  I dont know you too well, but I know you enough to trust in your integrity and intentions when rating.  But my comments arent directed at you or any other rater, but rather the system, and the unintended consequences it may produce.  

Mike C and Tom H:  I hear what you are saying regarding cost, and agree forcing raters to pay might cause hardship on some raters and may even drive some out of rating.   But letting them take comps has its problems to, regardless of whether the raters ever do anything intentionally wrong.  

For example, a rater who is already walking a thin line financially may be less likely to seek out courses which have a reputation for not comping.  (The same rater may be less likely to seek out courses which are off the beaten path, if the extra travel is expensive.)

Also, almost everyone prefers expensive freebies over cheap ones.  Give an LA visitor a choice between a free meal at a lavish restaraunt du jour in Beverly Hills or a free pastrami on rye at Brent's Deli deep in the valley, and most will choose the fancy one.  This despite the fact that the meal at Brent's might well be better.  

I suspect that the system, as is, is biased toward the fancy, expensive, and/or well known, and is biased against the modest, inexpensive, and/or out of the way.  Looking through the list, there is very little to quell my suspicion.

(I also think the system may be biased toward courses which show you all they have in one play.  But that might be a better topic for another thread.)

I am glad to hear that GW is going to publish the numbers.  I hope they do so past the 100 cut-off point.  The more open the better.    
______________________

Patrick, it is true that the ratings are subjective and that one shouldnt be able to mess with the ratings just because they disagree with them (some of us wonder whether this has gone on within the ratings, with scores which are considered out of line one way or another.)  

But sometimes inclusions and inclusions make the reader question the ability of the system to identify better courses.  The question then becomes, do I want to give any weight whatsoever to a system which is so flawed that it would include X or exclude Y?  Along these lines, it seems that you have brought into question the integrity of the GW system when it comes to Yale.  Just as Brad has with regard to Rustic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Quite the opposite.

I attach no conspiratorial plot to YALE's departure from the top 100.  And, I don't question the integrity of those who played and rated YALE this year.  

I feel that GCA.com may have predisposed some of those who played the golf course, who had tuned in to GCA.com, but, I never questioned their integrity.
I think that would be an absurd position.

Some people confuse conditioning with the other superior attributes of a golf course, others confuse style as the determining factor.

If you buy into the ratings game, then you must go by the criteria established by the magazine, as compiled by the magazine, based on the subjective views of the individual raters, based on their individual understanding of what they're supposed to be doing.

My opinions of YALE differ from those raters who have it outside ot the top 100, but, I don't question their sincerity or their integrity, only that their judgement differs from mine.

My primary concern, dating back years ago, is the influence that regionalism exerts, and how to overcome it.

Take a golf course that would be deemed mediocre in metropolitan New York or Philadelphia and place it in a region starved of good golf courses, wouldn't raters whose frame of reference is limited to that region, rate that mediocre golf course, within that region, very high on their ballot ?

Not all raters are inclined to mirror Dave Miller's tastes.
His post would seem to impose his interpretive analysis and preference of style on all raters, and have those that disagree with him re-evaluated, whatever that means.

An argument could be made that in a region starved of good golf courses, those that give a course high marks should be reviewed, as Dave requests.

And, in a region containing many good courses, it may be that a given golf course is only .001, 003. or .007 higher than some of the others to which it is being compared.
But, those minimal differences may be enough to place the course outside of the top 50, top 100 or top 5 in the state.

A disagreement with the result of the mathmatics shouldn't be transformed into a questioning of ones intentions and integrity.

PS  I think Boca Rio is better then a number of top 100 golf courses, but, that's just my opinion, I don't call into question the process or the intent of the raters and those compiling the ratings.

[GeoffreyC]

David

Integrity with regard to Yale dropping off the Top 100 classic list. Why are you even repeating such a stupid idea.  I did not take Pat's remark that way but I did think he implied that one result might be favored by this group while the other was not and this could be the genesis of this silly argument. I don't buy that one either. The votes are what they are plain and simple. If enough people vote then the statistics will begin to make sense and the fluctuations will disappear (given a stable panel with balanced views and ideas about golf course architecture). That last point to my mind is the most important one for any ranking panel and the results they generate.

My vote on the Yale course was lower this year then it was last year.  Last years vote was lower then it was the year before. Who here will try to (dare to) debate me on the merits of my vote for the Course at Yale? I've played with others (raters and non-raters alike) and done my best to point out specific feature of the golf course and how the resulting play is affected by the continued mismanagement and poor judgements used to alter the course. I certainly hope raters and non-raters alike listened to me but I also know that I never asked anyone what/how they would vote. Personally, I view the Course at Yale like my friend Brad     Miller. Based on the architecture of the course as I envision it when it was built, it is a top 25.  Few are better and none more unique. TODAY, however, IMHO it is not a top 100 and other courses who better embody the "Integrity of original design", an important aspect of our vote, deserve to be on our list.  As for Rustic Canyon, I again see it as my friend Brad Miller does.  IMHO, it is clearly a top 100 Modern course and in fact should be well up the list. Statistically, my vote counted but many other votes balanced/differed with mine.

That's my take on the situation.  No voodoo magic only simple statistics and the balance of a panel's views.  Perhaps Brad Klein should ask us to take a 5000 question survey before he asks us to rate courses so the results really come out how he wants them.    
 

[Paul_Turner]

I agree with Patrick, Yale should easily be in the Top 100, regardless of the bunkers.  It's not a course that relies on bunkering too much, because of the terrain.  

[GeoffreyC]

Paul

If you really think that the course at Yale does not rely on its bunkering then I suggest that you look back on the old photos again.  The fierce and intimidating bunkers were a central feature of the course. Furthermore, in order to use the terrain, the ball has to bounce along the ground.  One hopes that Scott Ramsey keeps things firmer this coming season. Finally, one of the required 10 rating criteria is "Integrity of original design".

You are looking through rose colored glasses and at too many old photos when you visualize your impressions of the CURRENT course at Yale.

[Paul_Turner]

Geoffrey

No I'm not thinking about old photos at all, honest  Just how the course was the few times I've played it.  I still stand by my comments on the bunkers and the terrain.  The terrain dictates the play, far more than the severity of the bunkers (virtually no fairway bunkers!).

And so in my view, Yale is still clearly better than Plainfield, Aronimink, Ridgewood, Bethpage, Manufacturers, Rolling Green, Lehigh, Somerset Hills, which all make the list.

Now, don't get cross with me, for liking your home course so much  

[GeoffreyC]

Paul

At this lovefest website I would not get cross with you.

I respect your opinion very much as I do Pat's.  

Of the courses you mention that I have played (Plainfield, Ridgewood, Bethpage, Rolling Green and Lehigh) - (Geeze for a Brit who just got to our shores recently you do get around   - Let those who speak of the exclusivity of our clubs realize that you need only be a great guy with a sincere and scholarly interest in golf course architecture to gain access- I see Yale as previously better and potentially in the future better then all those you listed. I would still currently rather play Yale regularly then all of those but for Plainfield.

[gookin]

It would make for much better reading if those who disagree with a rating could make a good arguement for their views rather than just slam the raters.  We might all learn something.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

Sometimes, when you build something you see every flaw.
And perhaps, when you're so close to something the same views come into focus.

I think you have to look at YALE with a macro rather then a micro perspective.

But, that's just my opinion.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick and Geoff,

Please note that I was referring to the integrity of the GW system, not the integrity of the raters.   Sometimes, despite the best intentions, endeavors fail to accomplish what they set out to accomplish.  Sometimes an outside (and sometimes completely innocent) influence or bias corrupts the result.  See Patrick's contention that gca.com predisposed the Yale raters.  
_____________________

PM said:

If you buy into the ratings game, then you must go by the criteria established by the magazine, as compiled by the magazine, based on the subjective views of the individual raters, based on their individual understanding of what they're supposed to be doing.

But Patrick, isnt the real question whether we "buy into the ratings game?"
_______________________________

Geoff, when things are as close as they apparently are near the bottom of the list, you would need a very large number of raters to counteract any anomalies.  

[David Wigler]

As someone who has been gone for four days and missed this thread, let me say, Geoff grow the heck up.  I was at the "Glutton fest" and somehow missed the free bottle of wine, I also missed the free hotel room, casino credit and anything else you are accusing me of getting.  I also spent $800ish dollars for the trip to vegas, room, meals, etc.  Furthermore, I had played Southern Highlands twice before the raters cup.  Know what?  Southern Highlands is better than Rustic Canyon.  BTW Rustic Canyon treated me wonderfully, comp'd my round and thanks to Tommy, gave me one of the best explanations of the design principles I have ever been given.  

As I said on this identical (Although a lot less self-serving - Geoff) thread last year, Brad never once asked me to change a rating.  I know and consider friends many of GW's raters and in all of the conversations we have had, not once has someone said "Go to xxx, they give away great stuff."  Ratings are subjective, GW has Kingsley 22nd, Golf Digest has it somewhere around 600th.  I refuse to believe (Unless Geoff cares to publish proof of his accusations) that Brad is ignoring the process.  

[Mike Hendren]

Paging Forrest Richardson,

Reflecting on Wigs' post, I am compelled to request that you return the bottle of wine.  Not unlike the reverse sandbag, it could otherwise be considered the reverse bribe

Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

Not only did I drink the bottle of wine, I've recycled the glass, using it now as an urn for burned currency sent to me from clubs across the midwest.

Mike, as you know, I would never take a perk from anyone who would consider me worth a perk. And, as you also know, I would never play golf in Nashville because the only good things there are ribs and music.

[Forrest Richardson]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=8488

There are some decent comments in this old thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

It's impossible to structure a perfect system for rating golf courses throughout the country by approximately 300 different individuals.  And, you could alter the categories and their relative weight, but, since each magazine structures the system and establishes the criteria, you have to accept that that criteria and that it will apply to every golf course equally, despite the human element involved in the application.

My concerns have always gravitated toward the influence and problems associated with regionalism.

But, once the ballots are forwarded, the system operates fine.
It's a simple calculation that produces a numerical value that is compared to others to establish the ratings.

Those that complain about the system should structure one of their own, and begin their own rating methods and rankings.

Action speaks louder then words.

[Mike Hendren]

Forrest,

Ribs and Music?  What about Vanderbilt football?  We also have new statuary on the Music Row roundabout that is anatomically correct and two pro QB's on the team have been arrested for DUI.  Athens of the South my a**!

As for the golf, just wait until  Rees is finished with Belle Meade!  I can't wait til the U. S. Open comes to town.

Hey, wait minute.  The women's open did indeed come to town back in the early 80's.  What did the hosting club do with their Donald Ross original?  Why, sell it for residential development and relocate to a new billy-goat track by Nicklaus in the burbs.

Mike

[Mike_Sweeney]

My concerns have always gravitated toward the influence and problems associated with regionalism.

Patrick,

Even within a region, there are some surprising results. Look at the NJ public rankings. I would be surprised if ANY of the Golfweek raters think that Sand Barrens is the #2 public course in NJ (nor #1). Yet somehow the rating system got it to #2. I do think it is in the Top 10 NJ public list.

Obviously there is no perfect system when you add "people" to the equation.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Gee, try to get a couple of questions answered, and all the president's men (and even former men!) arrive to...raise more questions.

Cos,
You got me, the publisher had a second print run ready to go on Grounds for Golf based on a Golfweek top 100 ranking for RC. There was also a national book tour planned, and a sit-down with Matt Lauer (one recovering panelist to another recovering panelist). The publisher figured that hundreds of reluctant readers would sprint out to their nearest book store and order my tome based on an RC Golfweek Top 100 modern debut! There goes my chance at being the next Grisham.
 
JohnV, it is good to know where Rustic landed on the list, knowing it was so close is obviously great to hear and that it managed to score high marks despite the range fence, but this gives me a new perspective on why Dr. Klein asked a panelist to lower their score for last year's list. Of course, considering that RC purportedly did not have enough votes to be eligible last year, I'm not sure why it was necessary to lower its score in the first place (oh wait, that stuff about correlations or whatever the excuse is, but of course, the system is the reason the courses are so tightly bunched score-wise, isn't it?).

David Wigler and Jonathon,
Try going back and reading my posts more carefully. I never said anything about ties between Southern Highlands and free hotel rooms, but did ask when those and other perks become the next step in the process, and at what point you draw the line, particularly at rater outings where the apperance of group gluttony on someone else's tab is not a pretty thought. And David, look up irony in the dictionary and you'll know why your post gave me a huge laugh!

I still believe that most of the panel does play by the rules and those that do not, probably are not influenced by the perks when they vote. But for the 88th time, the APPEARANCE of rater outings and freebies reeks of impropriety, and the appearance that the panel head serves as a consultant to courses on the ballot or as Golf Commissioner to a potential top 100, could be construed as sending the message that the Golfweek process involves more than just building an interesting course.

That is certainly the opposite impression Golf Digest and Golf Magazine try to portray (well, except for those Mauna Kea GD "Tradition" points and Rees voting for his rees-torations at Golf). But why ultimately, even with the occasional hiccup, those rankings will have more credibility and why Golfweek, which should be considered the best of them all, will be tainted if it doesn't get its house in order.

Geoff
PS - Lloyd, nice to see you found golfclubatlas!

[David Wigler]

Gee, try to get a couple of questions answered, and all the president's men (and even former men!) arrive to...raise more questions.

David Wigler and Jonathon,
Try going back and reading my posts more carefully. I never said anything about ties between Southern Highlands and free hotel rooms, but did ask when those and other perks become the next step in the process, and at what point you draw the line, particularly at rater outings where the apperance of group gluttony on someone else's tab is not a pretty thought. And David, look up irony in the dictionary and you'll know why your post gave me a huge laugh!

Come on Geoff,

You were not trying to get a few questions answered, you were trying to indict Brad on inuendo.  Last I checked, the no one had ever stepped up and said they were this Phantom rater who was asked to lower their rating on RC.  You blasted Brad, put up the proof!

Furthermore, I did look up irony in the dictionary.  I guess I am too dumb to get your meaning.  I am not currently a GW panelist.  I have nothing to gain defending Brad.  I have my own issues with him but as far as ratings go, my impression is that he is honest and publishes the results.  I rated 180 or so courses for GW and never once was asked to change a rating.  

If Brad does what you accuse him of, then publish the proof.  I'll be the first poster to second a call for his resignation (What I am fairly certain is the hidden agenda behind this) from heading GW's panel.  Right now and without proof, you post was charactor assassination and blantantly unfair.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

David,

If I were to write a long article detailing all of the people and events that appear to contradict the code of conduct expectations that were in place when I was on the Golfweek panel, you'd call that character assassination too. I think it's rather kind to simply suggest (because it's clearly not apparent) to certain Golfweek people that this stuff is not kosher and is being watched by many in the golf industry with a weary eye.

Furthermore, I protect my sources. They share their experiences in confidence and out of frustration for a process that should be free of the questions being asked here. I'd like to see those who've shared their disappointment remain on the panel because all take their job seriously and are embarrassed by some of the things going on.

And David if it's innuendo, then why hasn't Dr. Klein taken the ample opportunities in private and public exchanges to deny that anything questionable took place in Las Vegas? He and Jonathon have also NOT denied asking people to change scores in the past, but it's always said to be in the interest of getting that panelist's modern scores in line with his ratings for the classic listing (or the other way around). That may be true, but it also explains many of the problems some have with the process and why so many courses are so close in scoring average.

As with protecting the identity of the panelists who are bothered by what is going on, I'm not going to spell out the irony of your post as it would not improve the discussion here.  
Geoff

[JakaB]

Geoff,

You are telling me and anyone else with half a brain that Brad asked Tommy to reduce his score of Rustic....Is this true..

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Jaka,
No it wasn't Tommy, sorry to disappoint. But needless to say, I was surprised to hear that a score was too high when Rustic didn't have enough votes anyway, so why the score was considered out of line, I don't know. I just assumed they threw out the high and the low score, but that makes too much sense.
Geoff

[David Wigler]

Geoff,

As to your last point, I wrote a private IM first thing this morning that I think speaks to it.  To whom I wrote it, feel free to share with Geoff.

I guess maybe I am naive about the ratings.  I am not calling you a liar but I am very troubled by accusations without proof.  I said this many times, if Brad had told me of a hidden agenda, I would have resigned on the spot, not stayed on the panel and acquiesced to be part of a fraudulent process.  This is not a court of law.  Brad is not on trial.  You had to know the inflammatory nature of the accusations and that they imply that GW's raters are sheep in complacently allowing themselves to be part of this fraud.  I wish you would publish the proof on this thread.  Without it, I will continue to disbelieve (Or as you might think, put my head back in the sand).


PS - Master's of the Link's was the 2nd book I ever read on Golf Architecture and really started me on the path.  Thank you.

[JakaB]

Geoff,

I guess that is why I have half a brain...thanks for clearing that up.   I love Tommy and don't even know myself why I am so hard on him lately....sorry.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()