Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on May 21, 2010, 11:05:59 PM
-
course rating systems differ for Golf Digest, GolfWeekly and Golf Magazine ?
If you're a rater, which magazine do you rate for ?
If the rating systems differ are there any substantive differences in the results ?
-
I find it mildly confusing when one refers to the magazine course "reviewers“ as Golf Course Raters. As I understand it a Golf Course Rater has been appointed by the USGA or their countries golf association to measure the golf course for the purpose of computing the USGA Course and Slope Rating, with all the associated responsibilities and adherence to their regulations.
What exactly do the Magazine “raters” do - shouldn’t we call them something else other than raters?
Confused ???
-
JC-S concur with your observation. Pat, with your expertness at going after these types, let's change their moniker !
-
Golf Digest calls us panelists. That might be the better word. Unfortunately we still call the "review" a rating--so I don't have a good substitute for that. I suppose you could call them ballots, but anyway...
I think there are major differences just in the criteria used in the ratings. When rating for Golf Digest, the currently used categories are shot values, resistance to scoring, design variety, memorability, aesthetics, conditioning, and ambiance. Previous categories include playability and walkability. Compare that to GolfWeek (which perhaps one of their panelists/raters could post) and it becomes rather evident that some courses will do better with one set of criteria than the other.
Just as an example, take resistance to scoring--I think that category creates some challenges for "easier" great courses when rated by Golf Digest. Regardless of which course you might "like" better--Butler National is stronger than Shoreacres in that particular category. I don't believe the other magazines take that into account, so that's one difference already.
I do my own personal listing of courses roughly based on the GD system and get different rankings just by changing the weighting and adding a "FUN" category. I have to believe that changing the categories entirely would also yield different results, even if I were still the one doing the rating!
-
JCS & WD,
The magazines use a numerical merit system to determine a value , thus they're rating the golf course and my description will remain.
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the magazine ratings and slope ratings doesn't belong on this site. ;D
Please, stick to the issue/s raised by this thread
-
"Please, stick to the issue/s raised by this thread."
Patrick:
OK, I will stick to the issue/s raised by you on this thread, and I will consequently ask you if it is true that when you see what you consider to be a great golf hole or a great golf course you visualize a beautiful naked woman to some degree and how to numerically rate either-----eg such as on a scale of 1 to 10?
For the time being we can leave the issue of whether you get sexually aroused by a great golf hole or a great golf course for another time.
-
I'm a Golf Digest panelist. My sense is that GD stresses two different areas. The first is the part about getting the ball around the course, with shot values, difficulty, and hole variety being the criteria there. The other broad category is the experience of playing, with memorability, ambiance, esthetics, and conditioning being evaluated. As Andy indicated, "fun" per se is not evaluated, nor is "quirk" or my desire to play the course over and over again. These are important to me as a player evaluating my own experience of playing a course, but I'm not sure that the GD system really captures those elements. Golf Magazine's system would, as I believe the raters simply give each course one overall score, and the raters could incorporate any factors he finds appropriate that relate to the course.
-
The panelists Andy and David have provided a first rate answer - and Patrick’s - it was just berating …… ;D
-
David Madison & Andy Troeger,
It would be helpful if we could get the criteria for each magazine listed so that we could make a side by side comparison.
Then after examining the respective criteria, we could see if there's an anomaly or if the three magazines are pretty much in harmony.
TEPaul,
I think of and visualize beautiful naked women 24/7 and don't need a great golf hole or great golf course to assist me in that process.
Don't forget you have a date on June 9th.
-
Hey Pat...
I've spent a lot of time on things like this and have done analysis as well.
Here is a list of courses ranked in the Top 100 in the US by one and only one of the Big 3 golf rating entities. To reconcile Golfweek's two top 100 lists I used a composite Golfweek Top 100 list (of course there are issues with this, but I did it anyway).
Here are the courses listed in the Top 100 by one and only one entity...
Golf Digest's list...
Canyata
The Quarry at La Quinta
Rich Harvest Links
Eagle Pointe
Sahalee
Tullymore
Sycamore Hills
Sage Valley
Golf Magazine's List...
Nanea
Bellerive
Torrey Pines
Mauna Kea
Trump International
Golfweek's List...
Wannamoisett
Kingsley Club
Colorado
Dunes Club
Wild Horse
Holston Hills
Bayonne
Cuscowilla
Paa-Ko Ridge
Homestead (Cascades)
Proghorn (Fazio)
Fallen Oaks
California Golf Club
Gozzer Ranch
Being the geek that I am I have a lot more data, I can pretty much pull out any information you would like to see...if it helps with the discussion.
-
Mac,
Which Trump course is that ?
Also, what courses do all three magazines put in their top 100 and could you list the number for each magazine with the course.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
I'm pretty sure GOLF Mag doesn't have critieria--raters can base things on whatever they deem important.
GolfWeek's criteria are listed on the following article:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/may/20/raters-notebook-old-american-gc/
The only common category between Digest and GolfWeek appears to be conditioning. But, my understanding is that GW raters can give an overall score that is not an average of their category scores, so that's another difference. Three very different processes, which explains a fair variety in the results.
-
Golf Mag.
World Rank US Golf Digest US Rank GW Top 100
1 1 Pine Valley 2 1
2 2 Cypress Point 4 2
6 4 Shinnecock Hills 3 5
3 3 Augusta National 1 11
8 6 Oakmont 5 8
7 5 Pebble Beach 6 10
10 7 Merion 7 7
11 8 Sand Hills 13 3
12 9 Nat'l Golf Links 15 6
16 10 Pacific Dunes 14 4
20 12 Crystal Downs 16 9
21 13 Seminole 10 17
23 14 Winged Foot West 8 19
24 15 Chicago 12 15
31 20 Fishers Island 9 12
25 16 Praire Dunes 21 16
19 11 Pinehurst #2 32 18
28 18 Oakland Hills 17 27
26 17 San Francisco 35 14
40 24 Whisting Straits/Straits 22 13
37 23 The Country Club 18 33
35 22 Bethpage Black 29 29
30 19 Riveria 31 36
46 26 Muirfield Village 19 30
41 25 Olympic Lake 26 35
47 27 Kiawah Ocean Course 25 42
58 33 Bandon Dunes 33 20
59 34 The Golf Club 35 23
57 32 Oak Hill East 11 56
51 30 Garden City Golf Club 53 28
52 31 Los Angeles 47 34
50 29 TPC Sawgrass 45 41
49 28 Baltusrol (lower) 30 58
60 35 Southern Hills 34 38
68 40 Inverness 40 59
67 39 Winged Foot (east) 65 55
90 49 Spyglass Hill 51 39
71 43 Shoreacres 74 43
65 37 Maidstone 86 49
70 42 Quaker Ridge 81 60
79 47 Somerset 88 46
73 44 Harbour Town 75 74
96 50 Scioto 61 88
Okay...the formating might be messed up a little. But here is a list of course ranked in the Golf Mag world top 100, Golf Mag US top 100, Golf Digest Top 100 and the composite Golfweek Top 100 along with the corresponding ranking. As an FYI, they are listed in numerical order in terms of aggregate ranking. For instance, averaging all the raters rankings Pine Valley is the best course in the US followed by Cypress, etc.
Running to dinner. Be back later.
-
Patrick,
It seems that the core difference between Golf Digest and the other two is that Golf Digest is more proscriptive or defined in its approach. Golf Magazine raters can evaluate courses on whatever criteria they see fit, and GolfWeek's criteria leave lots more room than do GD's for roaming and personal tastes.
I suspect that the courses listed by Mac Plumart that appear only on one magazine's list are likely at the tail end of each magazine's respective lists. It just doesn't take much to bounce around in the ratings once you get towards the tail end of the top 100. If I'm remembering my numbers correctly, the difference in score in GD's rankings between the #10 course and #30, for example, is much greater than it is between a #60 and a #90. And the difference between a #99 and a #200 is even smaller.
Notwithstanding the above, perhaps most telling in evaluating the results of the differences in criteria would be if we could identify those courses that are in the #75 - #100 bucket in one magazine but not even in the top 200 in another.
-
David...good points. For some extra information, here are those courses listed by one and only one entity and their respective ranking...
Golfweek...
Kingsley Club 50
Colorado Golf Club 54
Dunes 63
Wannamoisette 44
Wildhorse 67
bayonne 62
Cuscowilla 98
Paa-Ko Ridge 93
Homestead (Cascades) 89
Proghorn 87
Holston Hills 95
Fallen Oaks 92
California Golf Club 97
Gozzer Ranch 85
Golf Digest...
Canyata 42
The Quary at La Quinta 44
Rich Harvest Links 46
Eagle Pointe 83
Sahalee 84
Sage Valley 87
Tullymore 90
Sycamore Hills 93
Golf Mag...
68 Torrey Pines
75 Trump International
79 Bellerive
87 cog hill
100 Mauna Kea
-
Interesting to see that list, Mac. My reaction without knowing the courses would have been that most of the courses that only make one list probably don't belong. However, of the ones you've posted I think Kingsley Club, Gozzer Ranch, Cuscowilla, Paa-Ko Ridge and Tullymore are worthy. I admittedly tend to think Paa-Ko and Tullymore are personal preferences on my part though.
Just as interesting are the courses that make two of the three lists and which list they do not make. A lot of courses fall into that range.
Mac--I assume your lists for Golf Digest and Golf Magazine only include courses that are not on the GW lists at all? Valhalla, Sanctuary, Shoal Creek, The Concession, and Jupiter Hills all make the second half of the GW Top 100 Modern but wouldn't make a composite list. Flint Hills National belongs on the "GD only" list now too.
-
Andy...yes, you are correct. Those courses listed in the Golf Digest and Golf Mag. show up on no GW list at all. And yes, I think I messed up and Flint Hills National should be on the GD only list. Good pick up!
-
Mac,
Hudson National (94) would be another from Digest.
-
My question is, why hasn't Mac been snapped up by one of these panels?
-
Ron...I am a newbie to the Golfweek rater's panel. Trying to do the best I can for them and I am sure pestering some too much with question on areas I need some guidance on!!
-
Andy...thanks.
I'm thinking Grandfather might need to be on that list as well. I'll check it out later today.
-
Rater's panel, is as useful as a fart in a Spacesuit. Perhaps the fart may even generate more amusement than the Raters list.
My opinion is based upon one mans meat is another’s poison, seem appropriate when talking about farts too.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn...flattery will get you nowhere! :)
-
Melvyn...flattery will get you nowhere! :)
Flattuary......
-
Mac, David & Andy,
Thanks for the response.
Could you each list the respective categories, in a numerical sequence, so that we can see what the categories are, which are similar and which are unique.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
Golf Digest's categories:
Shot Values (counts 2x)
Resistance to Scoring
Design Variety
Memorability
Esthetics
Conditioning
Ambiance
The May, 2009 issue has the most recent listing of the the Top 100, along with how each of the courses fared in the various categories. So now we can argue not just the overall rankings, but also the sub rankings by category!
-
Golf Magazine ranking criteria:
http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1918152,00.html
-
It seems I remember reading that one of the magazines (GolfWeek maybe?) recently eliminated "resistance to scoring" as a rating criteria?
Here are the GolfWeek rating guidelines:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/oct/08/guidelines-used-golfweeks-course-raters/
-
Are there any of the 100 GOLF MAGAZINE raters on this site ?
Who rates for Golfweek ?
Who rates for Golf Digest ?
-
Are there any of the 100 GOLF MAGAZINE raters on this site ?
Yes, but you'd perhaps only hear from them in PM. They keep it quiet--I'm sure you, being a well-read man, have actually read the ratings issue of GOLF where it details this.
Who rates for Golfweek ?
Many have already commented.
Who rates for Golf Digest ?
Many have already commented.
An aside:
Why the (perceived) vitriol? Your commentary always is pointed to achieve an outcome. What is yours here?
-
Are there any of the 100 GOLF MAGAZINE raters on this site ?
Yes, but you'd perhaps only hear from them in PM. They keep it quiet--I'm sure you, being a well-read man, have actually read the ratings issue of GOLF where it details this.
Who rates for Golfweek ?
Many have already commented.
I'm aware of those who have already commented.
I'm interested in knowing those who are raters who have yet to comment.
Who rates for Golf Digest ?
Many have already commented.
I'm aware of those who have already commented.
I'm interested in knowing those who are raters who have yet to comment.
An aside:
Why the (perceived) vitriol?
That perception is your and yours alone
Your commentary always is pointed to achieve an outcome.
Not always
What is yours here?
I haven't decided yet
-
Here is a list of the Golf Magazine panelists: http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1919123,00.html
GolfWeek Golf Digest do not publish a list of their panelists. Why do you want to call them out on this website?
-
Maybe I am missing something due to my low IQ, but what is this vitriol or "calling out" that you guys are talking about. I get the sense that Patrick is looking to perform an analysis I've been doing for about 2 years. Analyzing the rankings, looking for discrepancies, and investigating those discrepancies.
What I've found good about doing this exercise, is uncovering the golf rating entity that most matches up with my ideals of a good golf course. Looking at the list I put up there...if you like Canyata, The Quary at La Quinta, or Rich Harvest...perhaps Golf Digest lines up with your taste. Golfweek, Kingsley, Wannamoisette, Dunes...Golf Mag. Torrey Pines, Mauna Kea. etc.
Why isn't this a good thing to do?
Conversely, you can avoid the opinions of the entities you don't like. No harm done...no disrespect...simply different tastes.
I find it especially useful when planning a trip and looking for some new/fun courses to play. These lists have proven to be good resources for me.
-
There's no question that each magazine has its own built-in set of biases, if only because of the scoring method that each utilizes. There is also an inevitable "group think" that tends to attach itself if these raters descend in a pack upon a golf course. It's simply human nature. Finally, there's no doubt that there are leaders at each organization who have an effect upon the way that the bulk of the raters view the merits and demerits of the work of certain architects. I tend to favor the Golfweek ratings because they seem to do a better job of rewarding the fun factor with its "walk in the park" analysis and I tend to not favor the Golf Digest system because it seems to reward difficulty over fairness and/or fun. At the end of the proverbial day, we're talking about distinctions without too much difference, with only a handful of courses that are relatively highly rated by one magazine and completely dissed by another.
-
Mac,
Only comment regarding this would be that the more courses I play, the less I find I have agreement with any "one list." My opinions are my own and vary from any of the three major publications and also in some cases from any kind of consensus that one might gather from this website such that GCA list we did awhile back. It is important, especially as a panelist, to avoid rating a course based on what others have rated it (if GolfWeek likes it then it must be good!) as opposed to developing your own opinion (not accusing you or anyone of that, but just making the point that it happens). Admittedly, most of my thoughts fall in line with the lists as a whole, but I can't say that I track with any one list more than the others. I can understand your logic, but please don't evaluate the Digest list solely based on the placement of Rich Harvest! ;)
What I've found good about doing this exercise, is uncovering the golf rating entity that most matches up with my ideals of a good golf course. Looking at the list I put up there...if you like Canyata, The Quary at La Quinta, or Rich Harvest...perhaps Golf Digest lines up with your taste. Golfweek, Kingsley, Wannamoisette, Dunes...Golf Mag. Torrey Pines, Mauna Kea. etc.
Why isn't this a good thing to do?
-
Terry and Andy...
Agreed 100%.
-
Here is a list of the Golf Magazine panelists: http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1919123,00.html
GolfWeek Golf Digest do not publish a list of their panelists.
Why do you want to call them out on this website?
Michael,
That's one of the most assinine conclusions anyone could make.
Please tell us why would I want to call them out ?
It's clear that you don't see the formation of the obvious and relevant issues associated with this thread.
But, thanks for listing the golf magazine panelists.
ONE of my questions to the raters/panelists at all three magazines is the following.
IF you used the criteria offered by the other magazines, how different would your evaluations be ?
Another question would be, IF you consolidated the criteria, would it have a substantive impact on the/your ratings.
I have other questions but will wait for you to catch up on these two.
-
Pat...if the ratings involve large numbers of raters and the criteria is switched (Golfweek uses Golf Digest's criteria and vice-versa), I am thinking the ratings would be very similiar as the large numbers of votes would severely reduce individual bias.
If you consolidate the criteria, I think you might bet a list that looks like the one I posted with the composite list of averaged and aggregated scores from Golf Mag, Golfweek, and Golf Digest. Also, these guys do a very similiar things but for the entire world, not just US courses. http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/topcourses.asp (http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/topcourses.asp)
Thoughts?
-
What is the procedure for actually going to these courses to rate them, and in what time frame must you see them? If there are 3 magazines and one of those has 100 panelists, that means that all those people see Pine Valley in the evaluation time? And how is this set up? Does the club always know when a panelist is there?
-
Pat,
As to your first question, I think there are two types of panelists out there. One group rates based on specific categories and the total is somewhat of an accident after the fact. The other group rates to come up with a total score, and if they are required to use categories then those are simply a means to an end. I suppose some use a combination of the two. For group A, if you change the categories you certainly could have a strong impact on the way courses are rated. For group B, since they are only interested in getting to their preconceived total, the categories mean very little and those folks would manipulate whatever criteria they are given to make sure that the totals are “correct.”
My goal as a Golf Digest panelist is to rate courses based on their criteria (per group A above). So if you changed those criteria, it would change my scores. For some courses, it might not make much of an impact, but for others it could be significant given that a point or two (on average) makes a huge difference in where a course is ranked.
I don’t really know how to answer your second question—other than conditioning the categories are totally different and really come from different viewpoints so if you used them all I think you would just have a mess of about 15 categories.
-
What is the procedure for actually going to these courses to rate them, and in what time frame must you see them? If there are 3 magazines and one of those has 100 panelists, that means that all those people see Pine Valley in the evaluation time? And how is this set up? Does the club always know when a panelist is there?
Keith,
All of the mags have their own criteria for a minimum number of raters that must see courses within their evaluation periods (which again can vary). Golf Digest ranks the 100 Greatest in the USA but also the best courses in each state, so there are probably well over 1,000 courses just in the USA that need evaluations so none of us see anything close to all of them. Panelists may contact the course to set up play, but are not required to do so. I have paid to play at public courses without contacting them and also played private clubs as the guest of a member without contacting the pro shop.
-
Thanks Andy, are there a minimum nember of reviews that need to be submitted for a course to be considered for the list?
-
Thanks Andy, are there a minimum nember of reviews that need to be submitted for a course to be considered for the list?
Yes, although those vary depending on publication as well--the publications have tried to raise them in recent years to increase statistical validity.
-
Pat,
I agree with Andy in that there are likely two approaches to our ratings, one that follows the criteria and the other starting from the end result and working back. I tend to use the first and then the second as a check. I start off first by scoring each of the criteria and then totaling up the scores. Then I do some checking to see if the total score seems to make sense. I'll look back through my personal data base of past ratings in order to find other courses that I think either are similar stylistically, or identify courses that had scores similar to what I came up with for the course I'm rating. Then I evaluate the subject course against the comparables, determine if it should be rated higher or lower, and make the appropriate adjustments so that how I rated the new course makes sense within my overall ratings universe.
My guess is that if we worked with GW's criteria, I mighty come up with slightly different results. Seems that as a GW panelist I could more heavily factor some of the factors I identified earlier as somewhat lacking in GD's system. On the other hand, I do make an effort to incorporate the elements of fun, quirk, and so on into criteria such as "shot values", "memorability", and "ambiance". While never having to evaluate GW's "walk in the park" criterion, I suspect that I'm covering it within GD's "ambiance" category.
-
Pat - i wasn't making a conclusion... I was simply curious as to why you were asking the GolfWeek and Golf Digest panelists to identify themselves without posing any specific query. Not trying to be confrontational in any way.
Glad I could be a little help with the Golf Magazine list.
Have a nice thread.
-
Michael,
If you weren't trying to be confrontational, why would you accuse me of wanting to "call them (panelists) out on this web site" ?
Thanks again for the list of Golf Magazine raters/panelists
Andy, David, et. al.,
You may recall Ty Webb's response to Judge Smails when Judge Smails asked Ty how he compared himself to other golfers, since he didn't keep score.
Ty's reply was, "by their height"
Hopefully the analogy won't be lost.
If the rating criteria differs, is it not possible that the conclusions could differ ?
OR, are "THOSE" golf courses essentially "FIXED" in terms of their respective positions, irrespective of the rating system employed ?
A tangential question is:
How is it that a course, let's call it course XXX, can be ranked in the top 20, 30 or 40, and yet, decades later not appear on the list ?
Before you answer, consider, in theory, that courses ranked higher than course XXX are still in the top 100.
So, something had to change that was unique to that course.
Take for example, Pine Tree.
Once ranked # 27 by "Golf Digest"
How could it fall off the top 100 list while many courses ranked higher than # 27 remained on the top 100 list.
What was it about PT that caused it to vanish from the list while courses ranked higher remained ?
-
Patrick,
Changes in the list over time are interesting, but I don't think you'll find a simple answer. Courses are dynamic things that constantly change and over time ratings can change too. Classic courses like Pine Tree, Bellerive, Colonial, Point O'Woods, and others have fallen out, but other classics like Crystal Downs and Fishers Island are somehow "discovered" and added to the list years after they were built. Just as styles of architecture change with time, I think some of that can be attributed to golfers' tastes in their courses over time. Some of it might be due to changes in the courses themselves due to renovations, restorations, or neglect.
I believe that if you change the methodology then you do change the results. The varying methods can come to the same conclusion, but they don't necessarily have to.
-
Pat...
I think there is no doubt that the conclusions differ, somtimes significanlty, sometimes just a bit...reference some of the data posted on this thread. Kingsley, Canyata, Torrey Pines are examples of significant differences, while Augusta National's ranking from the #1 course in the US all the way down to the 11th are minor differences.
On courses that have stood the test of time, while others have faded...I love the Tom Macwood "In my Opinion" piece...http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/tom-macwood-the-worlds-finest-courses (http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/tom-macwood-the-worlds-finest-courses)
I think it shows a very interesting list of courses and gives some good food for thought.
On Pine Tree, I can't answer...I've never played it, seen it, or studied it. But in general this could happen if technology makes some of the courses features irrelevant or less significant, if maintenance issues affect the course, or better courses (Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Kiawah Ocean) come along and bump some older courses off the list. I am probably missing a few reasons why a course could fall off the list but this was off the top of my head.
-
Mac,
If better courses came along subsequently, they'd have to displace all of those courses ranked higher than PT, before they displaced PT, NO ?
At 7,200 and still a stern test, I don't think PT has be obsoleted to the degree that many land locked courses would be obsoleted by modern equipment/technology. And, PT still has the luxury of good winds. Likewise, I don't believe that maintainance is an issue either.
As a "golf" club, PT "gets" fast and firm as does its Superintendent, Anthony Nysse, who's done a terrific job in achieving those conditions despite a poor winter.
I don't want to single out PT, rather, I'd prefer to focus on it's relative position at # 27 and how it was displaced while courses ranked higher than # 27 weren't displaced. That seems almost impossible in terms of a numerical exercise.
P.S. Next time you're heading to Florida let me know and I'll arrange for you to play PT.
Likewise an old DR course in NJ
Is that a flaw in the rating system, an anomaly, or changing tastes ?
-
Pat,
Changing tastes has to be the culprit in the case of a Pine Tree that is otherwise as good or better than ever.
If I remember correctly, the GD rankings first started out as a compilation of the toughest courses in America. Pine Tree surely belonged, because at 7,200 yards 30+ years ago it was a monster. Even when the rankings shifted away from a pure test of difficulty, I suspect that the difficulty bias still remained.
But now, aesthetic sensibilities have changed. Courses like The Ocean Course, Sebonack, and so on have so much more going on visually that naturally panelists are going to be drawn to them, while Pine Tree could be perceived as a bit of a yawn. I don't believe it is, but I could understand the perception and the resultant ratings drop.
-
Pat...I think you make some great points. As does David.
I think some more study and history lessons are in order for me. Great thread!!
-
Tangentially, courses that were well regarded when they opened in the early part of the 20th century, that are still well regarded today, must have some inherent and enduring values that have transcended the intervening fads and trends, in addition to fending off the continuum of newcomers.
What are those values ?
What differentiates those courses from their original peers and all the golf courses that came after them ?
Mac and others,
If the rating criteria are substantively different, but, produce the same basic result, are the criteria flawed ?
Are the criteria irrelevant ?
Ergo, is the rating process really an emotionial rather than a numerical exercise ?
-
Patrick...
to your point, "If the rating criteria are substantively different, but, produce the same basic result, are the criteria flawed ?"
I would say no. Rather I would say that a great golf course that will stand the test time will rank highly regardless of which criteria you choose to use to rank/rate it.
To your point, "Are the criteria irrelevant?"
I would have to say it depends. And it depends on each and every golfers personal preferences. For instance, Golfweek has the "Walk in the Park" test. For me, that is a great item to rate as that walk in the park, get away from it all, whatever you want to call it is important to me. Golf Digest has the "resistance to scoring" and the legacy of regarding difficult golf courses higher than easier ones. To me, I suppose this is important a little bit...but to my friend who just won the Birmingham National Invitational, I'll bet this criteria is much more important to him.
This is why I think really understanding what these entities are trying to do with their rankings/ratings are very important, especially when taking into account the individual golfers enjoyment of the game. But here is the kicker, I think the magazines try to push their Top 100 as THE Top 100...and if what you like doesn't line up with what they like, you will think the lists/rankings/ratings are a bunch of hogwash. Obviously, the onus is on the golfer...but hardly anyone (except a geek like me) is going to really dig into these rankings.
On your finaly point. "is the rating process really an emotionial rather than a numerical exercise ?"
I think it just might be. Herbery Warren Wind and Max Behr have both been quoted saying things along the lines that you should pay attention to how a golf course makes you feel...and that is emotional rather than numerical. Perhaps this is akin to the Crane/Behr debates, which I think really touched on something important.
I think the rating entities try to do the best they can and I think they provide excellent resources for golfers to find high quality courses that should lead to good golf experiences, especially if the golfer does their due dilegence regarding what they like in a golf course and what the rating entities seem to favor.
But at the end of the day, I think we all play the game for different reasons and we love it for different reasons. So, I think we will all have our favorite hidden gems that seem to go unnoticed by the masses. And that is a pretty neat thing to discover.
-
Maybe I am missing something due to my low IQ, but what is this vitriol or "calling out" that you guys are talking about. I get the sense that Patrick is looking to perform an analysis I've been doing for about 2 years. Analyzing the rankings, looking for discrepancies, and investigating those discrepancies.
What I've found good about doing this exercise, is uncovering the golf rating entity that most matches up with my ideals of a good golf course. Looking at the list I put up there...if you like Canyata, The Quary at La Quinta, or Rich Harvest...perhaps Golf Digest lines up with your taste. Golfweek, Kingsley, Wannamoisette, Dunes...Golf Mag. Torrey Pines, Mauna Kea. etc.
Why isn't this a good thing to do?
Conversely, you can avoid the opinions of the entities you don't like. No harm done...no disrespect...simply different tastes.
I find it especially useful when planning a trip and looking for some new/fun courses to play. These lists have proven to be good resources for me.
Mac,
Please don't fret.
Michael Whitaker doesn't get it. He never has.
His conclusion that I want to "call out" raters and/or magazines is so misinformed and misguided that it defies description.
There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.
"Golfweek" took an unusual step when they bifurcated the rankings.
I wonder if Michael asks himself why "Golfweek" took that approach ?
I'd be interested in your statistical findings and your conclusions.
-
There was a recent thread on "shot values". The obvious conclusion to that thread is a term (criteria) that has many meanings depending on the individual. I find it very interesting that it gets 2X the value of the other criteria and could be at the root of the major differences in what comprises each list.
-
There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.
So you're playing a game of some sort and everyone is supposed to jump in and play along until you decide to reveal your "prudent reason". Sounds like a pretty pathetic attempt at stirring up a shit storm without coming right out and saying it.
Gee, I'm going to start a thread about golf-course rankings. First off, everyone who is a rater please identify yourself. Then I'll tell you what I think...
And then you protest that poor little Pat isn't calling anybody out, he just wants to make a point and needs the raters to be identified so he can do it. Yeah, right.
I am Spartacus!
-
There's a prudent reason for this "exercise/thread" he and others just haven't figured it out yet and I'm not about to supply them with the keys to the puzzle.
So you're playing a game of some sort and everyone is supposed to jump in and play along until you decide to reveal your "prudent reason". Sounds like a pretty pathetic attempt at stirring up a shit storm without coming right out and saying it.
Brent,
You're obviously one of the dolts who have no clue with respect to what you're talking about.
No clue as to the intent and purpose of this thread.
Hint # 1. There's NO intent to stir up a shit storm.
That's your misquided conclusion
Gee, I'm going to start a thread about golf-course rankings.
First off, everyone who is a rater please identify yourself.
Then I'll tell you what I think...
AHA, now ask yourself, "think" ..... about what ?
That's the key isn't it ?
And then you protest that poor little Pat isn't calling anybody out, he just wants to make a point and needs the raters to be identified so he can do it. Yeah, right.
You're so far off base that it's comical.
You're so headed in the wrong direction, so misguided, that I'm embarrased for you.
But, don't get mad because you're stupid and can't figure this out.
Try something new, use your brain and see if you can begin to solve the mystery/puzzle.
-
"Golfweek" bifurcates their rankings into modern and classic with the line of demarcation being approximately 1960.
For the classic course list, is it highly unlikely that any club can ascend or descend, significantly in the rankings since it's a closed group with no new courses being added ? Are the courses in the classic top 100 list destined to remain in their relative position forever ?
Would a restoration or a renovation be the only two or primary two reasons for any movement within that list ?
-
I think Mr. Ward has a point about this...Why not simply have a top 200 list that merges the 2? Why use different criteria so the lists can't be aggregated? I guess the good thing about the modern list is that it brings attention to interesting newer architecture that gets overlooked or takes forever to work it's way up the ranks at the other pubs. The downside is that you get "flavor-of -the-year" clubs that have a bunch of marketing and buzz only to slowly drift down the list into oblivion...Pat makes a good point about the classic list being essentially set in stone, but it's a lot of the same warhorses that clog the lists at the other pubs as well to some extent...There are certainly enough good new courses and interesting old gems that have been brought back to life that the case for a top 200 seems pretty strong IMHO...And "resistance to scoring" has got to go at Digest....
-
Hey Pat...
in case you have interest, here are the courses which experience the widest amount of divergence among the rating entities within each ranking classification. What I mean by "ranking classification" is I put all courses ranked by all of the Big 3 in all of their lists (4 in all if the Top 100 world is included from Golf Magazine) in the Unanimous Gems category, I have another set of courses that are on 3 of the 4 lists, etc, etc. Kind of confusing/weird, but it helps make the numbers make sense to me.
Courses which differ by more than 40 spots on the Unanimous Gem list...
Oak Hill East, Maidstone, Somerset
Courses which experience 40 spots or more on divergence on the next few tiers...
Wade Hampton, Pete Dye Golf Club of WV, Kinloch, Olympia Fields North, East Lake, and Milwaukee
Cherry Hills, and Butler
And courses which are regarded as Top 50 or better by one entity and one entity only...
Victoria National, The Club at Blackrock, Canyata, Wannamoisette, The Quary at La Quinta, Rich Harvest Links, Kingsley Club, Shoal Creek
And, to make this more confusing I used a composite 100 Golfweek list. But like I said we can slice and dice the data any which way, and I like the composite list for these types of contrast and compare lists to make the numbers make sense and try to compare apples to apples.
I don't know if this helps anything...but regardless here it is.
-
Where is Cruden Bay rated in
Golf Magazine
Golf Digest
Golf Weekly
ARG
-
Mac,
Thanks,
I think the issue and study of divergence is far more interesting than where courses are in the same relative position.
So the question remains, how do the seperate rating criteria produce both consistency and great divergence ?
Is it the system, or is it the uniqueness of the golf course ?
Got to run to dinner, but, I'll be back.
-
Anthony...
Cruden Bay 81st in the world by Golf Mag (doing a little flim-flamming of the numbers yields a 34th ranking among non-US Courses); Golf Digest ranks it the 37th best non-US course, and Golfweek ranks it the 17th best classic golf course of GB&I.
Patrick...
I am interested in this topic as well. I truly believe that the ranking is totally dependant on the criteria used. BUT who is to say that human beings can get that right all the time and avoid inherent biases and/or conflicts of interest? I have choosen to park the last two points to the side for my analysis and seek to see which list fits my style the best. To do this, I have sought to play golf courses which fall into that last category listed, that is ranked highly by one and only one rating entity, and see what I think. If I agree or disagree with a course ranking on this "controversial list", then I should like (dislike) other courses that entity ranks controversially.
For instance, Pete Dye Golf Club used to be ranked by only Golfweek (and ranked pretty darn highly as well)...so I played it. I LOVED it!! So, Golfweek's work interests me. Now PDGCofWV is moving up the other lists, so it is less relevant for the exercise.
But other key courses to investigate should be Kingsley, Canyata, Victoria, and Wannamoisett in order to determine which list lines up best with specific golfers taste. And I think the rating entities try to define their taste (or what they think is needed to make a course great) with their criteria. Except for Golf Magazine, which simply asks their raters to tell them what is great while using no set criteria.
However, in the end no one list will line up with everyone's taste. So, don't we all need to get out and play enough courses to make up their own mind?
-
Mac, I once asked re: Golf Week's UK Modern and Classic lists if they could be combined in numerical order to make a comprehensive list.
I was told that wasn't possible due to different factors and weightings being used for the two lists.
Is that the same for their US ratings? If so, how is it tht you compile a combination Classic/Modern list?
-
Scott...
I've heard the same thing and in fact they do have a few sets of different criteria, so it is not apples to apples. Which is, almost for sure, the reason they say the lists can't be combined. Which is, in fact, a valid point. But I do/did it anyway...just to skinny the list down to 100.
As to how I did it, I just used the numerical rankings of the courses and listed them from the highest to lowest until I had 100. I did it for the GB&I as well. But again, there are different criteria used for the classic and modern list...so it isn't a perfect list/idea. This is why I always try to mention it when I use that particular list.
And, of course, people can take it or leave it. I recognize the imperfection in it and can respect those who don't like the idea/method, but I like it...so I use it for my own work.
-
Mac,
You said, "However, in the end no one list will line up with everyone's taste."
That's true with any subjective test or exercise, but, I'm fascinated by the disparities, and the larger the disparity, the more my curiosity grows relative to that course and the process.
It would be interesting to break the ranking down into its component pieces in order to see how substantive disparities occur.
-
"Rater's panel, is as useful as a fart in a Spacesuit. Perhaps the fart may even generate more amusement than the Raters list.
My opinion is based upon one mans meat is another’s poison, seem appropriate when talking about farts too.
Melvyn"
Jumpin' Jesus! I agree with Melvyn on something!
-
Patrick...
I am with you 100% on your last post. Give me some time to see if that is possible, given the resources that are publicly available. And, of course, if you've got ideas on how to do the analysis/reserach...let me know.
Craig...see Melvyn has his moments!!! :D
-
Could there be a connection between this thread and the shadow thread ?
-
Please elaborate.
-
Is that a flaw in the rating system, an anomaly, or changing tastes ?
No, I think Mr. Lavin touched on it briefly. It's the effect of group think. When you have the head of the organization writing opinion pieces on golf courses, 97% of the members are going to follow that same opinion. When these raters are all sitting around the feed table after rounds at their gatherings, what do you think is going to happen? When these raters continue to get their friends invited to rate, who likely share the same thoughts, what do you think is going to happen? When these raters, at their gatherings, all get to hear from "experts" in the field about great architecture, what do you think is going to happen?
I will attribune PT's fall to the fall of Lehman....people were bearish....and told their friends who controlled the fate.....who then told their friends with equal clout.
We all know what happens thereafter.
-
Ryan...
there is no doubt you are right regarding herding and groupthink. But in the context of Pine Tree, do they welcome raters? After Pine Tree was mentioned regarding its drop in the rankings, I went to their website. They seem to pride themselves on their privacy and exclusivity. If they (or any other course) doesn't welcome or allow raters to play/rate their course, then the course won't be rated/ranked. And I wonder if that could be the case in this instance. Just curious and wondering if anyone knows.
-
Cypress Pt, ANGC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Fishers etc manage to be rated...
-
Mac,
Pine Tree welcomes raters, as does Mountain Ridge and many shadowed courses.
-
I am a GD guy, if you are still looking for people on different panels.
I played Pine Tree as a panelist a few years ago and loved it.
-
Pat, what did happen to Pine Tree?. Here is what I saw on GD website.
Pine Tree place on GD top 100 over the years.
1970 first ten (wow!)
1980 third ten
1985 #58
1995 #86
2004 #81
2005 off the list
Couple of observations
In 1970 there were virtually no Fazio and Pete Dye courses on the list. In 2010 list there is 12 Fazios, 7 Nicklaus and 10 Dyes.
-
Mike Policano,
If you take the 1970 and 1980 rating that averages somewhere in the top 20, you have to ask yourself, did all of the courses ranked above Pine Tree get moved up, up and away ?
In other words, if Pine Tree was # 27 and it's no longer on the top 100 today, did everycourse ranked 28 and higher also get bumped ?
If not, you have to wonder how the system could cause a course once ranked in the top 10, 20, 30, could be gradually removed from the list while other courses, not as well ranked, remained on the list.
-
Patrick,
Courses change positions on these lists all the time for any number of reasons. As you know, golf courses change and are dynamic in and of themselves. Some courses that have fallen on hard times recently will inevitably see their rankings tumble. Renovations at times can change ranking placement.
The lists are nothing more than the combined opinion of a panel of humanoids. The make-up of the panels change over time, the individuals that rate a course during the rating period vary as we go see different courses, tastes in architecture change for better or worse...there's probably other factors not coming to mind as well.
The numerical difference between courses in the bottom half of the 100 Greatest and the next 100 courses that don't make the list is very small. It doesn't take more than a couple good or bad ratings to change a ranking in some cases.
You can analyze this all you want as I do think it makes for an interesting topic, but I don't think you'll ever get a definitive "answer" if that is what you seek.
-
Pat -
Like someone said initially, the earliest versions of Golf Digest's lists were for most difficult courses. I am not sure when that changed, but GD has tweaked their system a few times which dropped some courses a lot (see Five Farms, Plainfield, Wannamoisett), and had some courses jump dramatically (Kinloch). Personally, I thought PT was fantastic. My caddie was great and on one par 3 told me to miss the green short right and I could make par. The 3 players I was with all hit the green to the left and all 3 putted. I missed short right and got up and down for par. That kind of strateic play doesn't happen everywhere. I thought the course was a blast.
-
Andy,
Please reread my reply # 76.
Thanks
-
I do know that for several years, GOLF DIGEST's "tradition" factor gave points for lots of things including FOR BEING ON THEIR PREVIOUS TOP-100 LISTS. That is probably what kept several courses "on" the list in the 1990's even as the rest of the numbers were pushing them off. But, it was done because the definition of greatness was so bad that scores of modern courses would have replaced the classic courses on their list, and DIGEST understood that would show up their system, because people would not accept some of the courses that were in the top 100 according to their numbers.
-
Tom Doak,
I agree, I think the category of "tradition" was a preservationist safety valve.
How could a new course, Sebonack, Pacific, OM, possibly attain sufficient "tradition" points ?
The couldn't.
I think "Golfweek" did a smart thing.
They doubled the number of courses on the top 100 list, a neat trick, and they bifurcated the rankings.
Clearly, some courses lacked the ability to elasticize themselves, dooming them in terms of their ability to enhance the challenge for today's best players.