What Do You Think: Revamped Course Rating

[Tom_Doak]

Just for the record, since I have been "quoted" twice on it in the past week, I do NOT remember ever saying that "America has twelve top ten courses" or anything like that.

I may have said that it's silly to think that there are exactly ten, so it's silly to make people vote for exactly ten.  If there are exactly ten, and I build an eleventh, does that mean one of the others is now not worthy, even though it hasn't been changed at all.

All that said, I agree with Mr. Huckaby that saying you can't possibly compare Shinnecock and Oakmont, because they're so different, is a bunch of baloney.  If you really believe that, you shouldn't rate or rank courses at all, because St. Andrews and Pine Valley and Augusta and Crystal Downs and Painswick and North Berwick and The Rawls Course are all completely different, too -- but we can somehow decide that doesn't make them all equal.

However, where I am starting to disagree with Mr. Huckaby, after many years of involvement in rankings, is that there is any POINT to ranking courses so exactly.  We can compare Shinnecock to Oakmont, and perhaps agree that Shinnecock wins, as individuals ... but if everyone puts both courses on the top rung, then there is not going to be any meaningful consensus about which should rank higher ... we're just splitting hairs based on personal biases.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

For very practical reasons, I do believe the Doak scale makes the most sense. Most people only have so much time or money and can't - during their entire lifetime - see everything worth seeing. So, it makes sense to evaluate a course based on how far out of one's way it is worth going to see the course.

Hopefully I'll get to see all the 8, 9, 10s.

Tim

[Tom Huckaby]

Just for the record, since I have been "quoted" twice on it in the past week, I do NOT remember ever saying that "America has twelve top ten courses" or anything like that.

I may have said that it's silly to think that there are exactly ten, so it's silly to make people vote for exactly ten.  If there are exactly ten, and I build an eleventh, does that mean one of the others is now not worthy, even though it hasn't been changed at all.

All that said, I agree with Mr. Huckaby that saying you can't possibly compare Shinnecock and Oakmont, because they're so different, is a bunch of baloney.  If you really believe that, you shouldn't rate or rank courses at all, because St. Andrews and Pine Valley and Augusta and Crystal Downs and Painswick and North Berwick and The Rawls Course are all completely different, too -- but we can somehow decide that doesn't make them all equal.

However, where I am starting to disagree with Mr. Huckaby, after many years of involvement in rankings, is that there is any POINT to ranking courses so exactly.  We can compare Shinnecock to Oakmont, and perhaps agree that Shinnecock wins, as individuals ... but if everyone puts both courses on the top rung, then there is not going to be any meaningful consensus about which should rank higher ... we're just splitting hairs based on personal biases.

Mr. Doak calling me Mr. Huckaby gave me a chuckle.   

But as for your disagreement, Tom - I'm not sure you really do.  Read further what I've said... my sole and only point here is that we really shouldn't take any rankings very seriously.  All systems have weaknesses, none are perfect.  So on the whole I too would say there's little point to ranking courses exactly, given there's really no perfect way to do so.  I just take the next step - which you may or may not then agree with - that IF WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EXCERCISE (which seems to be a given), then why not go ahead and try and make the distinctions?  Sure it comes down to splitting hairs, and/or personal biases - but we all know that - so why not take that as a given, and as long as the exercise is being done, take it to its logical conclusion?  That is, why quit right at the point it starts to get interesting?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Mea culpa on my part in misquoting you. Likely, such info came from another knowledgeable person.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I haven't been around long so forgive me if someone already proposed such a ranking plan.

Has anyone ever done a fantasy football draft via auction? (Assuming there has been.)

There are a couple of ways to take this ranking style.

#1: Give all of the raters (say 100) a certain value amount say 1,000 or $1,000. Then you ask the rater if you had $1,000 how would you allocate it to play each course. Numbers say 80-100 might only get a $1 bid. Then courses 50-79 might only get $2. Then 25-49 might get anywhere from $2-$50. The top 25 would then get much more interesting. If you had say $700 left for the top ten how would you allocate it? Is Pine Valley a $200 course to say Seminole's $75? Would you spend twice as much of your dough to play Shinnecock than Sand Hills? At the end you would add up all the "allocated" money and get your list.

#2: Put 100 raters in a room and let them bid on courses with $100. They get to play each course they win the bid on. You might have 1 guy blow all $100 on Pine Valley because he loves it so much as does another guy and they bid it all the way up. You might 2 others equally like Shinnecock and bid it up to $99. The next course say Cypress goes for $100 as well. Thus making it tied with Pine Valley. All the way down. Each course as you moved down would get a little bit less until the last few would get $5 or something.

Anyway just a thought as to a "new" way but maybe somebody said these already. Like every "other" way to rank I'm sure there are plenty problems and points of contention.