GOLFWEEK: strictly by the numbers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

There is no perfect way to conduct a subjective analysis,
but there may be room for improvement.

You can couch your response in extremes, by using alarmist terms, which sounds a little defensive, or you can simply consider altering, or fine tuning your basic internal guidelines.

The extreme example of micro-managing or monitoring your raters is unnecessary.

If a rater rates the same course for five consecutive years, merely extract this years rating from your calculation.
Could anything be simpler ?  Adjust your internal methodology such that consecutive years ratings from the same rater are excluded for a period of..... say..... 3 years.

Afterall, isn't the key to any poll a broad based demographic, rather than repetitive sampling from the same people.?

Perhaps some thought should be devoted to fine tuning a difficult process, unless of course, you feel it is perfect the way it is.

[John_Conley]

Brad Klein,

...Perhaps some thought should be devoted to fine tuning a difficult process, unless of course, you feel it is perfect the way it is.

If you are saying that there hasn't been any thought devoted so far, I can't wait for the response from Dr. Klein!

[Paul Turner]

How do you deal with statistical flyers?  Ignore them?

I enjoy rankings to a degree, but do find it faintly ridiculous seeing a course's score quoted to two decimal points of accuracy!  (not sure if GW does this; GD does)

[John_Conley]

Regarding statistics (and this will NOT be relevant to any discussion on GOLFWEEK's "America's Best"):

My jr. high math teacher Vlad Kedrowski taught me that "you can't get accuracy from a calculator," meaning that quoting number to more decimal places can be inaccurate.

If you measure something to "the nearest inch", an average shouldn't be to anything other than round inches.  Think of a basketball team.  If a starting 5 goes 6'4", 6'3", 6'2", 6', and 5'11", you should say they average 6'2" since the measurements were all rounded to the nearest inch.  6'1.something" implies that you are REALLY accurate, when we all know that the coach wasn't measuring to fractions of an inch.

Using this logic, the PGA TOUR seems to be off-base in their long-drive averages.

The Golf Digest rankings ARE okay quoted out to several places.  A score of 5 is actually 5.00000000 and a score of 4 is 4.000000000.  While your point is valid that 1/100ths of a point are trivial and possibly meaningless, I think a statistician wouldn't be able to disallow their validity.

Food for thought.

[Paul Turner]

John

Yes, I'm sure the samples are large enough to quote that accurately; although I'm not sure where you got 5.00000000 from?

They also need some human error analysis!  i.e. I bet some raters probably couldn't remember their exact score from a year ago:  If you asked them today what their past year rating was, for a particular course, I bet there'd often be a difference (0.5, 0.25?).

I still think it's weird assigning such a precise number to a GOLF COURSE

[John_Conley]

5.000000000 is my way of showing that 5 is a precise number no matter how many decimal points you go to.  A drive of 283 y, 2 ft, 1 in on tour is no doubt logged as 284.  At the end of a year, we are told a player averaged 283.6 yards when they weren't measuring to the nearest tenth of a yard to begin with.

[Masta P]

would jus listen to yas?

wassup wit all of dis ratings bull s hit? ya all sound like a bunch of cake boys looking for fun on a friday night.

you a happy boy? are yas?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I don't think playing a course over and over is a problem.  You know as well as anyone, the greatest courses have to be studied and learned to be really appreciated.  You might have liked Lehigh the first time we went around together but I can almost guarantee you, the next time and the time after that it will just get better and better as you pick up more of the subtilities that you just can't spot in one pass.  Some of those greens for example are so simple looking yet so complex you just can't imagine how good they are without playing them many times many different ways.

Refining one's rating is very important, but the problem is as you've heard me say before - So many courses, so little time!  Except for maybe a handful of courses, most raters don't have the time to play the same ones over and over again.  But I'll tell you this, the ones they do play often, will probably be the ones they have done the best analysis of and it should be reflected in their opinion.

As far as the "criteria" is concerned, I like to believe the best raters understand the evaluation process and weight things accordingly.  They know what is important in a great golf course and what is not!  For example, Brad Klein did a report in Golfweek on The Slammer and The Squire Course I believe a month or two ago and "ambience" was cited in the article title and perceived to be a key factor in his analysis.  However, knowing Brad, I am positive he gave it the proper weighting in his over all opinion of the track.  It probably had only marginal impact in his final number.  

Good raters know what is important and the ones that don't would factor in the wrong things anyway whether they were listed as "official criteria" or not!

Mark

[redanman]

Some of those greens for example are so simple looking yet so complex you just can't imagine how good they are without playing them many times many different ways.

Good point in general by the man from Lehigh!


Mark you are correct, some people need to actually play courses multiple times to pick up and understand greens properly.  Some greens are more subtle than others, but some raters read and evaluate greens and complexes better than others.

Royce Brook West is  a good example.  I hear so much concentration on whether or not the bunkers are too much, overdone, blah, blah, blah. How many have really seen how good those green complexes are, have looked at the greens from a perspective other than today's pin placement, what putt you had, what approach you had into that pin, blah, blah, blah.

Yet another variation of the famous "California Effect".  


And Patrick, spawn of the current question

Each rater has to be honest with himself as to whether his last evaluation (Or set of evaluations) accurately represent the course as it currently exists.  (My BIG question mark of the purported continued "greatness" of that little course in Georgia-independent of its own version of "TCE", complete with trademarked music!     )

[motodrive]

Tom,

Thanks for explaining.  I feel better about the question.  

I have a question for you.  Do you feel that your presence influenced the Golf list?  I will try to explain.  Obviously you ran the list and decided whether people remained as raters.  This would be a very precarious position to then have to evaluate your work.  I often had doubts about Golf's list.  I never felt you would cheat but I could not imagine how someone working for you could objectively evaluate you.  I suspect that GD is going to have the same problem this year with Architects Club and I am curious how Ron will handle it.

david

fyi  ron doesnt really run the list any more  he still writes, but topsy runs the list from ny:) a new guy

[Dan Eulitt (Guest)]

Based on the list for Kansas Public Golf none of these courses in my view are in the correct order. Some are not even on the list. OPGC I can't understand at all. I am a GW rater based in KANSAS and I do get to see many of the Kansas Courses, as a rater and in playing tourneys. Chisolm Trail to me is just like the other ones on the list. Pick a spot. In states like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa etc. that don't have 300 courses to pick from you have to take what you have and put them in some order. While the KC Star list is not close to the correct listing or rating the list shows that even some decent courses like Tiffany Greens ( RTJ Jr.) didn't make the list. It holds a senior event so it can't be that bad to most. Alvamar I have played 300 + times and Falcon Ridge is a much better course than it condition wise and playing wise.  OPGC holds close to 75,000 rounds per year on it.  GW also gives us raters that are out in the "boonies" a list of courses to see and they really want us to see the courses that no one on this board will ever fly to tee it up. Many of these courses can be seen once and that is all that we at GW need to see. OPGC is a fine example of a course that wouldn't make any list. Every year Brad and staff ask us to look at the current list and remove any courses that really have no chance to see our list. In the case of the KC list all of those courses would be a 1 visit only as none of them woudl make our top 100 list. I think that the state by state lists are never correct ( the way I see it ) and are a real struggle for GD, GW etc.. to do. I really don't know why we do them as everyone, like the KC Star in this case, already has their own lists to go from and that is usually on how well they play the course and not how good it is.  

Ron Whitten or any Kansas City native,
I read the following list in the Star.
By their own admission their ratings aren't based on architecture totally, see note below.

Kansas City Star
Posted on Sun, Mar. 03, 2002

Kansas City area's top-10 public golf courses

1. SYCAMORE RIDGE
2. SHIRKEY
3. EAGLE BEND
4. ADAMS POINTE
5. PRAIRIE HIGHLANDS
6. ALVAMAR
7. FALCON RIDGE
8. OVERLAND PARK GOLF CLUB
9. COUNTRY CREEK
10. SUNFLOWER HILLS

here is the link:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/2002/03/03/sports/2752751.htm

NOTE: Course rankings are based on total golf experience, which includes not only course design and condition, but value in relation to price, customer service, food and beverage service, etc.

Thanks
Mike