[Matt_Ward]

Paul Turner:

The use of 1-10 scale predates Tom Doak or any other person. Maybe you need to see the movie "10" when people were rating women like Bo Derek. It goes even further back than that. There is no ownership of a generic numerical scale and frankly the details that Doak requires of courses is far more specific when compared to the one I use with the Website.

Paul -- given your level of intelligance please don't confuse or interject a topic of minutia when something else more germane is at hand.

FYI -- Whitten for a time also used a 1-10 scale (see golfdigest.com) -- I didn't see you or any other person say such a generic scale was a blatant rip-off of what Doak included in "Confidential Guide."

[Paul_Turner]

C'mon Matt.  It's not the use of 1-10, it's the attributions to each number, which are virtually copied from T Doak's scale i.e. 3 is an average course...  

When you review a course here on GCA you often assign a number on the "Doak Scale".  But now you're claiming that the same review on bunkershot.com has a 1-10 number that isn't on the same scale.

Own it.

[John_Cullum]

The use of 1-10 scale predates Tom Doak or any other person.

I need to ponder this.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Your mention of me redirecting the topic to others (i.e. you) reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon from some election year where the reporter was asking a candidate about his sex life.  The fictional candidate started to retort, "What about you news reporters, always on the road, with lots of opportunity to....." when they strip cut back to the news anchor saying,
"He went on to make a totally unrelated point....."

The only reason I brought it up is your repeated reference to real "or percieved" conflicts.  Like you, I'm not questioning the integrity of anyone who puts in time rating courses.  It is a thankless, but satisfying, volunteer position.

It is obvious from your posts and our discussions that you "give it your all" when rating courses, and that it is very important to you.  And, from a very vested interest (having courses nominated for GD nearly every year - actually the nomination process could be the point of another thread) I, too am interested in the "correct" outcome, and the most fairness in process possible, whatever that is.

I think that Ron and GD learned what some people here have trouble grasping - there is no perfect winner, no perfect system, no perfect result in any such contest.  So, to them, its a story that hopefully helps sell magazines first and foremost.  While all the mags change the system to do the best they can with it, I can see them blanching about your percieved "disloyalty" even if it probably is unfair.

From discussions here, I think its obvious that any course ranking system is hard to define as "clearly defensible" in that there are so many ways to view a golf course.  I still think someone will come up with a BCS of ranking systems, and the overall champion might rank 1st in GD, fifth in Golf, 7th in GolfWeek, and 9th in Golf, Inc. for an overall winning ranking.

Of course, I have little hope that would even quell arguments among the fervant fans - or the "losing" courses.  And, I know that from having plenty of losing courses!

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

I answered all the questions put to me. The reality is that I simply asked the question when it was posted that Ron Whitten would be working with Hurdzan & Fry on a course in Wisconsin. That's the issue -- plain and simple.

I don't doubt the ratings process is difficult and often demanding of those who participate in it. The credibility issue is one the magazine could have avoided from the get-go.

I mean where does one then draw the line? Is there a line? Does it matter? Frankly, I rely less and less upon the magazines and do my own sleuthing about where great golf can be played.

Jeff -- the issue is not about attaining perfection because such a goal is unattainable. The issue is trying to avoid clear instances in which legitimate issues can be raised.

I guess some people feel it's appropriate for chief architectural critics to be engaged in the course creation process.

So be it.


Paul:

What does a generic scale (1-10) and the itemizations included have anything to do with this thread?

I'll help you out Paul -- Nothing. To use your words ... own it.

Since you have it clear you wish to hijack the purpose of this thread for some unknown reason I'll answer your questions.

The Doak scale is used by many on GCA -- I'm not the first and it seems to be used because people place a value in what it stands for. I have no problem using it when I apply it to courses I have written about here on GCA and frankly look forward to people using it when they post their comments on a course. It's a broad reference point but there are clearly differences in the way people understand its elements and clearly when they apply it.

Just because I use a generic scale of 1-10 is meaningless. People weigh things all the time on a scale of 1-10. As far as me saying a course is average at the #3 position -- so be it. I modified the scale because Doak's focus was for die-hard architectural buffs. The audience on bunkershot.com is much broader than the narrow band of die-hard types I just referenced.

One other thing -- the criteria I have listed on bunkershot.com is something I created, but it's been used by others who provide reviews. Do I frankly care if they use the same criteria I use? Not the least. It's the actual analysis and what they add to their reviews that really flushes the whole dimensions of the course(s) being evaluated.

I would think someone as smart as you Paul would have known that.

[JakaB]

I guess some people feel it's appropriate for chief architectural critics to be engaged in the course creation process.

Matt,

If you don't think it is appropriate for chief architectural critics to be engaged in the course creation process you have to resign from Golfweek or either convince Brad Klein to stop it himself...

[Paul_Turner]

Matt,

Placing the average course at 3 was something original to the scale created by Tom Doak.  Your scale isn't generic.  It's specific and essentially copied from The CG.  

When Rich Goodale uses his star criteria, he admits it's taken from The Michelin Star system.

OK, so I'm hijajcking this thread.  But only because of your refusal to admit using the Doak scale for your own publication.  At least you finally admit to "modifying" it.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul:

You're dead wrong ... I have explained the nature of what my 1-10 scale is about, its target audience and the broader elements used. The use of 3 as average is the only similiarity. Big deal. In fact, Jersey Golfer was using a scale for rating courses even before "Confdiential Guide" came out that was essentially the same thing you see with bunkershot.com.

I also mentioned to you the fact that Whitten himself also used a scale of 1-10 with essentially the same focal points on how a course is weighed versus others. Help me out -- did you also weigh in on that or is this just a convenient bomblast to throw the discussion away from what was originally raised?

I have also placed my own criteria that I use when assessing courses. I could care less if someone uses the same criteria --in fact, I would be pleased that they see those elements as being noteworthy.

Paul -- you're hung up on the scale. It's the anaylsis that makes the review. I thought a smart person like you would understand that. Forgive me.
 

[Paul_Turner]

Matt

Using 3 as the average was what made that scale different and original.  It allowed to descriminate between the good, excellent and best.

If it's the analysis that matters then why have a number score?  And why use a "modified" version of Tom Doak's without credit?

[Matt_Ward]

Excuse me Paul -- but Jersey Golfer had such a scale before "Confidential Guide" came out. You must be missing something. I wasn't barking that others were coming forward afterwards with scales, stars, or whatever and not giving Jersey Golfer credit for such. Are the levels fairly similar? Sure -- it's a 1-10 scale -- but its meaning and application are different. Why? The audience is different -- simple.

We routinely at Jersey Golfer discriminate between the levels of courses you indicated -- poor, fair, average, good, very good and excellent. Do you actually believe that not until Doak did people breakdown courses accordingly? Frankly, we are one of the very few state publications that does such a thing.

The reason numbers are used is it provides the reader a quick assessment before they read the review. Nothing new or groundbreaking here Paul. The number means little if the analysis is lacking. One other thing -- a Doak 7 is likely going to be a Jersey Golfer or bunkershot.com 9. Different audiences and different requirements.

Again -- I would think you would know this.

Let me also mention that Whitten's former scale on Golf Digest was essentially doing the same thing. It was 1-10 and graded on a scale of differentiation.

[Paul_Turner]

If the scale doesn't matter, then why is the Doak scale used here all the time.  Not the "Jersey Golfer" scale, nor the "Ron Whitten" scale.

It's used because it has struck a chord.

[Matt_Ward]

Hello Paul --

I'll say this again -- the audience on GCA is beyond that of the average golfer. The people on GCA are a bit more sophisticated in their golf preferences and appreciate the particular unique distinctions he makes.

However, Tom wasn't the only one to make such distinctions scale wise or otherwise. It's been done countless times by others. Paul, I, as well as others, use the Doak scale numbers when posting on GCA because it provides an easy frame of reference for the unique audience that inhabits this space.

Please forgive me but repeating the same points over and over again is a bit tiring.

[Paul_Turner]

No Matt.  The CG wasn't written just for GCAers.  

The scale Tom Doak invented was original and clever because it is scewed by giving an average course a 3 rather than a 5.  It was also different because Tom actually used the full 0-10 scale, unlike all the other scales.

You chose to essentially copy the Doak scale for your own article, which I thought was a bit cheeky and unorigina.  That's all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()