[Patrick_Mucci]

I've noticed a trend with the ratings over the last few thousand years, especially the modern lists.

Out with the old, in with the new.

Do the VALUES that the raters hold so near and dear to their hearts and minds fade over time, or is it just their memories ?

A golf course that was ranked as great 15-20-25 years ago slowly fades from the scene.  Why ?

In the absolute, it's architectural values don't change.
So, perhaps the perspective of the raters changes.

If a golf course had a numerical equivalency of 9.0, and, the golf course remained unchanged over 10-15-20-25 years, how can the golf course have its numerical equivalency lowered ?

I sense the BBD syndrome may be in play.

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark.  

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Fair point.

The "herd" mantality is something that happens in ratings. I personally believe that anytime you have a major "consensus" approach involved you will get the kind of thing you suggested.

My issue with the ratings is that far too many people are influenced by the "buzz" factor and fail to go off the beaten trail and see what else is out there.

As a corollary to that -- you have celebrity star gazing with certain architects -- anything coming from the "chosen" few is always held in the highest of reverence. For the lesser known designers the very thought of ratings must cause them some major heartburn.

[JohnV]

Pat,

When it comes to Golfweek, the numbers change because the number means where it ranks in the pantheon of courses, not an absolute number like a Doak rating.

A course that is a top 5 course should get a 10.  A 9 is one in the 5-15 range.  So, if a course was the 15th best in the modern list when it debuted in the minds of a rater he would give it a 9.  Now, as he sees more courses that are being built, he might decide that there really are 30 courses that are better than than one so he might decide to give it an 8.

Take Pumpkin Ridge's Witch Hollow course which recieved much acclaim and was ranked much higher than its current ranking of 46 a few years ago.  26 of the 45 courses above it were built after it was.  It isn't much worse of a course than when it opened, just a lot of others have come along that are better.  Take them out and it is 20th which is about where it was a few years ago.

This is one reason the modern list at Golfweek tends to be much more volatile than the classic list.  There aren't any more classic courses being built to move the others down.  Some courses move because of renovations etc.

Also, the list changes because the people who rate courses change.  Different strokes.  For example, some people here rave about Black Mesa and others were not that impressed.  As more of the latter see it it comes down, as more of the former do it goes up.

Some if it will always be the Flavor of the Day .

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I may have miscounted, but I came up with 3 newcomers on the best modern list.

Is 3% turnover considered too high? I can imagine with the quality architects that are out there that they should be able to produce something to bump into the top 100 2% or 3% of the time. Of course, some pretty darn good sites have been offered up in the past several years as well. Take Bandon, for example.

I'm curious what an acceptable number might be, if 2-4% is considered too high?

Joe

[JakaB]

John,

That was a top notch explanation....I'm just guessing Pat is upset about the standing of his course in Florida....hmmmm..who could be the rater that screamed like a stuck pig when he wasn't comped there and I wonder how that affected his score..

I do think new courses do a little better job treating raters from Golfweek nice....Do you really believe Sutton Bay is going to be so hungry 20 yrs from now....I sincerely doubt if Bellerive or Butler give a damn anymore..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

When it comes to Golfweek, the numbers change because the number means where it ranks in the pantheon of courses, not an absolute number like a Doak rating.

That's not true.

It's composite numerical equivalency ie 9.0 or 8.75 shouldn't change.  Only their relativity to other courses should change.

A course that's evaluated as a 8.75 should remain at 8.75 as long as nothing about the golf course has changed.

If a golf course was evaluated with a numerical equivalency of 8.75 10-15-20 years ago, and nothing about the golf course has changed, how could it be evaluated and assigned a numerical equivalency of say 7.9 today ?[/color]

Joe Hancock,

You're limiting your perspective to courses new to the list this year, view it in the context of the last 10 years.

Jaka B,

Boca Rio isn't on the list because the required number of raters hasn't played it, and probably won't.
IMO, Boca Rio is far superior to many of the top 100 courses listed.  Ran's write up, and the comments of GCA.comer's who have played it should provide you with a glimmer of its merits.

Pine Tree is an interesting story.
It's hard to imagine a course once ranked 23rd in the country by some list, that remains almost unchanged over the years, ranked 97th, behind some of the following clubs I've played, such as,

Caves Valley (94)
Bellerive (86)
The Bear's Club (80)
RTJ (70)
Hidden Creek (68)
Atlantic (60)
Shoal Creek (52)
Pumpkin Ridge (46)
Gallaway (38)
Shadow Creek (9)
Bandon Dunes (5)

[A_Clay_Man]

I sincerely doubt if Bellerive or Butler give a damn anymore..

J.B.-my impression was that Butler is very interested in where they place on the list.

PAt, It is the rank within all 17000+ courses, so of course it can change.
I change my numbers on occasion, whether the justification is that others are getting better or changes were made to the coursewhich causes me to alter my ratiing.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I also think John did a great job of explaining the Golfweek approach as I see it. I find classical courses tend to move or have a rating change because of renovations/restorations or major changes in maintenance etc.

[Michael Moore]

Perhaps different people are doing the rankings today as opposed to twenty five years ago.

[JohnV]

Pat, the scale is a ranking, not a rating.  That is the difference.  A ranking changes when there are enough courses ahead of a course to push it down a notch.  A rating doesn't unless you redefine the scale in some way.

If the definition of a 10 is a course that is one of the top 5 courses, then you can only have 5 courses ranked as a 10 and if you have 5 courses on your list that are ranked as 10s and then you see one that is better than any of them, you have to either give it an 11 or more one of the 10s to a 9.  11s aren't allowed so one of the others has to drop.  It is no longer one of the top 5 modern courses so it is no longer a 10.

A rating system would allow all the 10s you wanted and there would be no reason to change them unless the course was radically changed or someone decided that 10 had a different meaning.

How a course goes up a ranking is based on more people seeing it and feeling it is better than the current position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

Perhaps different people are doing the rankings today as opposed to twenty five years ago.

That's possible, but, if the evaluative criteria remains the same, no substantive change should occur.

Unless, the quality or tastes of the raters has improved or deteriorated.[/color]

John,

If the numerical equivalency (rating) is determined to be 8.75, then that shouldn't change if the golf course hasn't changed.
Would you agree to that ?

Then, the only thing that could change is it's relative position due to other courses being assigned higher numerical equivalecies.  I understood that from the begining.

My point was, if two or more courses had numerical equivalencies assigned to them as a result of evaluations, and if those courses didn't undergo any changes, how can the numercial equivalencies assigned to them change ?

Which in turn changes their ranking.

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

How can you say that a golf course doesn't change over the years?  It's a living entity.  And on e a day to day basis, it could be considerably different.  So while a bunker might not have been added/removed, and the greens might not be altered, I don't think it's prudent to say a course didn't change.  

Or think about it from another angle.  Maybe the course didn't physically change, but how it reacts compared to technology is a change.  So what may have previously been a challenging Par3 or Par4 is now not that challenging because technology means the player has less yardage into a green, or a fronting bunker is less penal a hazzard.  

I understand that you're generally saying that a course might not be altered, but they are always changing in relation to the playing surfaces (conditioning) and the technology, and the mindset of the players over the years.

[Bob_Huntley]

How many of us here at GCA give a fig about where our course stands in the so called rating game?

I am at one with van Gerbig at Seminole, when he said "Stick your rating..........in some vulnerable place."

All is vanity.

[Doug Sobieski]

Mr. Mucci:

Picture a deck of cards, where they are distributed as follows:

5 Aces
10 Kings
25 Queens
60 Jacks
100 10’s
550 9’s
And so on…..

Only five courses can hold an Ace. If another “Ace-worthy” course emerges, then you may have to give one of the former Aces a King. That’s how a 10 may eventually not be a 10 anymore, even if the course didn’t change. As was mentioned earlier, it’s a ranking, not a rating, and there are only so many cards that can go around.

Regards,

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

How can you say that a golf course doesn't change over the years?  It's a living entity.

It's easy, because its basic structure remains intact.
Have the color of your eyes changed, the number of your fingers and toes, your personality.  Substantively, you're the same, and so it is with golf course that don't undergo external alterations.[/color]

And on a day to day basis, it could be considerably different.  

Tell me HOW it could be considerably different on a day to day basis.  Are the greens moved, the bunkers reconfigured, the tees realigned ?[/color]

So while a bunker might not have been added/removed, and the greens might not be altered, I don't think it's prudent to say a course didn't change.  

Of course it is, unless you're engaging in MM.

And, do you think you or a rater can see the daily change in this living organism you call a golf course.  Can you see a shift in the direction that the grass grows ?
Can you see the moisture content in the soil, the acidity, the nutrients, the number of sand particles in the greenside bunker ?[/color]

Or think about it from another angle.  Maybe the course didn't physically change, but how it reacts compared to technology is a change.  So what may have previously been a challenging Par3 or Par4 is now not that challenging because technology means the player has less yardage into a green, or a fronting bunker is less penal a hazzard.  

Pine Tree remains a very, very challenging golf course, more so then most, especially since it gets a good deal of wind.

In your above example, Pine Tree shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum, other courses have probably been more susceptible to the impact of technology,  which should benefit Pine Tree.

At 7,200+ yards, an abundance of deep bunkers, small greens and wind, Pine Tree remains a challenge and a test to every level of golfer.

Do you think that perhaps Dick Wilson isn't considered a leading architect when compared to today's crop ?[/color]

I understand that you're generally saying that a course might not be altered, but they are always changing in relation to the playing surfaces (conditioning) and the technology, and the mindset of the players over the years.

Would you describe how the courses, and especially,
Pine Tree is changing in relation to the playing surfaces (conditioning) and the technology, and the mindsets of the players over the years ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

BVG only felt that way AFTER Shadow Creek lept past Seminole.  It was an emotional response.

Doug,

Please

Reread my posts.

If a course is evaluated, and the numerical equivalency of that evaluation is 8.75 and the golf course isn't altered over the last 10 years, and the evaluative criteria aren't altered over the same period, then the golf course can't have a substantively different numerical equivalency assigned to it.

Rankings are only an ordering of the numerical equivalencies.

[Andy Hughes]

In the absolute, it's architectural values don't change.

Pat, this doesn't seem quite right. If technology has made great leaps forward in 25 years, then wouldn't that effect the architectural values?

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob Huntley,

BVG only felt that way AFTER Shadow Creek lept past Seminole.  It was an emotional response.

Pat,

I knew that, but thought I could use it to bolster my own premise. You hoisted me on my own petard.

I still feel that what others feel of my course is of little importance to me. I know what I like and enjoy and can no more place one above another, as I can no more say that David is a better work than The Pieta.


Bob

[Rick Shefchik]

Bob -- I think you've revealed my next career to me: art rater. I'll travel from museum to museum rating the Mona Lisa against "The Scream" or "Nude Descending a Staircase." We'll get some good arguments going, start a magazine, hire extra raters and sell ads like there's no tomorrow...

[ForkaB]

I think their memories are too long.  There hasn't been a single change in the top 20 classics over the past year.  This implies to me that either the GW guys have it absolutely right, or maybe they are just a bunch of clones who get comped mind altering drugs at the raters conventions to insure that they toe the party line..........

[Tyler Kearns]

If a golf course had a numerical equivalency of 9.0, and, the golf course remained unchanged over 10-15-20-25 years, how can the golf course have its numerical equivalency lowered ?

Pat,

Is it not possible for one's opinion to change over the years. I played Sutton Bay two years ago, and was very impressed with the golf course. Theoretically, we'll say I gave it a 8.5 numerical rating. Ten years from now, my architectural tastes will change, partially because I'll be exposed to more golf courses period, and more excellent designs and further because certain things will appeal to my senses more as I grow older and hopefully, wiser. Perhaps in a decade, my numerical rating of the course will slip to 8.25 for the reasons mentioned above (given: Sutton Bay remains intact - no architectural alterations that weren't initiated by Mother Nature).

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

In the absolute, it's architectural values don't change.

Pat, this doesn't seem quite right. If technology has made great leaps forward in 25 years, then wouldn't that effect the architectural values?

Has the entire membership benefited from the leaps in technology, or only a small cadre ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

How can I create controversy and debate if you're going to insert common sense ?  

Rich Goodale,

I deliberately avoided the classics.
That's another thread for another time.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy,

In the absolute, it's architectural values don't change.

Pat, this doesn't seem quite right. If technology has made great leaps forward in 25 years, then wouldn't that effect the architectural values?

Has the entire membership benefited from the leaps in technology, or only a small cadre ?[/color]

You'd have to ask the raters how technology has effected their games, as they are the ones doing the rating, not the membership.  I can't answer that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tyler,

Is it not possible for one's opinion to change over the years.

I played Sutton Bay two years ago, and was very impressed with the golf course. Theoretically, we'll say I gave it a 8.5 numerical rating.

Ten years from now, my architectural tastes will change, partially because I'll be exposed to more golf courses period, and more excellent designs and further because certain things will appeal to my senses more as I grow older and hopefully, wiser.

Perhaps in a decade, my numerical rating of the course will slip to 8.25 for the reasons mentioned above (given: Sutton Bay remains intact - no architectural alterations that weren't initiated by Mother Nature).

While YOUR tastes may change, the criteria used in the evaluative categories hasn't.

So, either you are a bad rater today. or will become a bad rater ten years in the future.

If the evaluative critieria remain fixed how can you vascilate in making your assessments ?

Either you understand the evaluative criteria or you don't.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()