[Matt_Ward]

In seeing the discussion on Chambers Bay I wonder if ratings should be a bit more precise. How so?

Well, Golfweek splits between Classic and Modern. That's a good way to categorize -- but not the only way.

I wonder if courses can be split according to its primary purpose - for example those with the capabilities in hosting big time event against those primarily geared towards members / their guests and those primarily open for the Joe Sixpacks of the world.

Or ...

One can create a distinction based on overall length of the courses in question. Those courses that are 6,200 yards from the tips might need to be grouped accordingly to provide some sort of prospective when compared to those of much more length -- let's say those over 7,000 yards.

One quick example would be to categorize a championship venue Oakmont in a different manner than say with a neighboring layout of quality like Fox Chapel.

No doubt the whole notion of ratings may fall upon deaf ears for some on this site. Fair enough.

However, given the amount of top quality courses in the USA and throughout the globe -- there needs to be some additional categorization that goes beyond a simple "top 100" this and that. It seems so many unique and fun courses are truly outside the box of valid attention that far to often only goes to the usual suspects debated endlessly here on GCA and elsewhere.

I wonder how others see this given their own experiences and preferences.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Apparently you don't subscribe to either GOLF DIGEST or GOLFWEEK any longer.  Every month or two, one of them comes out with a new ranking of the "Best Casino Courses" or the "Best Development Courses" or some new category, in a thinly veiled attempt to get more courses (and architects' web sites) to prominently display the brand name in a "top ten by Magazine X" advertisement.  It's all about eyeballs now, isn't it?  

Just give them all a Doak scale rating and don't worry about sorting the list.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I agree.

Too often these "new" listings you refer to are nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to drum up advertising from those prospective facilities.

I don't doubt that the management of said courses that do get "listed" in such articles think they have made major headway against the competition -- the usual result is nothing more than just a listing with little overall meaning -- especially when compared / contrasted against a broader canvass.

If there's ever been a time for a makeover in the manner by which courses are rated it seems the time may indeed be ripe for such action.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

This sounds great, but who would have jurisdiction/authority over such a thing?  I think thats exactly the problem.

Kalen

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

I almost rolled on the carpet with laughter.

There is no "jurisdiction" in such enterprises. More likely, the issue rests on credibility and the due diligence demonstrated.

The issue with "bigger than life" rating panels and the inane consensus results that spew forward is that little in term of meaningful comparisons and contrasts seem to be coming forward.

I simply shake my head when I see magazines rushing to annoint the "next" course as the savior of the game. You also see a reluctance in terms of critical analysis -- more often the assemblage of the kinds of listings Tom itemized is what I outlined previously -- just a transparent excuse to bolster ad income with such "lofty" new titles as "best this" and "best that."

No doubt -- that's why "Confidential Guide" still resonates with me and countless others.

 

[Mike Sweeney]

What is GCA.com missing that you want? The main holes that I see are a lack of Tour and high level Amateur players and the site needs more overseas participation.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

There is way too much discussion about the same small grouping of courses over and over again. No doubt these places deserve their accolades but it's more than likely that those posting on such places can only discuss such courses because they lack awareness or info on others.

I agree having comments from those outside the States is very much needed. But, I can say the same in getting info about other locations here in the States that often are either ignored or simply not mentioned.

My main thrust with this post is less with GCA and more about what is lacking when magazines follow the formula that Tom D outlined in his comment. Throwing some "listing" without any real due diligence is frankly a "flavor-of-the-month-club report that lacks any real depth / insight.

Clearly, GCA does more than what you see in many other forums whether they be magazines, books, blog sites, et al.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I like your idea, even noting that I am not sure rating games need to get anymore complicated.

But in the threads about prevailing mediocrity, I wanted to answer that in a broader market, only a few courses really are built to be great. Many are built as golf factories, easy tests, fast to play, or whatever, so by program, they won't compete with tournament courses.

That said, since magazines need fresh material, why not expand the lists, even if there is a cynical, profit mode to it.  Lists could include:

Best Pro Tournament Courses
Best "other" tournament courses
Best Clubs (Avid Golfer breaks it down by fee category)
Best Upscale Public
Best Munis under $x
Best Privately Owned, Mid Range Public
Best "Fast to Play"
Best "Least Lost Balls" courses
Best Gambling Courses
Best Courses for the Slicer

As Larry the Cable Guy might say, "I could go on all day."

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I agree.

Having more meaningful categories can work.

The issue is that magazines -- to name just one media type --seek to tie self-created specific categories as a means to build revenue ad streams to their respective publications. When I see a listing of the "best residential golf options" I chuckle because this becomes nothing more than a cash cow for the publication to soak those developments that believe they will be ultimately selected.

The real underlying aspect to this situation is that the source of ratings needs to establish some sort of credibility -- sort of what J.D. Powers or Consumer Reports does now.

GCA is good in spots but far too often the limitations are there to be seen by those with their eyes open.

Jeff, you are 100% correct -- only a few courses are built to be great. The real issue is that few people possess the portfolio to provide the concise comparisons and contrasts in order to see if such a layout(s) is indeed at the level.

Consensus formula ratings don't do much for me. They are right no better than 50-60% of time at best. In addition, when certain classic courses are often mentioned -- time after time after time -- much of the fanfare is tied to the past and doesn't reflect the nature of how the golf course market has evolved with either other classic courses that have been ignored or from newer layouts that often get the short shrift for critical acclaim.

[BCrosby]

The real underlying aspect to this situation is that the source of ratings needs to establish some sort of credibility -- sort of what J.D. Powers or Consumer Reports does now.

Good luck. It's one thing to compare toasters. Whatever their differences, there are basic, objective criteria againt which you can measure toaster performance. That's why J.D. Powers has credibility.

It's another thing to compare Myopia, Oakmont, TPC Sawgrass, Firestone, Sand Hills, NGLA and Jug Tavern Public Links. Vastly different styles, design philosophies, historical eras, budgets and so forth.

Seems to me you've got two choices. Go the Brauer route with his quirky little categories or pick categories generic and flacid enough to give a fair shake to the incredible variety of courses out there.

I vote for the Brauer system. Which requires a sense of humor about ratings. Which is a good thing. And much needed.

Bob

 

[C. Squier]

To compare this to my other vice, I'll offer the following:  Robert Parker's mag, Wine Advocate, is completely ad free.  Nothing but text.  He pays for his own wine and tastes blind.  And still gets ripped for having a bias and/or sucking up the "name" estates/chateaus.  In short, there will always be dissent no matter how you run your rankings.  Especially for something as subjective as golf courses or wine.  Hell, let's just ad women to the mix and cover all bases.  The good news is, there are plenty of all 3 to go around.  Some are just harder to attain than others.

CPS

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

We have discussed ratings etc. before and at this time, it appears its not enough in the national interest to be done by anyone other than golf magazines, because for them, it does lift readership and ad revenue.  So be it.  We might argue that there is some conflict of interest. On the other hand, except for the densest (sp?) of readers, they should be able to sort it out, AND no one gets hurt, as if a toaster explodes.

I know you think you are more knowledgable than most raters and you probably are.  I still contend that a consensus, or democratic vote most often comes up with the right result.

Many gca's, even "name" ones, would love to see a ranking that left our names off the courses.  If that were possible, then I think panelists would perhaps vote differently, and concentrate on architectural merit.

Clint's wine analogy does suggest that top brands become top brands for a reason, and that the masses do buy the best sometimes.  No problem with the names dominating any list, but one purpose Ron W always had was to highlight great design, regardless of the nameplate, and I agree, any system ought to create a way to make that happen.

Looking at rankings only, I generally think that as golf course pure numbers expand, lists ought to expand.  If there are 50% more courses now than when GD first did its top 100 list, why shouldn't there be the top 150?  In essence, its the top 1% of courses.

As you suggest, the other way is to group courses into logical categories.  And, while housing course lists ARE ripe for manipultion through advertorial dollars, its actually still a valid category in my eyes and it could be done right.  After all, you could have a great course within housing, but overall, it wouldn't compare with an equal course in a great setting.

Ditto for Top (well, maybe not 100, but 50 or 75 depending on the number of actual courses) of the other categories I listed.  Casino courses, which probably number less than a 100 in the country may get by with a top ten.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

The situation outlined / re: Robert Parker is likely the way to go. Clearly, people will have disagreements no matter what is the ultimate final product.

The issue with one person is about consistency. Granted, that consistency can be seen only through the eyes of one person, however, the consensus format is nothing more than watered-down version of final choices. You also have the major handicap of a lack of direct comparison / contrasts because people will apply rating numbers that can be completely off base in terms of their fundamental understanding of just what it is they are reviewing and how to apply the appropriate numbers.

The issue in elevating the names of those who labor "in the vineyard" but rarely get noticed (even with the assist of Ron W and a few others) is that rating panels are nothing more than elaborate versions of a Gallup poll. Too many people who are rating are name chasers -- whether it be the top tier layouts and / or the top tier architects. All that does is reinforce the same situation -- no matter if it's deserved or not.

The simple truth is that magazines wish to gather free info from interested folks who vary in terms of their eyeball understanding of just what it is they are reviewing.

Jeff, I do agree with you that having added and more specific categories would be a major plus. However, the present magazine structure simply lends itself to the kind of conflict of interest in which editorial and advertorial sleep so nicely next to one another.

The good news is that the thirst for information that's not skewed is still prevalent and it's possible -- though unlikely -- that one or a few of the magazines may reform their existing systems to do something a bit of what you and I are speaking about.

The separation point between championship courses and membership / public courses is clearly something that can be addressed. Clearly, the likes of an Oakmont would be on one listing from me and the strength of say a Fox Chapel would be on another. The all-inclusive top 100 listing is really not an apples-to-apples situation. It is also rather cemented with certain courses no matter what they do (see Augusta National as one example) -- whether that's positive or negative.

The public side of affordable courses of national standing is clearly a hot topic given the fact that they provide accessbility.

More needs to be done because so much of what is quality is simply not being mentioned -- from a wide variety of sources that proudly proclaim that they are on top of the ball.

[Peter Pallotta]

Matt
for what it's worth, here's a real outsider's perspective (i.e. I'm not a ranker, I'm not qualified to be a ranker, I don't understand the ranking process, I'm not interested in being a ranker, and I've never yet been able to play an award-winning course on a ranker's advice). I've tried to understand what you want here, and I think do, but actually I don't.

Do you want MORE courses profiled/promoted/ranked? If so, I guess the magazines will have to use MORE rankers.

Do you want DIFFERENT courses profiled/promoted/ranked? If so, I guess the magazines will have to use DIFFERENT rankers.

What's ths possibility of either of those things happeneing?

Do you want other SOURCES of rankings, ones that would REPLACE the magazines in terms of 'credibility'? I'd imagine that never before is that as POSSIBLE as it is today, with the internet and with blogs; possible, I'd say, but not very likely,  unless a very special someone or someones were involved, and unless they followed the exact same model that the magazines currently do.

And in the end, what would be the difference, or even the POTENTIAL difference?

In any case, I think you may be forgetting the large percentage of players who, while they enjoy the rankings and maybe learn a thing or two from them, play so much of their golf so LOCALLY that the only thing that actually gets them out to a specific course is good WORD OF MOUTH.

Finally, if what this is about is trying to better promote the UNSUNG HEROS, whether courses and designers, I'm all for that, and behind you 100%. But then, I'd think there are probably much better ways to do that than trying to revamp or recreate the ranking system (which you know very well, and which you seem to me to describe perfectly, in all its myriad of entanglements and cross-purposes and conflicting  interests). You could simply write a book, for example.

Peter
   
By the way, I'm one of those who likes reading the ranking issues in the magazines. In fact, I first read and learned about a number of the architects on this board, past and present, in those very magazines.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,

I should know better than to get into a rating discussion...oh well.

However, I think the chances of the magazines both cutting down their panels AND rating more courses seems to be a bit unlikely. I very much agree that with the sheer number of strong courses that including more of them is a worthy goal.

If any of them DO want to pay 50 people to go around the country and do nothing but rate golf courses I want to know where to send my application though!

[Joe Hancock]

How many well designed courses are suffering due to limited or no ranking publicity? Is it a high percentage?

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

Joe H:

I can only answer your fine question from my own experiences. I would say there are a good number of courses that fail to bust the top of the charts because of either remoteness or lack of $$ / resources to trumpet what they have.

Clearly, the courses in the northeast -- most notably the upper ecehlon classic courses -- don't have much issue with notice given the close proximity of people to these layouts.

On the flipside there are numerous well designed courses in the mtn time zone that often fly considerably below the radar screen and even those that are recognized are considerably undervalued IMHO. There are other locations that apply in the USA as well.

The disucssion of courses should be a bit more wider than what is happening at Merion, Pebble or NGLA or other non-public venues.

Joe, the issue is really about people searching out other courses not on the beaten trail. Unfortunately, too much of what is posted on GCA is really about people searching out name courses designed by name architects. The pattern repeats over and over again.

As I said at the outset, after having rated courses for a number of years and having traveled extensively in the USA and overseas I can say this with a bit of knowledge when compared to board range of others.

Andy:

Allow me to help your understanding on this topic. The magazines have got their cake and eat it at the same time. They have solicited free info from people who in many cases are only interestes in playing the very elite / top tier places. The broad range of info is not as systematic as it can be.

You can downplay what I just said and that's your prerogative. However, I know of a few people -- including myself -- who have seen / played and traveled extensively enough to know that the results you are seeing today are missing a good bit more than many might even realize. The strength of GCA is that there are times when outside the box courses are mentioned -- it doesn't happen that often -- but it's more often than many of the magazines which are too quick to simply list places according to the buzz generated (whether fair or not) because of the $$ behind them and the name person who has designed them. Sadly, the rush to provide surface level information -- as opposed to real expertise -- is what is being fed forward. Truthfully, I have long since depended upon the prime golf magazines to detail what is really unique / exciting in the world of design.

Peter P:

A few responses to your insightful post.

You don't need more people to get better info. You need more detailed info from people who know what is they are supposed to be doing. Too many of the people who rate today are merely regional or local in their scope. Simply adding more and more people only follows the same pattern of numbers that are pulled together with little cross comparison from a direct visit.

Peter, I don't know if you grasp this -- consensus driven ratings don't do anything more than throw a series of rating numbers together and then producing some sort of final conclusion. If you see such a final product as being helpful then by all means enjoy what is being served and go from there.

Candidly, I could give a rats ass whether the magazines do what I have suggested or not. I use my own sources to determine where I need to play. The magazines lost me when it became obvious that little real insights were coming forward. Golf course reviews are not helped with a group-think mentality. I'd much rather have a single person who has sufficient credibility provide their own take and go from there.

As info sources have explosed through the Internet age the sheer monopoly that Digest and others have had on just what consttitutes superior golf is no longer valid.

The real difference Peter is that I see it in the many travels / places that I play. I'm not saying that for vanity purposes - I say it because the due dligence demonstrated has done little but provide surface-level results. I don't care if others wish to waste their time playing dog tracks or those that are highly overrated. By all means if that floats your boat and others then please continue to knock yourself out. I try to spend my time playing places that are indeed unique -- often they are produced by people with less resources and there are times when such layouts are designed by people who are not in the rare high air zones that certain people believe are the only ones capable in designing such courses.

Your last point is well taken and it's something I'm in the process in moving forward with. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

P.S. The "word of mouth" recommendations you mentioned are clearly alive and well and often times ahead of the magazines. In fact, before making my travel plans I check with my sources before leaving for any potential star courses.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
My attempt at humor didn't register. Quite frankly I agree with your premise and make every effort to get to a wide variety of courses. I've been fortunate enough to play 30 new (to me) courses this year, and so far ONE is in the GD top 100.

Do all panelists make that kind of effort? I wish they did, but I'm guessing not.

The first line of your response was my point. If as you believe, the magazines have their cake and can eat it to...don't expect significant change until that status is changed. I'm not making a value judgement, just stating what I perceive as the reality of things.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Forgive me in not getting your humor.

The situation with most panelists is that very few expose themselves to a wider array of courses than the ones they are currently playing now. In addition, an even smaller number really criss-cross the nation in order to provide a deeper understanding of how different courses really stack up against one another.

You also have a hesitancy of the magazines to pull courses down when it becomes clear they are no longer as great as they once were. Augusta National comes quickly to mind -- one can make a case the same situation applies to Pebble Beach as well, to name just two of the more prominent examples.

The reality is that many magazines don't venture into anything close to serious analysis. They are afraid to offend anyone's recreation hangout and with that the possibility that future ad dollars will forever disappear.

Much of the other ratings from the so-called top tier magazines generally provides little of real earthshattering "news" about what is really happening. In addition, when you have blatant conflicts of interest with critics serving as golf course design consultants you can see the situation is not getting any better.

The only saving grace is that today's information systems are not totally dependent upon limited sources. In that way I guess you can say things are still possible provided people take the time to read these varied sources.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Given your obvious disdain for the current rankings, I would hope you would consider publishing (or posting) in some form your own personal ranking list. If you like to make it more of a panel effort, you could even recruit those whose opinions you value and use whatever criteria you like.

I'm not attempting humor this time, I would seriously be interested in reading such a list.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()