[HamiltonBHearst]

Friar's Head ranking so low has nothing to do with Mr. Bakst not hosting raters and everything to do with the people doing the actual rating, let's be clear on this.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Let me say what you have said previously -- how does a rating by Digest establish credibility when Rich Harvest Links comes in at #45 and Plainfield drops nearly 50 places to #95 ?

Shivas, I know plenty of Digest raters and they frankly saw no reason to expand the panel. Digest could simply drop 75% or more of the people who really are window dressing and stay with those who do travel the country and are seasoned enough not to be overly parochial or favor the "flavor of the month" club variety.

You don't get it -- it's not the criteria but the people applying the numbers. I didn't suggest one needs millions as your silly "extension" of thought suggests.

Shivas -- I don't know wine from atom. My wife does. Would including me on some sort of wine ratings make any sense just because I love the stuff? Hell no. I could have all the correct criteria right in front of my face and I would still not know how to apply it because my knowledge of the subject matter is extremely limited -- if nonexistent.

Digest went the route of the "yellow pages." Adding more people didn't improve the collective sense of what constitutes the best courses in America.

No doubt -- opinions can come from anyone. Rating courses should not be limited to that level of analysis in my mind because the end result is what you see now and I expect much, much more from a publication that proclaims it is THE final word on what takes place in golf.

Forgive me for my error.

[Alex_Wyatt]

Matt, saying the same thing ten times in the same thread doesn't make your argument any more compelling.

[Michael Moore]

Shivas -- I don't know wine from atom.

Mr. Ward -

Wine is made up of atoms, you are on the right path !

[Matt_Ward]

Alex:

Then don't bother reading it.

[Alex_Wyatt]

When you make the same post repeatedly, that is your choice, not mine. If I choose to point out that fact, don't tell me not to read.  There are other posts that are quite thoughtful in this thread, and I unfortunately can't get to them without reading your tripe.

[Matt_Ward]

Alex:

Do yourself a favor -- the muscle control needed to scroll further down won't cause severe pain. Whining on about my posts, which frankly have been gained through active involvement as a panelist, might help others in learning mroe about this topic.

I simply responded to the comments Shivas made in my posts. If you don't like my "tripe" feel free to use the muscle in your fingers and scroll to those you do.

[Michael Dugger]

Any list where Muirfield Village and Wade Hampton out rank Pac Dunes, Prairie Dunes and SFCC is a list I give no credence to

ANd Vic. Nat'l 21!!!!  Jaka must be loving it.

[Alex_Wyatt]

Matt, I have talked to a number of other members of this community and most really don't give a rat's ptutie what you have to say. You are so frigging repetitve. Just stop yourself when you are repeating yourself. Its easy!

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Just for a point of reference, here's the 2003 rankings with "Tradition" points removed but without the souped up "Ambiance" points:

1   Pine Valley GC
2   Shinnecock Hills GC
3   Augusta National GC
4   Cypress Point Club
5   Pebble Beach G Links
6   Oakmont CC
7   Merion GC (East)
8   Pacific Dunes
9   Sand Hills GC
10   Winged Foot GC (West)
11   Muirfield Villace GC
12   Wade Hampton GC
13   Victoria National GC
14   Crystal Downs CC
15   Oak Hill CC (East)
16   Seminole GC
17   Pinehurst Resort & CC (No. 2)
18   Oakland Hills CC (South)
19   National Golf Links of America
20   Bethpage (Black)
21   Medina CC (No. 3)
22   Shadow Creek
23   Bandon Dunes
24   Fishers Island Club
25   Southern Hills CC
26   The Olympic Club (Lake)
27   Quaker Ridge GC
28   Prairie Dunes CC
29   The Country Club (Clyde/Suirrel)
30   Whistling Straits (Straits)
31   Inverness Club
32   Winged Foot GC (East)
33   San Francisco GC
34   Los Angeles CC (North)
35   The Ocean Cse
36   The Honors Cse
37   The Quarry at La Quinta
38   Butler National GC
39   Olympia Fields CC (North)
40   Forest Highlands GC (Canyon)
41   Prince Course
42   Cherry Hills CC
43   Milwaukee CC
44   Baltusrol GC (Lower)
45   Double Eagle Club
46   Rich Harvest Links
47   Somerset Hills CC
48   Chicago GC
49   Garden City GC
50   The Estancia Club
51   Scioto CC
52   Ocean Forest GC
53   Riviera CC
54   The Golf Club
55   Blackwolf Run (River)
56   Spyglass Hill G Cse
57   Castle Pines GC
58   Crooked Stick GC
59   Valhalla GC
60   Shoal Creek
61   Black Diamond Ranch GC (Quarry)
62   Sycamore Hills GC
63   Long Cove Club
64   Peachtree GC
65   Colonial CC
66   Camargo Club
67   Interlachen CC
68   TPC at Sawgrass (Stadium)
69   Cog Hill G&CC (#4)
70   Plainfield CC
71   Grandfather G. & CC
72   Laurel Valley GC
73   The Homestead (Cascades)
74   Kittansett Club
75   Maidstone Club
76   Hazeltine National GC
77   Wannamoisett CC
78   Bellerive CC
79   Aronimink GC
80   Jupiter Hills Club (Hills)
81   Shoreacres
82   Eugene CC
83   Mauna Kea G Cse
84   Canterbury GC
85   Harbour Town G Links
86   Baltimore CC (East)
87   Greenville CC (Chanticleer)
88   East Lake GC
89   Pine Tree GC
90   Stanwich Club
91   Congressional CC (Blue)
92   Pasatiempo GC
93   The Dunes G. & Beach C.
94   Atlanta CC
95   Desert Forest GC
96   Sahalee CC (South/North)
97   Old Warson CC
98   Point O'Woods G & CC
99   Salem CC
100   NCR CC (South)

[SPDB]

This ongoing debate reminds me of the old saw that university politics are the most vicious because the stakes are so low.

Matt - What evidence do you have that the quality of raters has been diluted other than the results? Do you know any of these lazy panelists?

I suspect that you would prefer that the panel be populated with people more like yourself. But as your experience on GCA.com illustrates, a good many people strongly disagree with your views on what constitutes quality architecture.

It is entirely possible that GD hoped to make the process more democratic, and that by adding a greater number of raters they hoped to achieve a list of courses that appeal to golf playing public (their readers). It is also possible that they may have succeeded in this endeavor.

In the end, your complaint is with the results. Your supposition that it is logically related to the number of panelists, even though speculation, is entirely possible. But what you are ignoring is that it is entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that the list just may have identified the courses that the average american golfer considers the best.

All this talk about GD losing credibility is rubbish. They're rating system is fairly transparent. Because you (as do I) think Plainfield is a better course than Victoria Nat'l doesn't change that fact.

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

I know of instances in which people at various facilities throughout the nation have told me candidly about blatant conflict of interests with certain raters and how the "group think" process is followed by some of those people in lumping their numbers together for added value.

In my many travels annually throughout the USA I have come in contact with a few dozen people (I won't name them here) who are genuine raters and take their own time, own money and effort to visit all the key courses. Some of these people are Digest connected, others are GolfWeek and others are Golf Magazine. But the issue of the profusion of Digest raters simply follows the yellow pages formula of getting more people for the sake of more people. The proof of the pudding is in the results and you can see it for yourself this time around.

Many of the raters I know are simply regional and state-based people. It is hard for me to fathom how the inclusion of such people really adds to the task at-hand -- to wit -- the selection of the nation's best courses. How do you have a real sense of comparison if the only courses you overwhelmingly see are those in your backyard? If you don't have the time and effort to really play throughout the nation then I see little purpose in such people being retained as "national panelists."

Maybe it might be beneficial to have a split panel -- those at the state / regional level and those that are truly national. Digest used to have this many years again -- but the national panel was primarily composed of "star" raters like Sam Snead, Tom Watson, etc, etc and these guys aren't really going to play outside courses that fall beyond their time on the PGA Tour.

Sean -- I don't want people to agree with me 100%. Far from it. That's not my point at all. What I am suggesting is that you need to have people who are fully capable in doing what a national rating panel suggests -- play nationally. I know plenty of raters who I chat with to learn what's shaking out in their locales and it helps me to better understand what's taking place. Many of these people see golf architecture in a different light than me. That's good -- healthy dissagreements lend themselves to improvement in overall understanding. I see that situation as a benefit to all.

The Digest ratings was to illuminate the best in golf architecture. If Digest believes the inclusion of Joe Sixpack rater can make that a reality then I should be sent to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and weigh in with my ignorant viewpoints on what constitutues quality art. You don't stake your claims as THE magazine of record in golf by going in that direction IMHO.

Their rating system is more than transparent. It corrodes what Bill Davis was attempting to do initially when Digest kicked-the-ball off with ratings in their magazine pages. When a magazine of the standing of Digest throws forward a ratings system from the botton-up you get the outcomes one is seeing now. In my mind -- the most important aspect for any magazine is its credibility. The sheer totality of the ratings misfires from Digest this time around simply boggles the mind.

Over the years a range of suggestions have been brought to the attention of the key people at Digest. I know I was one of them when I was on their panel. There are ways to improve upon the system provided the folks there are open to it.

[Brock Peyer]

I knew that Wade Hampton was good but ....Huhhhhh?!?!?

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

You wrote, "In my many travels annually throughout the USA I have come in contact with a few dozen people (I won't name them here) who are genuine raters and take their own time, own money and effort to visit all the key courses."

"Key Courses"? What do you mean by this statement? Doesn't it imply that there are courses whose ranking has been permanently established and therefor that they should no longer be reviewed? If this is the case, how then can Pebble go from #1 to #6 in a very short timeframe? Are you implying that the course ratings process not be a living entity that can grow and change in needed directions?

You wrote, "Many of the raters I know are simply regional and state-based people. It is hard for me to fathom how the inclusion of such people really adds to the task at-hand -- to wit -- the selection of the nation's best courses. How do you have a real sense of comparison if the only courses you overwhelmingly see are those in your backyard? If you don't have the time and effort to really play throughout the nation then I see little purpose in such people being retained as "national panelists."

On the face of it that sounds reasonable and possibly even a little wise, but the reality is that unless they are compensated  how can a reasonable number of raters play and rank more than one course per week? I may be naive on this point but if you believe the answer is to find and appoint qualified "national panelists" to rate golf courses in the belief that they can examine 300 plus courses (most likely more) in a very short period of time, I have to question the process as I don't see how the logistics can work.

[Top100Guru]

SPDB;

Totally Agree with your CC of Charleston Statement......to not even be in the Top 25 in SC is a TRAVESTY.......

T Doak;

For Yeaman's to have been left off completely befuddles me.........


AND TO THAT, I MIGHT ALSO ADD, THAT SIMILAR TO SPDB'S STATEMENT, FOR MOUNTAIN LAKE TO NOT EVEN BE LISTED IN THE TOP 25 IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS A TOTAL JOKE!!!

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

The people I am speaking about are fully capable in doing what I have suggested. They have the time -- their own money and they carry as much passion in being fans of top flight architecture as any person who posts / lurks here on GCA. You would not believe the amount of terrain / courses they can cover in a year.

Phil -- keep this in mind -- I know no less than 8-10 people who have played all the top 100 from the previous Digest listing -- six of whom are Digest raters. There are a number of other people who have played beyond 80 of the current group -- the same situation applies to others I know who have played a significant number of the rated courses from the Golf Mag and GolfWeek listings. These people are passionate with a capital "P" and beyond the wherewithal to travel and play I also believe they have the ability to breakdown the nature of what a course has and doesn't have. Let me also add for the hounds that are ready to bark that in a number of clear instances what these people determine to be superior design is not exactly what I would see as such. Like I said -- I value the differences because learning can happen with the different viewpoints.

Let me further explain the words "key courses." As each golf season goes starts there are certain golf courses that have a pre-buzz about them -- Bandon Trails is a good example this year. When word gets out that certain courses are going through a major restoration / modernization, call it what you may, these same people make it a point to visit such courses and see how the "new" courses is compared to what was there previously. Good examples of this type are Plainfield, Fenway and Skokie, to name just three.

Phil -- you are trying to glue to me a belief I never said. I see the ratings as a fluid process -- if it were not than those courses that have made significant improvement might never be recognized accordingly. Conversely, those courses at the top should not assume that their place at the top is forever secured.

The key ingredient is in having people who are fully able and competent to provide the cross-comparisons that are needed -- from Maine to Florida from North Carolina to California. Regional and state panelists have a clear place but lumping people in one pot and expecting something magical to come from it is really a bit unrealistic and I believe this year's Digest ratings demonstrate that IMHO.

[THuckaby2]

Matt - I have the same issues as Phil re this - just don't see it as practical and even if it is, wise.  Do we really want the take of a select group of rich people defining this completely?

I know I sure don't.  No matter how passionate and great you say these people are, well... they still have one common inherent bias, one that's enough to cause their findings to be fraught with questions and doubt.

But my thoughts are on the other thread...

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Just totally astonishing.

I have some friends who are GD raters and whose opinions I respect, but who are the rest of these lunkheads?  

Perhaps they need to examine the criteria, but the results are simply astounding.

If I were Whitten I think I'd clean house.

[JakaB]

If I were Whitten I think I'd clean house.

Last time he cleaned house you guys got Ward....sweeeeeeeet..

[Mike_Cirba]

If I were Whitten I think I'd clean house.

Last time he cleaned house you guys got Ward....sweeeeeeeet..

John,

I'd take Matt's opinion over anyone who could rank Trump Intl., Briars Creek, and/or Hudson National in the Top 100 courses in the country.

In fact, Matt and I agree about 80% of the time and although he emphasizes "challenge" a bit more than I do, I completely agree that I'd like to see a list by people who actually play golf in various geographical regions than locals who don't know Rustic Canyon from Stone Canyon.

[texsport]

Is anyone surprised that Sutton Bay didn't make the top 100 greatest list?

Very high scores in the "Best New" ratings didn't translate onto the "100 Greatest" list.

[THuckaby2]

I'd take Matt's opinion over just about anyone's when it comes to relating one course to another nation-wide.  The man does know his stuff.

But the man does also have his own biases and preferences, as do we all.

So his opinion alone isn't enough.

Nor is the opinon of the select group of rich guys - which would be the only way to do what Matt (and now Mike) seem to be advocating - all that worthwhile either.

Joe Six-pack can know his stuff also.  He's also a very, very good representative of the golf consumer.  His opinion matters - a lot.

Eliminating him from the process can't be a good thing either.

Thus it continues to seem to me that tweaking the methodology works better than creation of this group of super-rich super-raters.  But I'm sure Matt will be in shortly to tell me how wrong I am about this, also.

 

[THuckaby2]

Is anyone surprised that Sutton Bay didn't make the top 100 greatest list?

Very high scores in the "Best New" ratings didn't translate onto the "100 Greatest" list.

John - that was explained somewhere in this thread - courses like Sutton, Friar's Head, a few others seemingly didn't get enough raters seeing them to qualify for the top 100 list.  It doesn't take as many for Best New... and they can qualify for state lists with this smaller amount of rater viewings, but can only be placed after all of those who did get enough visits to qualify... Thus Friar's Head is #14 on New York list.

This is a weakness of the system, for sure.  But in the case of Friar's Head, ownership actively discourages rater visits, so what can you do?  Re Sutton, it just has a short season and is rather remote, so it will take awhile.  My feeling is word of mouth and rep will get this taken care of by the time the next rankings come out, for sure.  Sand Hills is getting its just due... others will as well.

TH

[Robert Thompson]

Matt's take on a ratings panel is essentially a group of rich  guys with G4s at their disposal, who apparently no longer have to work, and can drop anything to go and play "the right" courses. Oh, and they apparently "understand" great golf, or at least Matt's definition of it. And they will be willing to fly their jets to play anything that a golf magazine wants them to see. Sounds like a great gig, and apparently Matt knows exactly the right group of rich guys for the task.

For my part, I agree with Churchill -- to paraphrase -- the democratic process is flawed, but it is still better than the other systems. Matt's elite group may come up with a different conclusion than the current GD panel, but then again, maybe not.

Seems to me that adding more panelists should negate the impact of a handful of individuals. Apparently many on this list disagree with the masses (of 0 to 5 handicaps) that make up the GD list. That anyone is surprised that GCA types disagree with the GD list is what amazes me.

[THuckaby2]

Robert:

EXCEEDINGLY well said, and this is what I have been driving at with far less success, mostly on the other thread.

And of course your last point is the most relevant of all... that anyone would be surprised that people here have issues with the GD list is the most astonishing thing of all.  This is a group or architecture nuts, purists, whatever you want to call us.  GD represents the masses.  When have these views EVER been the same?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()