And, yeah, Huck, I know that there are two different sets of criteria for classical and modern and that not all the subcategories in each are exactly the same, but the only number that COUNTS is the overall rating and that's an apples to apples number.  

Oh please.  Nice try again.  Keep believing that.  Yep, you go to all that trouble to have these cute pink subcategories, then throw them all out in reaching a conclusion... none of it matters.

I laugh at the lengths you will go to defend something that doesn't need defending.

It remains cumquats to pink lady wussyfruits for you "men".

 

I don't play enough really good courses to have an opinion on these things usually. But having played Cuscowilla and the Ocean Course just a few weeks apart I'll say the Ocean Course ranks higher and that's not in any way short-selling the fact that Cuscowilla is a very special place.

The most interesting feature of Cuscowilla is the contouring of its greens and surrounds. Yet I'd say the greens at the Ocean Course are actually more difficult and more subtle in their challenge plus I'd rather putti on Paspalum than Bent any time.

The most attractive feature at Cuscowilla is the bunkering, which are certainly more beautiful than the waste areas at the Ocean Course but OTOH the Ocean Course has...well, it has the Ocean. I'm a person who loves hills more than water and the terrain at Cuscowilla is gorgeous but I can only give Cuscowilla so much credit for attractiveness over the Ocean Course.

I think a weaker player will find Cuscowilla easier than even the up tees at the Ocean Course. But for anyone much better than a 10-12 handicapper I'd think the challenging shots at the Ocean Course are at least as interesting as the perhaps more creative shotmaking allowed at Cuscowilla.

So I've talked myself into saying that I found the two courses to be more comparable in quality than most people would think but there's no way to avoid putting the Ocean Course higher on a list of great courses. Then again, if you want to work the ball all around in different directions (as opposed to dealing with the wind from different directions) and you've really, really got to have Bent greens then maybe Cuscowilla is the better deal.

shivas:

I'll suggest you speak to your exalted leader.  Not only are you seriously breaking ranks here, but you seem to be using your own rankings wrong.  Read Lou's words above: you can't compare modern to classical. A 6 is not a 6.  Damn, do I have to educate you in your own system?

 

Your exalted leader explained this in here before.

So keep trying trying to explain away this wussy status. The fact remains that when we tried to do this before - and when in fact someone posted a composite list using the final numbers, said exalted leader (backed up by the typical cadre of sycophants) repeatedly stated that this was an incorrect use of such.

The rankings remain interesting but wussy.  And the funny thing is it's by choice.

Go back to Queer Eye.  Carson needs some more help.

 

Interesting also... all of these GW raters chiming in... none come to shivas' defense....

curious....

 

TH

ps - yes I am enjoying this very much.  It's your turn on the hot seat.  Funny thing is I think these rankings are damn good.  Wussy factor is only true shit I can give.

Adam,

Thanks for catching the Black Mesa omission, I updated the original list.

It's good to see Myopia Hunt ascend up the rankings, that is a special place not to be missed if you have the chance.  

Huck, do you really think I'm dumb enough to make a statement like that if I couldn't back it up?  Just trust me on this one -- I am fully aware of how the scale deviates down in the lower eschelons of the numbers: a 3 classical is not a 3 modern, but a 6 is a 6 and IMO, it's a fair comparison.

shivas:

I understand what you are trying to say.  And to me, it makes sense.  Hey, I WANTED to get so many of my friends out of the wussy state they seem to have befallen. When the compilation list was created on here, I was all over it saying cool, finally we have a way to have a meaningful comparison and my friends can stop wearing pink.

But, once again, when that list was posted on here, your exalted leader did come on here and tell us all how wrong it was to do so and that it was an incorrect usage of your system.

So wusses you remain.  By choice.

 

What is it gonna take for Essex County in Jersey to get on the list?  The work George and Gil have done has made that course amazing.

Jeff,

Yes.  We caught Black Sheep on a gorgeous day.  I've played firm courses in the great farm soils of Ohio, and didn't notice that BS was overly wet considering the 2"+ rain the night before.  In comparison, Rich Harvest that morning was much wetter.  Unless there is a lot of clay in the soil and not very extensive subsurface drainage, it should firm up fine once the rainy season is over.

Rustic Canyon is a wonderful course but I like the topography and the use of all points of the compass at BS better.  RC is also a little bit repetitive, specially with the two short fours going down canyon and the two fives going up.

Skokie has more quirk and the greens are more difficult, but again, I like the variety, balance, and shot requirements of BS better.  Either would be a great place to call home.

Michael,

Well said.  Though I am right, it is not a matter of right or wrong.  Right?

If course criteria is just that..Shivas has a point a 6 is a 6.
Why cant you compare say whistling straits as a 6 and a classic course say even Royal Lytham as a 6..they should be comparable.
Unless I am missing something, the criteria for rating is the same for all courses, irrespective of the year they were built.

Huck
I quite understand your point, as I do the editor for his decision not to comile the two lists together..to some it is like comparing apples and oranges.

To me it would be no problem to place my ratings in one list, but I can see where that would be a problem for a magazine with a large numbers of raters, unless they could all get together in a room and discuss their ideas for a couple of days...no weeks.

A combined list may be something that the editor has in mind for the future, that really would be ballsey for him to do.

I'm curious about something I read in the GW Rater's Handbook, http://www.golfweek.com/americasbest/Golfweek_Rater_Handbook.pdf

"In 2003, we had 214 raters cast a total of 25,904 ballots. The average rater cast 120 ballots, with one rater casting a high of 620 votes."

Does a ballot always consist of a full 18-hole round?  Does it require you to play the course, or can ballots be submitted if the course was walked or viewed in a cart?  Are you only allowed to submit a ballot once per course?  

If so, that is one hell of alot of golf from the AVERAGE rater....120 rounds!!  How many rounds are the GD and GM raters averaging?  

shivas:

I love how you are on the defensive today.

 

Of course that's how it works.  I am just absolutely loving that you come out and explain this as well.

Oh how things have developed in the past few years... my friend shivas, now #1 shill for GolfWeek.

 

BTW, I have zero problem with any of this.

TH

shivas:

Of course you know I am just enjoying GW's time in the sun to receive shit... and if anything the whole thread has been way too nice and polite for my tastes.

When the next GD ratings come out, I swear this time I will go into hiding.

Now as for the individual rankings... well... there are lots of curiousities.  But what the hell, they are what they are.  

I am also loving some of the ones that appear above Rustic Canyon... comments to be saved until some future time when such suit my purposes.

TH