In the rater's handbook this phrase is used to describe the how to evaluate a classic course.

     "The extent to which the existing holes ... conform to the original design intent" (sorry forgot the word "intent")

  Now that sounds staightforward, but do these raters know the original design intent of these classic courses? What do they do if there is no evidence of this intent?

  Is it a mistake for those of us who critique our own courses for swaying from this intent to let these  raters in on the discussion? Could this put us at a disadvantage versus other courses where the raters don't know about the mistakes made?

Kyle,

I agree with you, there isn't a better way to break the tie...

But until there is more data, it means nothing other than as being a way to put things in order.

That's all John was saying. It's a way of changing things to ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd 3rd, et al), but other than that, there is no value to them.


But, that's their SOLE purpose.[/color]

In my small unscientific survey of friends, I have yet to speak to anyone who has played both the new MPCC and Spyglass and liked Spyglass better (And GW has Spyglass #16).

 

Add me to your statistical database.  

Kyle,

Quote from: Kyle Harris on March 04, 2005, 10:03:23 AM

I agree with you, there isn't a better way to break the tie...

But until there is more data, it means nothing other than as being a way to put things in order.

That's all John was saying. It's a way of changing things to ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd 3rd, et al), but other than that, there is no value to them.


But, that's their SOLE purpose.[/color]

I thought that their SOLE purpose was to rank the courses in a meaningful fashion. If the figures that are used to rank the courses are not statistically valid, than how are the rankings meaningful?

-Ted

Mike,

I'm not looking for spectacular bunkering at Yale.  

I'm looking for original bunkering at Yale.  

When the Short hole bunkering has been raised about 5 feet, or the wild bunker on the right of 7 is turned into a sandy shallow, squiggly footpath, or when I see 6 inch deep circular disks masquerading as bunkers, then it's pretty self evident that this detracts from Raynor's original design intent.  

Mike,

Based on my Mucci-like bolding of your quote, I am feeling pretty good about my comment that GW raters are "too obsessed with bunkering".  

Paul and Mark,

Time to start class !

Shivas, exactly...

I know this may raise some ire, but how much difference is there between #1 and 100.... really....

Thats kind of what I said a few pages back . . .
How much relevance is there to ranking the top 1.43% or 1% of anything?

-Ted

Brian,

The MPCC Shore course and the work done on it is praised in one of the articles accompanying the list.

A classic example:  the par 3's at Medinah.  The criteria is "variety and memorability of par 3's".  Well, 3 of them are basically the same -- do or die over Lake Kadijah.  But they are memorable as hell precisely because of that fact!! If the category was merely variety, I'd rate them a helluva lot lower than I do, but the category factors in memorability, and frankly, they're among the most memorable sets of par 3s I've ever played!

Doesn't the memorability wane if 3 of the 4 are nearly the same?  If you face the same shot 3x in 1 round how do you differentiate it?  Also, I haven't played any of Jim Engh's courses but isn't he accused of overusing the drop shot par 3?

I really like Medinah but the repetitive nature of the par 3s is a shortcoming.

So am I reading those lists right....neither of the MPCC courses are on the lists?  How would MPCC Shore (Strantz) have been listed, Classic or Modern?  I really hope the MPCC Shore issue was because of lack of votes, because otherwise I'm going to have to seriously wonder why there is an anti-Strantz bias!?!?

Brian - I think MPCC Shore was moved to Modern.  I do not know if the old ratings were thrown out (In which case it probably did not make the list because it did not have enough raters) or if the old ratings were kept (In which case it did not make the list because it had to many 5's and 6's to offset the 8's and 9's it is getting now).  

It would be the single most egregious error my GW brethren have made IMO, if it moved to modern, got a brand new slate and the average rating was below the 6.5 needed to make the list.  

Mike Cirba,

You can't rate the course on the basis of what it was or what it might be.  You have to rate it as it is.

With all of the changes and all of the complaints, ANGC continues to enjoy lofty ratings.

There's a fine line between original design integrity and nit picking over specific features.

How does ANGC fare in the original design integrity ?

You can't apply a standard differently to two golf courses.

What's been changed more over the years, ANGC or Yale ?

Now, if you want to create a penalty box category for courses that have been altered or disfigured, and the club is aware of their original design integrity, then, I'm all for that.

I think it's a great idea, because it would force more clubs to think about what has been done to their golf course over the years, and give them the incentive to FIX it, if a fix is in order.

I'm not suggesting that the original 7th, 10th and 16th holes be restored at ANGC.

You also have to realize that most raters don't have the historical backround regarding Yale that you, Noel, Geoff and others possess.

Should raters be required to take history lessons prior to rating a golf course ?  If not, how can they evaluate that category ?

Or, should a level of rater, above the field level, be the judge of adherence to the original design integrity ?

I would prefer to see Brad Klein, Ron Whitten or their designates in charge of that evaluation, taking it out of the hands of the field rater because it requires knowledge in advance of their evaluation.

I think most are seeking to build a better mouse trap while others would just as soon see the ratings disappear, which they won't.

Tom,

That's unfortunate, there should be one.

Mike,

Do you have a picture of the same with the bunker that Raynor built?

Could it be that the revised hole plays to the same or higher level of difficulty with perhaps a bit more variety (various lies in heavy rough in addition to the sand at the bottom)?

Might this be a case where the old was very pleasing to the eye (form), but perhaps not as demanding (shot plugging into a steep upslope or rolling back all the way down to the bottom of the bunker)?

I have never set foot at Yale, so I am just asking.  But if the old bunker was most of the way up to the green, wouldn't it just tend to play easier for the better players while penalizing the rest?  How about maintenance?  I was under the impression that Yale was heavy on academic endowments, but very light when it came to athletics.  Am I wrong?

Patrick,

There are various rating criteria where a situation like the one I pictured above can apply as far as deductions from ideal.  

Do you think those bunkers are well integrated into their surrounds, for instance?

One doesn't have to know much about what was there before to see pretty clearly that it wasn't them.    

Lou,

The incredulous thing is that Yale has TONS of great "before" pictures in the clubhouse, and no, the bunker in question didn't have sand flashed up the bank.  Instead, had a steep vertical bank as it does in the picture, but the bunkers in question were typical Raynor-style, with sandy bottoms that encompassed the entire floor of the pit, not just some convenient spot away from the bottom of the wall.  

Beyond that, a single bunker originally has been split in two, the fronting wall of the bunker has been "ledged" to provide a terraced step for access and for fairness, and it's a shell of its former self.  

Mike Sweeney,

I agree that Yale should be a top 25 course, but that the present architectural problems should place it somewhere between 80 and 100.  You've pretty much expressed my personal ranking exactly.