[Jim Franklin]

Phil -

They are just letting everyone know they have no idea what they are doing.

I am a little surprised Bandon Dunes did not make the Top 100. Does anyone know if my Baltimore Country Club made it?

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Richard,

Think... THEY are the ones who both rank them that high and then state that they are OVERRATED...

Overrated was determined by the editors.  The top 100 rankings are determined by their panelists...

[Richard Choi]

Richard,

Think... THEY are the ones who both rank them that high and then state that they are OVERRATED...

My comment was half joking, but let me delve on this further.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a course can be BOTH highly rated and over-rated at the same time - actually, it is almost required.

Your confusion would only be valid if the rater is a single person. However, magazines like GM and GD have tens (if not hundreds) of raters.

If you survey those people on what course they like the best, everyone is going to have a different 1-100 list. While vast majority of the raters could have rated Pebble Beach in the top ten, there could have been significant (but much smaller) list of people who rated Pebble Beach much lower.

So, if you ask the same group of people (although I am betting the over-rated judges are different set of people) later about over-rated courses, they are going to start from the top and name all the courses where their own rating is much lower than the combined rating. And I am guessing the magazine only asked for the top 10 over rated courses instead of 1-100. And because of that, all the courses in the over-rated course are going to be highly rated in the 1-100 list.

This is quite common when it comes to subjective surveys like this. They recently surveyed MLB players who they thought was most under-rated and over-rated player was and Derek Jeter was listed in both lists.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike and Richard,

The magazine editors have created a system for rating golf courses. THEY carefully choose each one and them provide them with training and aid to rate courses within the parameters THEY set up.

Richard, you stated that, "It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a course can be BOTH highly rated and over-rated at the same time - actually, it is almost required..." Actually the opposite would betrue. The larger the group, especially when given the parameters with which they are expected to judge will deviate from this the larger the group they are.

Mike, you wrote, "Overrated was determined by the editors.  The top 100 rankings are determined by their panelists..."

THAT is exactly my point. By stating that the ranking or rating of a course has been done to the extent that they are found to be far better, and emphasis on FAR as the article was the 10 MOST OVERRATED, than what the editors who oversee the rating system feel they should be, carries the implication that either the editors in-charge are doing a poor job or the raters that they have chosen and trained are. In either case they appear to be undermining the very thing that they are trying to accomplish.

At least that is how it appears to me...

[bakerg]

You can add these to the bottom of Huck's Top 20:

Winged Foot West
Cyrstal Downs
San Francisco
Carnoustie
Prairie Dunes
Kinston Heath
Chicago
Oakland Hills
Riviera
Royal Birkdale
Fisher Island
Bethpage
Friars Head
The Country Club
Barnbougle
New South Wales
Hirono
Sunningdale
Royal St. George’s
Whistling Straits
Cape Kidnappers
Muirfield Village
Casa De Campo
Royal Troon
Olympic
Morfontaine
LA CC
Kiawah
Portmarneck
Baltusrol
Southern Hills
Oak Hill
Woodhall Spa
Lahinch
Garden City
Sawgrass
Bandon Dunes
Medinah
The Golf Club
Nine Bridges
Kingsbarn
Lytham & St. Ann
Kauri Cliffs
Quaker Ridge
Winged Foot East
Loch Lomand
Maidstone
Cruden Bay
Ganton
Harbour Town
Inverness
R. Melbourne East
Shoreacres
Camargo
Royal Adelaide
Nanea
Old Sandwhich
European Club
Highland Links
Royal Liverpool
Walton Heath
Ballyneal
Scioto
Toyko
Spyglass
Somerset Hills
Kawana
Cabo Del Sol
Valderamma
Shadow Creek
Congressional
St. George’s
East Lake
Naruo
Swinley Forest
Durban
Machrihanish
N. Berwick
Wentworth
Hamilton

[jim_lewis]

I have been lucky enough to play most of the highly ranked courrses in the US and many in other countries. IN MY OPINION Pinehurst #2 is the most UNDER-rated course I know of. In my book it is a top 5 in the world. I don't expect anyone to agree if: They are concerned about price; if they are looking for bells and whistles; If they are interested in the "vistas", if they prefer new and different; if they don't appreciate the importance of tee shot placement and excellent iron play; if they think GIR is important; if they have never played the course; if they think Tobacco Road is better; or if they simply don't understand brilliant course design.

I prefer not to debate the subject with anyone who fits one or more of those categories.

Jim Lewis

[Peter Pallotta]

And IMHO, Phil, you'd be exactly right.

But maybe GOLF is like the greedy capitalist who'll sell you the very rope to hang him with if only he can turn a profit on the deal.  

Whatever the rationales or processes for the highly-ranked/over-rated lists, it still smacks one as very cynical game: GOLF might as well just say, "Listen, even WE don't take these stupid lists seriously".

Peter

*And I'm someone who's read the top-100 lists for years. They probably served as my introduction to gca. But these over-rated lists I have no time for...especially when they come from the same source!

[jim_lewis]

After seeing the remainder of the list, I stand corrected. The most under-rated course must be Wannamoisett.

[Peter_Herreid]

Before everyone gets all excited about what's been posted so far, something doesn't add up...

How can Bandon Dunes supposedly have fallen off the US list, yet be at #55 (or whatever) on the World List?

Something doesn't compute...

Is one of the lists an old one?

[John Kavanaugh]

Before you say these lists sell magazines just look around and see how many guys on this site or you know buy them.  

[Jim Franklin]

I want to know how Five Farms drops off the list. Has anyone played here after our changes?? The course is so good now and so much fun to play. I like it more and more each time I play it. It is a way underrated Tillie IMHO.

[Jim Franklin]

PS Yes John, I subscribe to this magazine as well as GD, GW, and even Golf World.

[Tom Huckaby]

MY APOLOGIES - Bandon Dunes is indeed on the US list - #34.  My bad, looked right over it.

TH

ps Jim - no clue re Five Farms.

[Richard Choi]

The magazine editors have created a system for rating golf courses. THEY carefully choose each one and them provide them with training and aid to rate courses within the parameters THEY set up.

I think you need to remember that this is a VERY VERY subjective list. It doesn't matter how carefully they choose the raters and how much they train them. Personal opinion and thoughts will dictate how they rate a course. You seem to believe that this is an objective list, but it is not. It is purely subjective (just like top College list and every other list picked by a panel).

Actually the opposite would betrue. The larger the group, especially when given the parameters with which they are expected to judge will deviate from this the larger the group they are.

Actually, the group size would have no effect on this once sufficent sample size is met. Let me put it in another way (sorry if my engineering background is showing through).

Over-rated list is really nothing more than a list of ranked items with the largest amount of standard deviation. It just means that it is a list of ranked item that has the widest margin between people who rate them high (er) and people who rate them low (er). Put it in layman's terms, it ranks items in order of how diverse the available opinions are.

And the reason why you will see very highly ranked items on over-rated list is that when they usually draft these lists, editors typically ask for top five and top 10. And when you do that, you have an anchoring effect where people are going to start from the top of the (highly rated) list and work their way down until you have a top 10 over-rated list. If they actually asked people to rank them by 1-100 over-rated you may see more lower rated courses show up, but that is not how they usually compile these lists.

Thus, anytime you have a highly-rated list and over-rated list, they will have significant overlap between them.

I hope that clears it up...

[Sean Leary]

GM doesn't have raters per se like GD or GW, correct? Isn't it a list of architects and pros and important people in the world of golf?

If that is the case, I wonder how many of the modern courses many of them have seen anyway?  Raters get to places like Ballyneal. I wonder how many on the GM panel get to see these newer courses, and if there is a minimum number that need to play it to rate it?

[Tom_Doak]

The minimum number of raters who must see a course before it's ranked was ten when I was in charge, and I believe that's still the minimum number.  [Actually, it's even less ... if a course has only 7 or 8 votes, but would have made the list if three other people saw it and rated it badly, it gets ranked based on that.  But that's a bit more complicated, and very few courses have ever made the list on that basis.]

Way more than ten panelists have played Royal Melbourne East.

As for Five Farms, the problem is that few if any of the panelists have played the course since the restoration, so it's still being ranked on the basis of my vote (and others) from 10 years ago.  It takes some time after any restoration for any "bump" in the ratings to appear as a result ... that's true for all of the magazines, incidentally.

And for Steve L:  Sand Hills was ranked 30th or 40th when it first opened, and has (deservedly) moved steadily up the list since.  Same for Pacific Dunes and a relatively few other modern courses ... most start at their high point (because of the hype) and slowly fall off the list from there.  Check back with me in two years to see which way Ballyneal is moving.

I find it odd that everyone has missed how Friars Head has moved up significantly, or where Nanea debuted, or Old Sandwich, Machrihanish (!), or North Berwick (!!).  Surely there is some support for those subjective opinions, isn't there?

[Bill_McBride]

I'm kind of surprised to see North Berwick at #98 in the world.  It's one of my favorite courses but Top 100 in the world?  Maybe Top 100 Quirkiest.  

This may bring to light the relative importance in the golf world of GolfClubAtlas.com!  

[Kevin Pallier]

Fantastic to see North Berwick and Swinley Forest in the mix....and glad to another Australian course on the radar - a few more from GB&I + Australia would be nice.

Interested to see some stalwart European Tour venues Wentwoth and Valeramma slipping close to the "cut" mark ?

[John Kirk]

Yes!  And it counts!

I thought you'd enjoy seeing that, John.

 

So now rankings/lists do matter, huh?
 

You must have me confused with somebody else.  I love the rankings, and think they matter.  I evaluate everything obsessively.  Your last post gets a 4.

[Sean_A]

The minimum number of raters who must see a course before it's ranked was ten when I was in charge, and I believe that's still the minimum number.  [Actually, it's even less ... if a course has only 7 or 8 votes, but would have made the list if three other people saw it and rated it badly, it gets ranked based on that.  But that's a bit more complicated, and very few courses have ever made the list on that basis.]

Way more than ten panelists have played Royal Melbourne East.

As for Five Farms, the problem is that few if any of the panelists have played the course since the restoration, so it's still being ranked on the basis of my vote (and others) from 10 years ago.  It takes some time after any restoration for any "bump" in the ratings to appear as a result ... that's true for all of the magazines, incidentally.

And for Steve L:  Sand Hills was ranked 30th or 40th when it first opened, and has (deservedly) moved steadily up the list since.  Same for Pacific Dunes and a relatively few other modern courses ... most start at their high point (because of the hype) and slowly fall off the list from there.  Check back with me in two years to see which way Ballyneal is moving.

I find it odd that everyone has missed how Friars Head has moved up significantly, or where Nanea debuted, or Old Sandwich, Machrihanish (!), or North Berwick (!!).  Surely there is some support for those subjective opinions, isn't there?

I am surprised about North Berwick, Machrihanish and Cruden Bay.  Of the three though, I think NB is most deserving and perhaps the only one of the three which should have made it.  All the same, I would much rather see all of three on the list than some of the over-bloated reputation courses - Troon jumps off the page!  

It is a pity not to see St. Enodoc or Pennard on the list.  Not that I thought Pennard ever had a chance, but I would have thought St. Enodoc did.  

The two head scratchers for me are European Club and Turnberry.  I am not at all sure what folks see in these courses to call it top 100 in the world.

I would also have thought Old Town would have a decent shot, but I rarely see this course ranked anywhere except in NC ratings.  

I could mention a few others, but lastly, no love for Deal?    

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

You can add these to the bottom of Huck's Top 20:

Baltusrol
Quaker Ridge
Winged Foot East
Maidstone
Somerset Hills

Looking at the extended New York market, I would certainly rather play Piping Rock over all of the above. I don't think they necessarily are Top 100 in the world,  but I will take Yale, Kittansett, Newport CC and Engineers on a given day over all except for Maidstone. Based on pictures, I would guess Sebonnack too. Mr Hurricane certainly has an argument that Baltimore CC could easily be in the Tilly mix above.

It is a weird mix of hard (Winged Foot West) and quirk (Maidstone).

In Ireland, I have not played The European Club, but I would love Pat Ruddy or someone else tell me why I should travel south of Dublin rather than to the Northwest of Ireland, where there appears to be 3-4 courses that could be better? (Sligo, Enniscrone.....).

Tiger Bernhardt need not apply!!  

Let's be thankful The K Club did not pop on in some pre-Ryder Cup glory.

Rees gets more love on GCA.com than he does on Golf Magazine!

[Bill Gayne]

Based on what I've read and the pictures, I'm surprised Barnbougle Dunes is not on the list.

[Steve Lapper]

The minimum number of raters who must see a course before it's ranked was ten when I was in charge, and I believe that's still the minimum number.  [Actually, it's even less ... if a course has only 7 or 8 votes, but would have made the list if three other people saw it and rated it badly, it gets ranked based on that.  But that's a bit more complicated, and very few courses have ever made the list on that basis.]

Way more than ten panelists have played Royal Melbourne East.

As for Five Farms, the problem is that few if any of the panelists have played the course since the restoration, so it's still being ranked on the basis of my vote (and others) from 10 years ago.  It takes some time after any restoration for any "bump" in the ratings to appear as a result ... that's true for all of the magazines, incidentally.

And for Steve L:  Sand Hills was ranked 30th or 40th when it first opened, and has (deservedly) moved steadily up the list since.  Same for Pacific Dunes and a relatively few other modern courses ... most start at their high point (because of the hype) and slowly fall off the list from there.  Check back with me in two years to see which way Ballyneal is moving.

I find it odd that everyone has missed how Friars Head has moved up significantly, or where Nanea debuted, or Old Sandwich, Machrihanish (!), or North Berwick (!!).  Surely there is some support for those subjective opinions, isn't there?

Tom:

  While I believe your explanation for minimum visits and such, the process suggests that many courses may suffer (or even benefit) from "stale" visitation and "historic" review. They seem to move up and down based upon which other courses, near them in ranking, have had fresher or more recent looks. Such a system is inherently flawed and in dire need of a fresh algorithim or two.

   Let me once again state that I do like Ballyneal and think it's an excellent course, just not quite ready, as so many on this board have inferred, to displace Sand Hills or the many others that have stood the test of time and are perhaps more complete in a few categories. It certainly will move up over time and conditioning maturity will help accelerate that.

  As for the rise/fall of those you mentioned, I'd add that this is even further evidence that each year's ranking seems so connected to what the panels yearly migratory pattern yields. For example, it appears that a place like Seminole, Medinah or Baltusrol gets more regular or yearly visits than a Swinley Forest or a Durban or a Machrihanish, thus retaining a higher year-to-year skew than otherwise deserved. Is that just? Probably not, I think.

Bottom line: The whole damn process is flawed, but more often than not, trying to translate the subjective into the objective proves just that.

[TEPaul]

I actually like that top 20 list Tom Huckaby posted.

Look at that Pacific Dunes up there amongst all those great old warhorses.

You're on a roll Tom Doak.

[bakerg]

From Tom Doak:
"I find it odd that everyone has missed how Friars Head has moved up significantly, or where Nanea debuted, or Old Sandwich, Machrihanish (!), or North Berwick (!!).  Surely there is some support for those subjective opinions, isn't there? "

Tom- I agree with you I thought there would be a bit more chit chat about these moves.  I think Friars Head might be a bit too high.  I would have it behind Garden City among others.

I thought it was great to see Marchrihanish and Swinley added to the list.  I was surprised to see Nanea and Old Sandwhich on the list but from what I hear they are strong courses.  I just think that most people have not had a chance to play them.

I hope Pennard will eventually creep its way onto the World list.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()