Golf Magazine's Top 100

« **Reply #75 on:** August 18, 2005, 01:38:10 PM »

If Cuscowilla is #15 on the GW Modern list, why isn't it on the GM or GD list? It's a great course, by well-loved architects. And we had a GCA event out there last year and a bunch of raters were in attendance. So plenty of people have seen it.

Why aren't C&C pushing to get more raters there? Are they pushing their newer courses instead? Why aren't the GM and GD folks recognizing the greatness?

« **Reply #76 on:** August 18, 2005, 01:47:14 PM »

Cuscowilla IS on GD list... #45 Top 100 public, #8 in GA.

So again a case of not as high as GW... but at least this time it does appear.

Isn't one possible conclusion that the GW folks prefer a certain style of course and/or certain architects... at least more than the other magazines do?

TH

« **Reply #77 on:** August 18, 2005, 01:55:30 PM »

Huck,

It's not on THE list and this is obviously a flaw....so the system is flawed. If GD and GM would just expand to 200 courses, then obviously every good course would be recognized and everyone would be as happy as a little leaguer after they get their "participation award".

200 is more than 100 and we all know more is better. Why can't you understand that?

« **Reply #78 on:** August 18, 2005, 01:56:50 PM »

OK, gotcha.

« **Reply #79 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Sandbox_Gracely on August 18, 2005, 01:38:10 PM

If Cuscowilla is #15 on the GW Modern list, why isn't it on the GM or GD list? It's a great course, by well-loved architects. And we had a GCA event out there last year and a bunch of raters were in attendance. So plenty of people have seen it.

Why aren't C&C pushing to get more raters there? Are they pushing their newer courses instead? Why aren't the GM and GD folks recognizing the greatness?

Sandbox,

If I were an golf course architect, the last thing I would ever think of doing is 'pushing to get more raters there'. It's unprofessional, unethical, and, in the end, none of their business. I'm not a rater but know quite a few and none of them have ever discussed any aspect of a specific rating with me. Even though the system is inherently 'flawed' it would be difficult to put one together that is any less 'flawed'. Each magazine probably has their own criteria for selection and I'm sure they are different and potentially result in a statistically significant list of Top 100, Top 200, or even Top 500. At the end of the day, by the way, who gives a shit? Does it make any difference in your enjoyment of the game whether you're playing #33 or #79 or #222 if you enjoy the golf course?

« **Reply #80 on:** August 18, 2005, 04:12:42 PM »

Mike,

So it's unprofessional for me to encourage influential people to come and see my work? I never said that I'm influencing them to vote a specific way. I struggle to see how you think that publicity is unprofessional.

Forget for a second that we're talking about the holier-than-thou religion of golf. What if we were talking about an art gallery, or a restaurant....where subjective "ratings" is a way of life. Am I a whore to have a pre-opening gallery party to show influential people what has been created for artwork?

The actual number of the ranking is not all that important, but it does seem to be pretty important to ALOT of people to be somewhere on the list.

« **Reply #81 on:** August 18, 2005, 04:49:37 PM »

Sandbox,

It's my understanding that the entire rating process is supposed to be anonymous. Therefore, inviting raters to play is inconsistent with that process. Inviting paid magazine editors and writers is certainly within the boundaries of professionalism because they will be writing under their own names, not part of a larger group that is supposed to provide a cross section of opinions.

There's nothing wrong with publicity or marketing your golf course but 'pushing to get more raters' invites criticism and the possibility to somehow skew the process.

By the way, I've played golf courses in a group of several raters and saw no attempt by the staff to influence their opinions. It's one thing to allow raters access, it's another to try to influence their ratings. I think we would agree on that.

« **Reply #82 on:** August 18, 2005, 05:01:40 PM »

Mike G:

The key architects know plenty of people who are raters from the different main groups and through the course of time. It is not unlikely or unheard of for these architects to make known to these raters when their respective projects are ready to come forward. I receive newsletters and the like from several of them.

That's why I am strongly in favor of randomly assigning courses for different raters. This avoids cherry-picking off those folks who are predisposed to rate highly the work of certain designers.

If panelists can't make the visit after several instances of truly trying than I believe it's time to retire the guilty parties and seek input from other new raters.

« **Reply #83 on:** August 18, 2005, 08:25:32 PM »

Mike G: It's pretty naive to assume that this whole process is supposed to be anonymous. It's anything but. There are dozens of members of this DG who are practically advertising the fact that they ARE panelists, and there are dozens of architects who invite them to come see their courses.

As a member of the latter group, I don't kiss butts, but I know there is a VERY strong correlation between being liked by these panelists and having your courses rated highly. And I'm hardly alone; in fact I would defy you to name a single architect whose work is praised on this web site who HASN'T hosted some raters and some members of this DG at some of his courses.

The main reason courses are rated highly at first and then fall back is because the first people to go and play them and vote on them are always the people who already know that architect and generally like his work. I'm not sure if that's cherry-picking as Matt says, or simply a natural process that could be diffused a bit by assigning raters to go see particular courses.

And no, to whoever asked, I can't vote on my own courses. Neither can any architect ... although I think they let us vote on older courses where we are doing consulting work. I think that's fine, as long as our names are not going to appear in the list of credits for anything we're voting on, but they do not credit such work with any consistency.

« **Reply #84 on:** August 19, 2005, 07:19:05 AM »

Tom Doak-

Tom, I am homer when it comes to Deal. No doubt about it.. It was our mutual compadre RT who whispered in my ear that I had to get down there and I fell in love with it. You wrote in the Confidential Guide that Deal is course that must be played to be enjoyed, understood. It is a course more stark and demanding then most, a cruel taskmaster in the wind (ask the blokes I hosted from this forum back in May (Rihc Goodale, Sean Arble, Craig Disher).. It will never win any beauty contest but to me it is the fairest links I've played (and I've played about 55/100 on the Golf World GB&I List so that is a lot of links) that still has the quirk and fun factor attached to it. I'd really love to play it with you one day with RT and the club secretary in a nice game of foursomes. The work Donald Steel has done is subtle there but the course easily could hold an open and the locals reckon it is 2 shots harder than Sandwich. I wonder if it could host the Open again whether it would skyrocket up the list. I don't know anyone who would travel to Deal to play unless they are going to RSG...

Maybe, I am just bias, maybe I just like links and heathland golf better than all the rest. That is true, that is why the Golf World Top 100 list is probably the least controversal.

Tom, I'd love to see you, Gil, RT or C&C get a shot at building a Kyle Phillips esque "Grove" in the UK.. Given the terrain, it would be amazing to see what you guys could do in Heathland type terrain..

« **Reply #85 on:** August 19, 2005, 09:25:57 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on August 18, 2005, 08:25:32 PM

And I'm hardly alone; in fact I would defy you to name a single architect whose work is praised on this web site who HASN'T hosted some raters and some members of this DG at some of his courses.

Tom,

KELLY BLAKE MORAN...never done it for raters or blindly for someone...just friends!

a little back-water Texas-style humility that goes a long way!

« **Reply #86 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:52:20 AM »

Did The Huckster have a Canseco-Milkshake for breakfast? I thought he moved to Yahoo, not Balco.

Mike

« **Reply #87 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:57:15 AM »

Chicks dig us bulky studs.

« **Reply #88 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:23:05 AM »

That was a sunny day with a wind that Mr. Huntley called "a minor zephyr" but that as you can see, is damn near knocking me over. It was kinda cold. So well said!

Nice little course that's taken at.

« **Reply #89 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:59:22 AM »

Hmmmm... I do like to think that if we ever did a GCA's Top 100 Golfer Photos thread, that would be on it. Somehow the cat who ate the canary comes to mind... among other things....

« **Reply #90 on:** November 21, 2005, 11:42:30 PM »

We celebrated Thanksgiving early tonight. Our host pulled out the December 2005 issue of Golf magazine. In it, they had their New mexico list.

Is there another reason that Black Mesa does not appear, other than not enough votes?

Pinon Hills did make the top spot, with paa ko second and then followed bySanta ana and Isleta. The Championship South coure was listed 10th in the state.

« **Reply #91 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:06:32 AM »

Adam,

How Black Mesa is not on everyone's must play list when going to New Mexico I do not know. Fantastic course, those Golf Mag guys need to get out more.

« **Reply #92 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:34:51 AM »

Adam:

Frankly, any publication that does not include Black Mesa at the top of the list for golf in the Land of Enchantment is truly ignorant of the landscape there.

It would be no less than having another course at the top of the Jersey golf hierarchy instead of PV.

Truly mindboggling.

« **Reply #93 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:13:00 AM »

Guys - read the article - it's one guy's opinion. Hard to damn Golf Magazine as an enterprise for this.

INTERESTING.... one guy completely misses a course.... hmmmm.... in what other discussion could this be applied, as a concrete example of a potential weakness....

hmmmmmmm.............

« **Reply #94 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:20:29 AM »

Huck:

Nice try partner but you don't get the point I made on a previous thread.

Too many times the average golf travel writer is clueless -- simply writing about the subject with little or no real depth in terms of courses / architecture, you name it. In many cases the knowledge of golf is on par with what is the best lodging, food, etc, etc. Basic 101 info level.

For anyone to not know about Black Mesa given the amount of press and attention that has been given is beyond mindboggling -- it speaks of ignorance at the highest level.

The position I pointed out previously is someone with a total command of the subject matter and is well versed in having a multitude of different sources that unearth the known and hidden gems that exist.

« **Reply #95 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:27:00 AM »

Matt:

Of course that's what you HOPE would happen.

Interesting what this recent evidence shows. How do you know how ignorant or smart or well-travelled this guy is? For all you know he could play more nation-wide than you, and have more contacts than Tom Doak.

The point is this: leave it to one guy and the system lives and dies with his whims, moods, errors, ommissions. Seems pretty risky to me.

« **Reply #96 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:39:01 AM »

Huck:

You must think that such people don't exist.

Allow me to clue you in -- they do.

It's also laughable when you say the writer of this piece is knowledgeable by any application one deems sufficient.

Missing Black Mesa is like missing Pine Valley when coming to Jersey. The total amount of contacts / courses played doesn't square the reality that ignorance by this writer is some sort of bliss.

When the readership knows more than the author you have a major league problem called CREDIBILITY.

Astute observers do exist -- this dinosaur ratings panel scheme you embrace is flawed for a host of reasons (self interest among them partner!) I have written about along with the comments of others. Real information exists today on a 24/7 level and someone with the kind of expertise I am speaking about would also compliment their own knowledge with that of informed sources throughout the globe.

« **Reply #97 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:45:12 AM »

Quote from: Brian_Gracely on August 18, 2005, 04:12:42 PM

Mike,

So it's unprofessional for me to encourage influential people to come and see my work? I never said that I'm influencing them to vote a specific way. I struggle to see how you think that publicity is unprofessional.

Forget for a second that we're talking about the holier-than-thou religion of golf. What if we were talking about an art gallery, or a restaurant....where subjective "ratings" is a way of life. Am I a whore to have a pre-opening gallery party to show influential people what has been created for artwork?

The actual number of the ranking is not all that important, but it does seem to be pretty important to ALOT of people to be somewhere on the list.

Mike,

I tend to agree with Brian.

In one sense I don't see how inviting people to see the product you've created taints their judgement.

On the other hand, the professional (?) integrity of the invitees is at risk, vis a vis, quid pro quo, if they feel obligated to reciprocate for the hosts generosity vis a vis a more favorable evaluation.

And here is where I differ with some of the rating systems.

I think there should be a buffer or incubation period before the rater can render his or her evaluation. A cooling off period, so to speak, that allows the rater to distance themselves from their exposure to the "wow" factor and any sense of obligation relative to their host.[/color]

« **Reply #98 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:51:57 AM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on November 22, 2005, 10:39:01 AM

Huck:

You must think that such people don't exist.

Allow me to clue you in -- they do.

It's also laughable when you say the writer of this piece is knowledgeable by any application one deems sufficient.

Missing Black Mesa is like missing Pine Valley when coming to Jersey. The total amount of contacts / courses played doesn't square the reality that ignorance by this writer is some sort of bliss.

When the readership knows more than the author you have a major league problem called CREDIBILITY.

Astute observers do exist -- this dinosaur ratings panel scheme you embrace is flawed for a host of reasons (self interest among them partner!) I have written about along with the comments of others. Real information exists today on a 24/7 level and someone with the kind of expertise I am speaking about would also compliment their own knowledge with that of informed sources throughout the globe.

Who said I embraced any dinosaur ratings scheme?

I fully acknowledge its flaws. I just see great potential for abuse in the one-man system you espouse. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be an improvement, only that it also would not be perfect.

And you just have no self-interest in this, huh? Right.

Come on Matt, quit politicking for the job and start thinking logically.

TH

« **Reply #99 on:** November 22, 2005, 11:09:31 AM »

Huck:

Take off the dunce cap, with all due respect, for once in your life.

This isn't about me -- it's about the credibility of the publications that bring forward such "ratings." There are a number of fine people who could do what I have suggested. Some even work today but unfortunately are permitted to work both sides of the aisle -- a clear conflict of interest in my mind that fails to respect the intelligence / needs of its readers.

We do agree -- panels don't work for a host of reasons.

Today's world has a myriad of tools that would allow for such a person to tap into what is out "in the field." A very bright and motivated person is fully capable in doing what I have suggsted. Today's information age provides the mechanism to stay in tune with what is happening -- anywhere on the globe.

I have thought this out logically. The idea is to ELEVATE the credibility of the final outcomes -- not weigh it down with all the conflicts, parochialism, that exist now. Unfortunately, the publications think that "free advice" from the raters is knowledeable across the board. It is nothing more than "gut impulses" that often lack any real analysis beyond surface level stuff.

Candidly, what is the fear in doing what I have suggested? If anything the actual process / procedures would be far better because of it.

I guess it would mean one less topic to discuss here on GCA.

News:

Brian_Gracely

THuckaby2

Brian_Gracely

THuckaby2

Mike_Golden

Brian_Gracely

Mike_Golden

Matt_Ward

Tom_Doak

NAF

Steve Lapper

Mike Hendren

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

A_Clay_Man

Craig Van Egmond

Matt_Ward

Tom Huckaby

Matt_Ward

Tom Huckaby

Matt_Ward

Pat_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Matt_Ward