GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And why ?

[guest]

Matt, I agree, now I have said that for the first time!

[Doug Sobieski]

Mrs. Reality:

In 1996, Consumer Reports had a rating of beers. There were various categories, naturally, but the one that stood out the most to me was for domestic lagers. The highest rated beers, in a tie, were Old Milwaukee and Stroh's. Two of the most criticized beers in America rose above their advertising-driven peers (such as Budweiser and Michelob) to hold the crown of "#1 Domestic Lager". What exactly does this mean? Nothing, of course. I just like beer and probably spend too much time thinking about it. The best part of the report was that my favorite, readily available beer was #1 in the microbrew catergory - Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.

In retrospect, however, this may relate to John Conley's point about players like Ben Wallace making it to the NBA. If you deserve to be someplace, ultimately you will find your way there. If your concern has to do with rankings somehow hindering future employment opportunities (which it sounds like to me), I think you may be selling yourself quite short. If you are good enough at what you do, you'll be noticed if you work diligently and intelligently to advance (and of course, have a great personality!). Overall, I think the architects would have the biggest beef about any of the process because they are the closest to actually being judged. For a super, golf professional, or GM to be adversely effected in the scope of their career is ridiculous. In the golf business, I always believed you needed to have a good view of what was ahead of you five years down the road. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that the rankings of any magazine had an impact that far reaching.

Peace out.

Sobe

[TRIPLE S]

For me theses rankings are quite important both personally and professionaly but after the debut of these latest rakings by Golfweek have caused me to greatly doubt the integrity of the raters and rankings themselves.  In the state of Minnesota public course rankings, they have The Pines at Grandview ranked #3 in the state.  My question is who is rating these courses and what could they possibly be thinking.  At best The Pines is somewhere between 10 and 15.  The ranking of this incredibly average golf couorse this high has seriously caused me to doubt the validity of not only the Golfweek rankings but all others as well.  


By the way John Conley, WHAT ABOUT THAT GOPHERS MENS BASKETBALL TEAM.  They are doing their best to remain an average team that will go nowhere.

[John Conley]

Dude, Minnesota lost a crucial game to Wisconsin.  You pretty much knew they'd close with road losses to Illinois and Indiana.  The Wisconsin loss makes them a probably 8-8.  Doesn't sound so bad until you net out wins over PSU and NW.  4-8 in the Big Ten.  Not good, particularly for a team as skilled as Minnesota.  The Conference tourney means a lot.  Two wins are needed at least, assuming they don't beat Illinois.  Truth is, no one is at home, so it'll be hard to predict the outcome.

As for the golf... Pines at Grand View was great when I moved away.  One of the top courses in the state regardless of access.  Since then, many new courses have been built and I've heard horror stories of growth along the fairways.  Pretty built up, no?  I have not seen as many new courses in Minnesota as I'd like.  

[Bye]

How come when a restoration is done by Rees, he gets a "co-architect" credit and when the restoration is by Mungeam, he's not recognized (a la Olympia Fields)?

[Mr Reality]

Mrs Reality,

why is it the magazines responsibility to direct raters to a specific golf course to make sure that the minimum number of golfers had seen it.  Do you want the magazine to micro manage the ratings ?

If the magazine undertook this practice wouldn't you and others accuse the magazine of exerting undo influence by directing the raters to specific courses ?

Ran Morrisset and Brad Klein

Ran you bring up an interesting point, how does Hollywood, or any other club go from a ranking in the fifties to off the charts, maybe Brad Klein can answer the question for us.

[Buck Wolter]

What is it they say in Hollywood? --It's better to have people saying bad things about you than saying nothing. Something like that.

Brad -- Keep up the good work, I'm starting my subscription to Golfweek.

[Donald Ross]

Bye
Mungeaum isn't on the award committee that Rees is on. The committee that gives out a certain award that a certain writer covets.
Donald

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed with Rees and the board, my 'Bethpage Mystery' is up for a more modest award - the Joseph Burbeck Award. Obviously my writing output is a little lean but that fits right in with an award named after an invisable designer. I don't want to appear over-confident but I think I have the inside track (I understand Pat Mucci is putting a good word in for me). Unfortunately the award is presented long after you've kicked the bucket...I'm sure my son will be proud.

[JohnV]

Since I'm not privy to the numbers, I can't say what they really are, but here is a scenario as to how a course like Hollywood might have dropped off.  First, consider that there probably isn't much separating #57 from #101 numerically.  For example, #57 on Golf Digest's rankings has 58.11 points while #100 has 55.63 for a difference of less than 2.5 points on a scale of something like 70 points max.  Given the Golfweek scale runs from 0-10 and it is a non-linear scale the difference between 57th and 101st is very slight.  So, assume that 10 raters had seen Hollywood last year and averaged 7 for a rating.  If 10 more raters saw it in 2002 and averaged a 6, the new value would be 6.5 and it would probably drop off the list.  It doesn't take a lot to cause big changes for courses that might not have been seen by many raters.

[Matt_Ward]

JohnV:

Let me just add this: if you size up the courses that GW rated in the classic column from the greater NY / NJ metro area you just have to shake your head and say how can Hollywood -- one of the nation's most underrated courses go from #57 and then completely drops out? Best of all -- both courses from Saucon Valley stay -- hello, any body home?

Yes, I'm sure these is some sort of mathematical argument, but from a qualititative standpoint it's a boner and I believe many knowledgeable folks who thoroughly know the area I'm talking about will concur. The same holds true for Plainfield -- although it finished #30 it deserves to go up just a slight bit.

Wykagyl is a fine course and one many people should play. It is not a top 100 classic -- especially if it means Hollywood says adios.

[JohnV]

Matt, I'm not arguing whether Hollywood is better or worse than the other courses you mentioned, just how things can change at the bottom of the lists very quickly.  I personally think that Hollywood is an excellent course and I would put it above Saucon Old which is the only course you mention that I've seen.  I definitely feel Hollywood belongs in the top 100.  Hopefully it will be back.  But then again, there are so many courses I haven't seen that it always a challange to make that kind of statement.  Perhaps someone could put me on a plane and take me on a tour where I would see 100 courses that I liked better.  Please ....

[Matt_Ward]

JohnV:

Thanks for your quick reply. Hollywood is a gem of layout and when GW placed it as #57 in the last ratings I was especially happy because here is a club that has flown below the radar screen for too long. Talk about a marvelous classic course that was updated quite nicely by Rees Jones!

I can mention a good number of so-called "top notch" clubs that are withint he top 50 that are there simply because of "reputation." To give you two examples -- Interlachen and White Bear. Both are fine clubs -- are they superior to Hollywood? In my opinion -- no.

John, there are a good number of solid courses in the USA -- I also believe it's very possible to identify the superior ones and those that are hanger-ons and wannabees. Hollywood is neither a hanger-on no wannabee.

When courses bounce that much (on and off) it makes you wonder what raters are really looking at -- where is the consistency? Is it different for those courses that are rated from 1-50 than from those 50-100? Ask any knowledgeable person of NY / NJ metro area golf and they'll quickly tell you where Hollywood belongs.

FYI -- By the way, I believe GD and GM also have fumbled the ball in not properly acknowledging the many qualities of Hollywood.

[Doug Wright]

I'm a little surprised Talking Stick North (#1 AZ Public Access) isn't on the list. Was it last year?

Re Colorado,  GC at Bear Dance and Devil's Thumb really need to be in the top 10. And no way should Green Valley Ranch be #7 in Colorado. It isn't a bad design but if Apache Stronghold is suffering ratingswise due to conditioning GVR ought to be off the list too from what I've heard. Castle Pines North and Breckenridge are way better than Green Valley IMO.

[David Wigler]

My biggest surprise was the omission of Rustic Canyon.  Given the tremendous positive PR that it has gotten on GCA and the fact that so many Raters are GCA people, I was certain it would make the list.  I think that its omission speaks wonders for the integrity of GCA's rating panel.

As for the argument about GCA outings and their effect on ratings, it is pure garbage.  The first outing was to Dafuskie and the result was that a whole bunch of raters saw Haig Point and it fell out of the top 100.  Then it moved to Bandon Dunes and everyone saw how good Bandon was, getting it to the top 10.  Then to Reynolds Plantation and no matter how excellent they treated us, Great Waters fell out of the top 100.  Then Victoria National which slipped slightly.  Finally Kiawah where the Ocean Course rightly moved up.  What this proves is the law of large numbers.  If you have a hidden gem or have done a tremendous renovation, then having a bunch of raters see it will help you in the ratings.  If your course is overrated then having a bunch of raters will hurt you.

Congrats to everyone, Johnathan and Brad.  Job well done!  

[Guest]

David Wigler,

if rustic canyon had the minimum number of raters review it and it didn't make the list maybe it didn't deserve to make the list, or the raters got it wrong, or they didn't meet the minimum.  Maybe Brad Klein can supply the missing information.

JohnV,

Wouldn't it still take a sizeable swing in a composite rating system to move a course from 57 to off the list.

Matt Ward,

Wykagyl over Hollywood ?
Hard to believe.

[Triple S]

John,

Sorry about the shot at the Gophs, as a non-native and someone who does not enjoy the Gophers as much as others, I couldn't resist.

As far as the Pines, 5 years ago I would agree that it was the leader of the courses in the Brainerd area, unfortunately for them, they have not tried to keep up with the times and continue to strive to improve the course.  Last year the rough was out of control due to some management practices, specifally using the acid injector to cope with the use of effluent water.  The effect of this acid releases all of the residual nitrogen in the soil and they simply could not keep up with the mowing.  

The fact of the matter now is that it is probably the 4th best course in the Brainerd area, behind The Classic, Deacon's Lodge and the Preserve.  I still contend that a golf course that has a stoplight to tell you if you can hit and then on the next hole a mirror has to go a long ways to be considered great.  

The construction boom has hit the Brainerd area quite hard, golf is becoming the major draw today as opposed to fishing.  The problem is we have to many courses in the area.  

If you ever get the chance to come here, let me know and I would be happy to show you the better new courses.  

[Jonathan Cummings]

Has anybody every considered the risk to a course by hosting the GW raters?  After 50-70 raters descend on a course for a rater event, that course will now have 50-70 more ratings than before.  The numerical average for that course has now been solidified.  Future ratings will have only slight impact to that average.  Seems to me that there is as much "risk" as "glory" in hosting these rater events.

JC

[ron]

I am not sure of where the information about the fee schedule at Arcadia Bluffs came from. The rate is not $200 for 2003. It remains at $160 and Spring and Fall specials at $75 are new. Check the Arcadia Bluffs.com site for rates.

[Buck Wolter]

Ron-
You're right about Arcadia, thanks. I could swear they had $200 posted earlier, but mea culpa. Also twilight is a great bargain up there as it stays light well after 9 pm in June and July. I've teed off after 5 and completed 18 walking.

Not sure about Hickory's style vs. substance comment as I haven't played The Kingsley Club. I agree Arcadia has style but I don't think it lacks substance. I don't think a Lake Michigan view should be held against it.

Buck

[Jonathan Cummings]

You know there is another thing surprising about the GW rating panel and something they should be credited with doing.  As far as I know, they are the first and only rating panel to make an effort in gathering their raters togther for training.   While the GW rater affairs are certainly social events, they are also a time to exchange notes, clear up misconceptions and listen to lectures from knowledgeable people in golf course archtitecture.

While you may not agree with the lists or even the approach, you have to tip your hat at the attempt of the GW panel to continually better their product through rater training.

JC

[Paul Richards]

Buck

I agree with your comments about Arcadia Bluffs.  It is a very strong course and is deserving of all the accolades it has seen.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Brad Klein

I'm surprised that AppleBrook is not included and I'm surprised that Somerset Hills is ranked so high.

Did AppleBrook meet the required minimum number of raters to be considered ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

I wondered about Applebrook back at the start of this thread, but nobody in the know seemed to want to tell us why it doesn't seem to get any respect from Golf Week raters or Management.  It deserves to.

[THuckaby2]

Add me to the "wonderers" re Applebrook, which I too way back at the beginning of this thread queried about.  As Rich says, it does seem to deserve more "respect" and I too wonder if enough GW raters saw it.  

TH