[wsmorrison]

Matt,
I cannot think of a single course that doesn't take repeated play/study to fully appreciate and understand the architecture.  This is one of the inherent flaws in ratings.  I don't think the majority of raters can take enough in while playing a single round.  If there needs to be ratings, and that is far from assured, there should be a system where the courses that are rated are published, since the method I propose is more time consuming and the number of courses studied will slowly increase.  These courses should be judged more according to a Doak scale than the best in state or whatever.  Maybe there should be only 10 10s and 20 9s and 50 8s and 100 7s or something like that.  It should be required that raters play (if they must) and then walk the course before turning in a score.  If the raters were like Tom Doak, Bill Coore, and the like, then less time would be required.  I suspect the raters in general are far from that sophisticated.  They may delude themselves into thinking so, but hardly likely.  So Matt, I totally disagree with you that Pinehurst #2 is one of the very few courses that require significant time playing and studying to fully appreciate.  Some courses clearly require less time, others more, but I am not convinced that raters can properly make a worthwhile study in a single round of play nor can the overwhelming majority of the rest of us.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Sorry partner but I disagree with you regarding my take on #2. I've played my share of layouts throughout the globe and my sense is that the greatness of #2 is really very special and does require a good bit more time than others I have played.

Wayne -- #2 is ike the mystery woman we want to know more about. #2 doesn't reveal too much -- too soon -- too fast. I've played my share of the "great" courses in the USA and abroad and IMHO there are few courses that pattern themselves in exactly that manner. You can disagree until the cows come home but that's my take on it. #2 doesn't have the visual stimuli that matters to some -- it builds itself through a reliance on placement of shots, to name just one aspect of her greatness.

Let's also be a bit more real -- many courses are similar to people -- first impressions can mean lasting ones.

Also -- where do you get off lumping all raters together? There are some fine people who do a superb job in understanding what is expected of them when they review and the amount of detail they can provide through a single visit is quite impressive. You may not believe that but frankly I've met my share of people who can size up the  information / analysis that makes for a worthwhile review. I may even disagree with them on occasion but to simply say that only a divine few can understand golf is really quite elitist.

C'mon Wayne -- where do you get off with this idea that only architects have such a discerning eye? By the way -- the broad brush technique is rather sad considering the fact that you don't know the time and effort I do with such matters of this kind. Ditto others who do likewise. Do you think I simply scurry from one course to the next without reviewing the facility in detail on all aspects and then shoot from the hip with a blah up or down vote on its merits?

But hey -- why not just make a broad brush generalzied comment that all raters can't "get it" and that all forms of comparisons and contrasts that ratings inevitably raise are worthless unless they are done by "insiders" who know far much more than others are capable of grasping. I hear what you're selling Wayne but I'm not buying it. Tom Doak provided analysis from "Confidential Guide" that did not have him playing all the courses he listed -- in some cases it was just spot analysis from a quick walk or ride through the property. Does that make his assessment spot on in all situations? I don't think so.  

Let me also mention that my ratings don't come from just a single visit to a good number of courses I see. I usually make return visits over the course or time to a number of layouts here in the USA and abroad.

[Andy Hughes]

I thought we had put this discussion to bed some time ago!

Matt,we had, and I was hoping that I had flown in under the radar without your noticing!  

But I think your main contention, that it takes repeated play over a long period to fully appreciate the qualities of #2, actually works against you. If what you say is true, then #2 would certainly NOT be ranked as highly if it was opened now; it would have to somehow be played often over time by raters before its charms became known and it started to move up in the rankings.
This is an old point between us, but courses built these days on 'mundane' ground like #2 without obvious natural advantages (like Sand Hills, Friar's Head, or Pacific Dunes for example) just do not end up in the top twenty, much less the top 10. It just doesn't happen. Whether this is fair or not is another matter.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

How much time would #2 have taken to be noticed?

I'll say this again -- if you have people who are truly national in scope as course raters the time frame would not take long because what #2 offers is clearly superior in the manner by which the course presents itself.

Let me also point out that gems such as Cypress Point actually have risen in the polls (see early Digest polls) -- ditto Crystal Downs, among others and the ascension of both courses didn't take long at all.

Andy -- you entirely miss the point I'm making.

There are raters who are caught up with the visual stimuli and sometimes overlook the characteristics of courses that are not "impressive" by eye but have all the gusto in the manner by which quality shotmaking is identified throughout the round. Pinehurst #2 fits that bill.

Andy -- the issue is NOT the course -- BUT THE RATERS! You need to focus on the latter and forget the former.  

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

I never disagreed with you that #2 takes considerable time to fully appreciate, I believe it is true.  I have only played it once and was underwhelmed but my expectations were very high and not met so I think this had a great deal to do with my impression of the course.  I am not in aposition to make a valid analysis.  I think Craig Disher might, he's a member and has been there hundreds of times and his analysis is far more valuable.  Since I am not a fan of the way the green sites are presented, it fails in my personal opinion as being one of the greatest courses in America.  What I tried to point out in my earlier post was ALL courses need a more concerted and longer term consideration to know them well enough to split hairs and differentiate between #10 and #50 or #250 for that matter.  

The only way I lump raters together is to say that their collective efforts are mostly valueless and reveal little.  One round played is not enough to offer a constructive analysis and I don't care who you are or what the course.  Coore and Doak would be a lot better at it than you or any other rater.  Why?  Because they know more than you or any other rater ever will about architecture and how to look at a golf course and understand its design.  I don't think you scurry from one course to another but I certainly think for the majority of courses you see you don't see enough and therefore you don't know enough to make your work of value to me.  What percentage of courses you rate do you see more than once?  What is the average number of visits you make to courses you rate?  It helps to see 1000 courses but not if you don't know what you see.  I don't care if you're buying what I'm selling.  You are defensive about my general arguments and merely internalize them based on your opinion of your own efforts.  I am not pointing fingers at specific people.  I don't know how you rate courses but I also don't know why you bother.  If being a rater didn't mean access, how many would be raters?  

I feel comfortable stating that raters in general are incapable of providing me with insights based on a single round visit.  If raters visit more than once under different conditions and take the time to walk and study in addition to playing then there is a chance they might have something to offer.  But you overestimate your abilities to analyze courses you haven't spent a great deal of time on.  I believe raters in general overestimate their abilities and it doesn't bother me if you disagree.  I never said architects have a better eye for studying a golf course than some raters although I believe it is generally true.  I said that Coore and Doak are better than any of you and have superior eyes for golf architecture.  Pull the needle out of your arm and get real if you think this isn't true.  Are you telling me that Doak, Coore, Andrew, Forse, Prichard, Mingay, Cowley, and scads of others aren't world's ahead of any of you raters?  Jeezus that is ridiculous if you don't believe that.  I don't care if you were on site for a month of sundays there is no way you can match the eye, knowledge base, and architectural understanding of any of the aforementioned gentlemen.  I don't feel I have anything worthwhile to offer anyone about courses I have little experience at.  I do think what I would have to say about Rolling Green, Philadelphia Country, Huntingdon Valley, Merion, and a few others is of some value.   But I don't have any delusions that raters seem to have about the value of their efforts where limited.  Have I met a number of interesting raters and fellows that care about what they do?  Yes, in fact I met 3 today that I thought very informed and wonderful to talk to.  

The reason for ratings is to sell magazines; meaningful results are far from provided.  Sorry but that is what I feel.  If you have fun doing what you're doing, have fun.  I don't agree with the merits of the endeavor and that's my final thoughts on the subject.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy -- you entirely miss the point I'm making.

Perhaps Matt, but I don't think so. I gather your general point is that Pinehurst #2 is so magnificent, its attributes so great, that raters who know their stuff would recognize it for the gem you say it is and that even if it was designed by Andy Hughes and opened next week, it would soon attain the lofty rank it currently holds.  
My over-riding problem with that opinion is that if you look at, for example, Golf Digest's Top 100 (http://golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200305100greatest.html), no courses built of late make it to the top. None.  Muirfield is at #18, but that is already 30 years old, and also has clear advantages (it was built by someone slightly better known than Andy Hughes, and it gets mega-exposure each year).
Sand Hills is at #38, opened 10 years ago. Is it really only the 38th best course in the country (full disclosure: I've never been there).  If I opened Pinehurst #2 tomorrow, would it be considered much better, and ranked much higher, than Sand Hills?
Is it likely that the top 30 courses in the United States (excepting Muirfield) were all built many decades ago?
Is Augusta National, as it currently sits, really the second best golf course in the United States?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

To answer your question the reason why newer courses have a hard with Digest ratings is the desire to insert tradition / walking and all other non-course related specifics in order to shore up the bent towards the classic and traditoinal courses from years gone by.

I'm not saying that all of the old time courses need some propping up to keep them up as high as they are but clearly Digest has inserted this in order to do so.

[Paul Richards]

Andy

if you want to see some 'new' courses that make it to the top, look at Golf Digest's lists of Best in State.  Each year, the brand-new courses rate out near the top, and a few years later, they all fall way down the list.

Golf Digest does a GREAT job with their top courses in the country list.  Unfortunately, their best in state lists leave something to be desired....

That being said, Pinehurst #2 should be in ANYONE's top 10.

Personally, it's in my top 5.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Hey Wayne:

Appreciate your "final thoughts."

In my experiences in reviewing courses there are some that I have played that require several looks in order to properly assess all the aspects that generally fly below the radar screen.

#2 is one of those layouts. You may believe in your own mind that ALL courses require some level of visits in order to be assessed. Guess what Wayne -- how many visits would you believe is acceptable until one hits the magic number?

Tom Doak made comments on the courses he profiled in "Confidential Guide" and some of them he only walked very quickly and did not even play. If my methodology is faulty I would think you would need to apply the sharp verbal blade to others -- right?

Now Wayne -- hold on with the broad brush when you say raters as a "group" don't know shit from shine-ola. By the way when you mention the names of Doak, Coore, et al, there's this idea that architects have this all-seeing / all-knowing intrinsic qualities in knowing what it is they are looking at. I've read Doak's comments in "Confidential Guide" and even he admits that people will see things differently than him and he doesn't come off with the thoughts you have expressed.

I've also seen the listing of courses that architects have mentioned as great courses and truth be told I disagree because with a number of picks in some instances architects have conflict of interest issues and in some cases are dead flat wrong in their analysis IMHO.

Wayne -- you have no idea on what a number of dedicated raters and reviewers do. You see the bad apples and then say well it's all the same drivel. Again -- so be it.

Help me to understand when you say "meaningful results are far from provided." Can you provide specific examples from where you draw your conclusion with such a statement?

I like to compare and contrast courses and ratings is part of the process. I don't know how a course stands on its own until I compare it with others of comparable quality. Do ratings sell magazines. Sure they do. But, the ones that matter to me need to protect their credibility in how they go about doing such a thing. Clearly, people of good intentions will disagree and that's fine -- I concur with Doak that if people will agreeabout 80% of the time you can chalk up the rest as being just a matter of preference.

You also dodged my point that I have made repeated visits to certain key courses and weighed in with how things have evolved. Frankly, if you don't care for my opinion so be it. I'm no less inclined to treat your opinion with any more standing than what mine has received. Again -- so be it. Enjoy your golf this year as I certainly will -- ratings or not!

[Andy Hughes]

Andy
if you want to see some 'new' courses that make it to the top, look at Golf Digest's lists of Best in State.  Each year, the brand-new courses rate out near the top, and a few years later, they all fall way down the list.
Golf Digest does a GREAT job with their top courses in the country list.  Unfortunately, their best in state lists leave something to be desired....
That being said, Pinehurst #2 should be in ANYONE's top 10.
Personally, it's in my top 5.

 

Paul,
Thank you for your comments, but whether #2 should or shouldn't be in someone's top 10 isn't actually the point Matt and I are arguing. We are arguing whether, if it was designed by me or some other unknown and opened tomorrow, it would be one of the top 10 courses in the country (and by extension, a number of other highly ranked and old courses).
The fact that there are absolutely no newer courses even sniffing the first ten in Golf Digest's list of the Top 100 strongly implies to me that the answer is clearly no.  
As further proof, after a decade Sand Hills has barely cracked the top 40 (I believe; memory not what it used to be and I could have that number a bit wrong).  A full decade and it is only at 40.
Does anyone truly believe that Pinehurst #2 both is a far better course and would also, in spite of Sand Hills jaw-dropping terrain, be recognized as far better?
AH

[Andy Hughes]

Andy:
To answer your question the reason why newer courses have a hard with Digest ratings is the desire to insert tradition / walking and all other non-course related specifics in order to shore up the bent towards the classic and traditoinal courses from years gone by.
I'm not saying that all of the old time courses need some propping up to keep them up as high as they are but clearly Digest has inserted this in order to do so.

Matt
Actually, that occurred to me after I made my post, and I think there is some validity to that point.
I don't know how much weight is given to the 'tradition' component; is it really enough to keep a better course 30 or 40 or 50 spots below a slightly 'worse' course? I have no idea. If so, that seems incredibly disproportionate.

But, even granting that, that self-same issue would plague a Pinehurst #2 if it came out today. And that would keep it from attaining the high ranking that it currently has, wouldn't it?  
As I said in a prior post, I genuinely do not think if it opened today that #2 would be ranked as high as Sand Hills from all I have seen and heard (normal disclaimer--I've never been to SH), and Sand Hills has barely cracked the top 40 after 10 years. Do you think #2 would be ranked so much higher than SH?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You seem to discount the huge impact such categories of tradition / walking, et al can mean. Just the slightest difference in point allotment can spell a specific outcome -- whether higher or lower or not at all.

When Digest inserted all non-course related criteria it was an attempt to protect itself against raters who were posting numbers on NEW courses that would then jump high into the ratings.

Andy -- I know this because I rated for Digest for 17 years and including non-courrse related criteria only caused me to wonder just what is being rated and if it is indeed appropriate. In my mind -- it's not and like I said before if a course of quality like #2 did open and you had well-traveled panelists who have played / seen a good share of courses it's my opinion that the greatness of #2 would prevail and be rated where it is.

[Andy Hughes]

You seem to discount the huge impact such categories of tradition / walking, et al can mean. Just the slightest difference in point allotment can spell a specific outcome -- whether higher or lower or not at all.

Matt, quite the contrary. I don't discount it, I freely admitted in my prior post that I don't know how much effect the 'history component' has.  I certainly defer to your greater knowledge/experience on this, though I don't see how you can say the tradition component can have a huge impact on a course's rating, and then strongly imply that a #2 opening today would not suffer from that same impact.  If tradition is a huge factor, and #2 opened today it would receive a 0 in tradition, then how could #2 if it opened today attain the same high ranking that it currently enjoys?  There is a disconnect there that I am not getting...

...if a course of quality like #2 did open and you had well-traveled panelists who have played / seen a good share of courses it's my opinion that the greatness of #2 would prevail and be rated where it is.

But this sidesteps the issue that no new courses have made the top 30 for decades, and more specifically, the comparison between Sand Hills and #2.  Sand Hills has been out for a decade now, and is nowhere near the top 10.  Is it your contention that #2 is a far better course than SH and would be rated much higher?  Or that #2 would be the one course immune from the fact that no courses built in the last 30-40 years make the top rungs?

[Matt_Ward]

Hey Andy:

You need to read what I just said.

Tradition points keep Sand Hills from an even HIGHER rating. IMHO, Sand Hills is in my personal top ten and I believe merits such consideration beyond where it is placed now by Digest.

GD simply added a tradition category as a protective scam to keep all of the so-called classic courses right where they are. It seems Digest did not fully "trust" their raters after the Shadow Creek fiasco a few seasons ago. The panelists are not involved with the awarding of tradition points if my memory is correct. It's purely an "inside" function.

Pinehurst #2 if it opened today would in my opinion achieve the lofty status it has today PROVIDED the people who do the ratings are seasoned enough and well traveled enough to make such comments. Too many courses today burst on the scene akin to a bottle rocket launched on July 4. By July 5 or 6 that same course(s) have likely fallen back to earth because they rely solely, or a good part of them do, on visual stimuli. Raters who are prey tp such stimuli often miss the other aspects that make such courses like #2 so compelling and endearing over the course of time.

I personally have issues with Digest using 800+ people -- many of whom are locally and regionally based and not sufficiently informed to make the kind of cross comparisons that a legitimate rankings must provide in order to be credible.

[Andy Hughes]

You need to read what I just said.
Tradition points keep Sand Hills from an even HIGHER rating. IMHO, Sand Hills is in my personal top ten and I believe merits such consideration beyond where it is placed now by Digest.

Matt, truly, I think YOU need to read what you just said.  If tradition points are what keeps Sand Hills from attaining a top ten ranking, then why would the exact same issue not apply to a Pinehurst #2 that opens today?  What is it about #2 that would make it immune to what effects Sand Hills and every single other course built in the last 40 years?  

Pinehurst #2 if it opened today would in my opinion achieve the lofty status it has today PROVIDED the people who do the ratings are seasoned enough and well traveled enough to make such comments.....Raters who are prey tp such stimuli often miss the other aspects that make such courses like #2 so compelling and endearing over the course of time.

I think for the sake of argument we should assume that the raters today would be the same raters tomorrow, and that if there are issues with the competency of today's raters the same issues would apply to tomorrow's raters.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Two points -- IMHO Pinehurst #2 is THAT good -- you are the one who raised the initial issue on Sand Hills and its standing in the Digest poll.

You ask me about #2 -- the issue is about shotmaking when you play the course. Too many people need visual stimuli in order for them to believe a course has qualities through and through. #2 identifies situations in a very low key but thorough manner and the wherewithal to handle the vexing greens lies at the heart of the course. Now let me reiterate what I said earlier -- when you have raters who look beyond the visual stimuli then and ONLY THEN will they really appreciate the depth of greatness that is #2.

I stand behind what I said concerning the fact that a bulk of Digest raters are really local or regional in their scope and don't have enough visits nationwide to begin the process of cross comparison.

I disagree with your premise that any future situation would still have that particular issue because tomorrow's raters would be the same as today. I don't believe that. The issue is one of due diligence by any magazine in having the appropriate people who can do the kind of research needed.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I'll probably get shot for this but I have always thought #5 is not good golf architecture because it is simply too hard.  A golf hole should possess proportionality - in this I mean the landing area/target is larger the further the architect asks you to hit it.  PVGC #8 is an exellent example of good proportionality - this tiny terrifying green perched on a hillock would be a joke of a target for a mid-to-long iron approach.  But as a sand wedge approach it is a fair and thrilling test.  #5 at Pinehurst has a large green but a small effective landing area which is simply asking too much of a required 3-wood (or even driver) approach.

JC

[Craig Disher]

Putting on #5 was the only time in my life that I have putted the ball INTO a bunker - and the hole was nearly in the center of the green. It's a hard hole if you worry about par - but it's great for match play. Maybe Ross was asking you to give back the stroke you might have picked up on #4.

[Andy Hughes]

Matt
I give up, you have worn me down: I have tried to find out from you why think certain things are the way they are, and you have continually found ways of sidestepping those things.  All I have wanted to know is:
1. Why is it that no courses in the last 40 years are in the top of the rankings?
2. If SH is as good as so many here say it is, then it is as good as #2 and yet it barely made the top 50 after a decade. Why? Or do you think #2 is much better?
3. If 'tradition' points are as important to the final ranking of a course as you say, why would #2 be immune from that?  

Please, don't tell me about sensitive, well-travelled and seasoned raters--I get that, and besides, its not really the point.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Great Discussion...
Jonathon, #5 wouldn't be a great hole if it weren't surrounded by so many other great holes.  It is simply the piece of the puzzle that fits the I need a tough as nails unbelievably long and tough to fit puzzle piece.  

I have to believe that #2 is tht great. As many times as it has been stated in this thread, the golf course is simply a tremendous set of strategic questions that must be answered.  The greens may actually hinder the golf course because we spend so much time discussing and ignore the quality of the routing and bunkering.  

I have long wondered why a great course is so easily distinguished from the good one near by.  What is clear is that even without the ocean Cypress is still a great golf course.  Pebble Beach is a great golf course without the views.  And Sand Hills?

We are distracted by the extraneous and need to concentrate more on the simplicity.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Let me answer your questions directly ...

1). At the top of the ratings for openings within the last 40 years for me would be courses like Sand Hills and The Golf Club, to name just two. I would put Pacific Dunes slightly behind those two clubs but still among the very best I have played among modern courses.

Let me once AGAIN say that Digest is one publication that inserted extra points for tradition and even walking. I have explained more than enough times how that can skew things for certain courses whose architectural heft (not #2 IMHO) is at issue.

2). I believe #2 is beyond the likes of Sand Hills. I attach a significance to the fact that a course has been tested under the conditions of a major event to see how the world's best would fare there. #2 has been the site for a nmber of crucial events for so many years. Sand Hills is a superb design and even without the aspect of a championship being played there still demonstrates a dynamic presentation that few courses could ever hope to attain.

Andy -- you need to realize the shortcomings of the nature of a good number of panelists who really don't traverse the country but play their respective selections from their "neck of the woods." In my opinion -- that's one of the shortcomings. Sand Hills has not attained its rightful ranking IMHO simply because of a tweaking by those connected to the magazine -- I've yet to meet a rater from any publication who after playing Sand Hills doesn't believe it to be one of the tp layouts in the USA.

3). #2 doesn't need tradition points to be rated as high as it is. The problem for a number of raters is that they need the added visual stimuli to really juice up the visit for them. Hello Andy --have you not heard this before from me? Keep in mind that #2 held its own even before the arrival of the '99 Open. Credit that to Club Corporation after the long and disasterous ownership from Diamond Head had nearly ruined the course.

Let me also correct you -- I'm not the one who has instituted tradition points -- Digest did.

When you say raters who are well traveled and knowledgeable is besides the point -- sorry my friend -- that is the point! When you have seasoned and well traveled people who know what they're looking at you avoid the kind of situation where dynamic modern design is often lost in the sauce because the architect of today is not given his rightful stature for the product(s) they have produced. It also helps when you have dutiful raters who understand that flash and dash does not lie at the heart of outstanding design -- if people don't get #2 then they really need a better set of glasses IMHO.

Andy -- you may not want to acknowledge that dimension but frankly I do. To continue to banter back and forth is really silly since I've explained my position more than a few times. If you disagree with it -- so be it. Do yourself a favor -- go to #2 -- play it a few times and then opine on whether or not it deserves its standing. To do otherwise -- wastes your time and certainly mine.

[Andy Hughes]

Let me answer your questions directly ...

Aha! Now we'e getting somewhere!  

1). At the top of the ratings for openings within the last 40 years for me would be courses like Sand Hills and The Golf Club, to name just two. I would put Pacific Dunes slightly behind those two clubs but still among the very best I have played among modern courses.

Super choices, no complaints from me.
My issue though, is with the fact that none of those courses are anywhere near the top of the rankings.  That really is the heart of where you and I diverge. I don't disagree with your assessment of Sand Hills, or #2 for that matter.  I don't disagree with the you regarding the quality of those courses in any way.
It is just very, very hard for me to look at the Top 100 lists, see that nada from the last 40 years has made the top 30 or 40 slots, and then say that a new course opening today WOULD make those slots, when all the evidence (the exisiting top 100 lists) says otherwise. If there were a few newer courses that made the top 10 or 20 or 30, that would at least show it is possible.

Let me once AGAIN say that Digest is one publication that inserted extra points for tradition and even walking. I have explained more than enough times how that can skew things for certain courses whose architectural heft (not #2 IMHO) is at issue.

I disagree that it would only effect courses whose 'heft' is in question. If a new course opens tomorrow, it should get 0 for tradition whether it is the greatest course ever built or the worst.  Mathematically, I think you are dead wrong here. If Pine Valley opened tomorrow, it would not be doubted in terms of 'heft', but it would still get 0 for tradition and would therefore be hurt in comparison to other courses that do get points for tradition.

Andy -- you need to realize the shortcomings of the nature of a good number of panelists who really don't traverse the country but play their respective selections from their "neck of the woods." In my opinion -- that's one of the shortcomings. Sand Hills has not attained its rightful ranking IMHO simply because of a tweaking by those connected to the magazine -- I've yet to meet a rater from any publication who after playing Sand Hills doesn't believe it to be one of the tp layouts in the USA.

But, even if this is true (and I don't doubt that it is by the way), it is still the system that exists. It is still the system that produces the Top 100 rankings, that says that #2 deserves whatever its ranking is.  These shortcomings are part and parcel of attaining the rank you say #2 would attain if it opened tomorrow.  
Or, are you saying that #2 would NOT attain it's current rank because of these shortcomings, and that it would only attain the rank you think it deserves if the system and the raters were changed?

#2 doesn't need tradition points to be rated as high as it is. The problem for a number of raters is that they need the added visual stimuli to really juice up the visit for them. Hello Andy --have you not heard this before from me?

I have indeed Matt, several times.  Two issues though:
1. If #2 is in competition with all the courses (which it would be when compiling a top 100 list), then it would slide a bit if other courses get tradition points and it doesn't. That's just common sense Matt.
2. If a 'number of raters' need visual stimuli to rank a course highly, and #2 doesn't have that stimuli, than it seems logical to me that those raters will not rate #2 highly if it opens tomorrow. Agreed, I assume? If that is the case, then how can you then say that #2 would reach its current rank when you also say that many raters wouldn't appreciate it?  The only way I can see that making sense is if the ranking system is changed and new raters are employed.

Let me also correct you -- I'm not the one who has instituted tradition points -- Digest did.

Sorry, if that's what I said, I certainly didn't mean to say that you were the one that brought tradition points to the Top 100 rankings.

When you say raters who are well traveled and knowledgeable is besides the point -- sorry my friend -- that is the point!

I meant it was besides the point in the sense that the raters today are essentially the same raters tomorrow.  You yourself have said that too many are too provinicial, and too many need stimuli, and too many don't see the subtely of #2. I'm just taking you are your word, and that being the case, it really makes no sense to then turn around and say that raters with all the liabilities that you have listed would then turn around and rank #2 so highly.  It makes no sense Matt.

Do yourself a favor -- go to #2 -- play it a few times and then opine on whether or not it deserves its standing

I have. As I have said, it is a fine course. I have never said otherwise.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Appreciate your post but you need to consider this -- when you have "insiders" at a magazine add criteria (e.g. tradition, etc, etc) you get a certain outcome irrespective of what the raters provide.

I also believe you missed my larger point -- if you had top quality raters who are seasoned and well traveled you would have a much more dynamic listing of courses and they would include a fair smattering of modern design from the last 40 or so years. You may see this point as being secondary or even irrelevant but to me it's an indication of the kind of due diligence that produces a better overall sense on what constitutes superior and great golf designs.

I know my listing of top courses is much more flexible than what is usually listed and reflects a healthy respect for yesterdays courses (e.g. Pinehurst #2) and those from the modern era (Sand Hills, The Golf Club, Pacific Dunes, Black Mesa, etc, etc).

Think of it like "Antique Road Show" -- if the right pair of eyes are looking at something they will know whether or not what's in front of them is garbage or priceless.

[Andy Hughes]

Appreciate your post but you need to consider this -- when you have "insiders" at a magazine add criteria (e.g. tradition, etc, etc) you get a certain outcome irrespective of what the raters provide.

Well yes, I agree, and this is the point that I tried to argue with you previously--that older courses get to the top and become essentially entrenched there.  But Matt, again, this is just more ammunition for saying that if #2 opened tomorrow it would not attain its current ranking.  Do you really not see that?

also believe you missed my larger point -- if you had top quality raters who are seasoned and well traveled you would have a much more dynamic listing of courses and they would include a fair smattering of modern design from the last 40 or so years. You may see this point as being secondary or even irrelevant but to me it's an indication of the kind of due diligence that produces a better overall sense on what constitutes superior and great golf designs.

Noo, I didn't miss that point at all. I would actually second that motion Matt.  If that was the case, perhaps I would be more inclined to agree with you on this topic.
You have made it clear that top quality, seasoned and well traveled raters are what would be required for a #2 to be appreciated.  You have also made it clear that raters currently are NOT top quality, seasoned and well-traveled.  This to me is one of the great contradictions of your position.  You say that #2 needs a certain type of rater to appreciate it, you say currently raters are not that type, and yet then your final position is that #2 would be ranked in the top 10 if it came out tomorrow. Those positions do not fit together; they are contradictory. I keep trying to get you to see that, but you seemingly never quite address it.
Another contradiction in your position that you do not seem willing to address: older courses get 'tradition points', and therefore a new course will be at a disadvantage. If a #2 opens tomorrow, it will get no 'tradition' points, and will therefore be at a disadvantage against older courses that do receive those points.  That strikes me as basic math, or am I missing something?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

When you ask me don't I see that I once again go back to the point you conveniently drive past -- you need people who see greatness in courses whether they be one day or 100 years old.

The system -- either from Digest with its addition of "tradition" points or the ill-prepared raters who simply concede greatness simply because of age or need an overdose of visual stimuli for them to rate courses of type I have described several times before.

Andy, the "certain type of rater" is someone who is KNOWLEDGABLE. That's not a secret but unfortunately Digest is drifting more and more towards a Zagat's guide for top quality course assessments. They actually believe that if you increase the total number of raters the totaloty of the information received will make for a truly representative listing. That, IMHO, is a total crock.

In my opinion if #2 opened tomorrow and didn't assume the same exact position it has today then it's clearly an issue of incompetence and stupidty on the part of the people who should know better.

Andy, the ratings process is flawed in a number of way and it would take a good bit of time to expose the issues I have consistently raised for a few years. I am not here to defend Digest's system nor the incompetence of too many raters who routinely mail in the same numbers for a certain grouping of "favorite" courses and do very little due diligence by getting out throughout the nation and seeing what is really happening.

You asked initially why modern design is not recognized and I answered you that there are several designs I can name that would easily crack the top 50 courses in the USA but for the reasons I mentioned, and likely others, they are not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()