New Golfweek Rankings

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

I'm betting April in Augusta will change your mind.

I'll be there for Monday's practice round as well.  First time back in 3 years & I can't wait.  

I know that ANGC is far from what is favored by many here - substantial changes from the original design, incredibly manicured, etc - but it is a very special place.

What do these bozos know ?

They prefer to bay at the moon.

ANGC was, is and remains a wonderful golf course despite or because of the changes.

It's bone structure is so strong that cosmetic changes can't dull it's inherent architectural merits.[/color]

Mike Cirba,

Shivas, who's familiar with Medinah and its changes says the golf course is better since the Rees changes and deserves to be upgraded.  You, who haven't seen it since the changes, refute his point.

What's the factual basis for your disagreement ?

Or lacking one, could it just be your general bias against Rees's work ?

[DMoriarty]

I havent read through most of this thread and I dont intend to . . . I apologize in advance to those I fail to offend.  

______________________________  

So Rustic made the list.  Yippie.  I am sure the-powers-that-be are thrilled to be recognized three years after the fact, and with the course only partially open.   But  what happened?  Why the change?   How can a course be ravaged by fire, floods, extraordinary amounts of play and come out of it bruised and limping, yet jump at least 30some courses in the ratings?  I know tough times build character, but this is ridiculous.  Are there that many new raters out there who loved the course?  Or could it be that Golf Week didnt trust its own raters' numbers the first few years, and that now they have serious egg on their face, or ought to?   Did Geoff S. and Brad K. embrace in a drunken, teary-eyed hug and kiss and make up?   Which raises more questions . . . leaving Rustic off the list then, or putting it on now?  

_________________________
Tom Huckaby said . . .
That would be my biggest kudo here as well.  And it's still WAY higher ranked than Rustic Canyon.  Oh wait till the SoCal boys see this....

and . . .

I am also loving some of the ones that appear above Rustic Canyon... comments to be saved until some future time when such suit my purposes.


Yucks, you are almost passive/aggressive enough to star opposite Woody Allen in his next flick.  

As for your criticisms of GW' ratings, didnt your magazine honor Black Rock as best new private last year?   Black Rock, Idaho?   I might keep my head down during ratings season if I were you.  

Shivas said:
Like Lou said, different courses for different courses, but c'mon -- Rustic Canyon better than Barona?  Even if so, by THAT much?  And better than Crooked Stick?  Admittedly, I only saw 9 holes of RC and frankly I was hardly in the frame of mind to be paying close attention to the golf course, but golly gee willikers, that back 9 had better be sumthin'!

Shivas,  I really enjoy Barona and understand why some prefer it after limited exposure to both.  With its interesting quirks readily apparent, Barona is really fun from the very first play.   However, I think that over the course of many plays over each course, differences and distinctions become much more apparent.   But then that is of no interest to ratings, is it?  

As to whether or not the back nine at Rustic is "sumthin'!" come see for yourself.   The back is intact and there is no better time to see it. . . no golfers, good conditions, and $20 green fees.    

Not meant to inflame Tommy but...The rankings do not have value as a category and they do have Walk in the Park (Although it is not factored in).  Below Rustic Canyon are (Among others) SouthShore, Southern Highlands, and Cascata (Among the Vegas courses).  If offered one round of golf tomorrow (Remember cost is not a factor in rankings), would raters really pick RC over one of those three?

Again, this silly "one round of golf tomorrow" business.   Sure most raters would choose to play one of those absurd Vegas projects . . . and if they were on the fence, the comp and access would help clear up any indecision.   What in the heck does this have to do with which one is a better golf course?  

Look at it this way:  If given a choice between a world class Chile Relleno ($2.75) from the RoseCafe in SB, or $85.00 entree from the lastest L.A. hotspot, many would probably choose the latter.   This may say something about them, but it says little about the quality of the respective dishes.  

What about Valhalla, Challenge at Manele, Flint Hills National.  Most strange to me is Old Memorial.  If Old Memorial and RC were next to each other and I had unlimited access to both, I imagine the ratio would be 8:2 OM over RC.  Of all the rankings on the list, RC as high as it is shocks me the most - Of course I have expressed this before and the sentiment seems to be that I just do not get it.

My wife loves the Lodge so I have spent quite a bit of time on Lanai and have played the Challenge at Manele 15 times, minimum.   Aside from views, ocean drama on Nos. 12 and 18, and conditioning, I cannot think of one  aspect of the design at Manele which is superior.  Can you?  
_________________________

Patrick, I dont think Mike C. was trying to refute Shivas' point that Medinah was better for the changes.   Rather, he refuted Shivas' point that Rees' work results in an automatic fall in the ratings.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty, et. al.,

To what degree does the awarding of a US Open improve a golf course's ranking ?

[Brad Klein]

Rustic Canyon was extremely close in last year's baloting to the top-100. The ballot season closed Dec. 1, 2004, before the course was hit by Biblical plagues. If you take a close look at the numbers, the difference between 100th and 63rd is pretty small, statistically. We explain the story of Rustic's recovery in this week's issue of Super News, cover dated March 11, 2005.

[ed_getka]

Can we please stop with the pix of women. I work with women and it is embarassing to have these women showing up on the screen when I tell people I'm looking at golf stuff.

[David Wigler]

Or could it be that Golf Week didnt trust its own raters' numbers the first few years, and that now they have serious egg on their face, or ought to?...Which raises more questions . . . leaving Rustic off the list then, or putting it on now?  

_________________________

Below Rustic Canyon are (Among others) SouthShore, Southern Highlands, and Cascata (Among the Vegas courses).  If offered one round of golf tomorrow (Remember cost is not a factor in rankings), would raters really pick RC over one of those three?

Again, this silly "one round of golf tomorrow" business.   Sure most raters would choose to play one of those absurd Vegas projects . . . and if they were on the fence, the comp and access would help clear up any indecision.   What in the heck does this have to do with which one is a better golf course?  

Look at it this way:  If given a choice between a world class Chile Relleno ($2.75) from the RoseCafe in SB, or $85.00 entree from the lastest L.A. hotspot, many would probably choose the latter.   This may say something about them, but it says little about the quality of the respective dishes.  

Dave - To your first point, I do not believe Brad rigged the rankings.  More raters came to see Rustic and clearly agreed with you instead of me on it.  The points between 101 and 63 are fairly small, so a few 7's and it makes the top 100.  Your second point is silly.  If the Chile Relleno is better, it is better.  Rankings do not have cost as a category.  RC IMO simply is not in the same class as Cascata, SouthShore, Southern Highlands, Old Memorial, or the others I mentioned.  To your final question about Manele Bay, my answer would be about 12 tee shots that I have to think and visualize before I execute.

[Joe Perches]

Rustic Canyon:  The back is intact and there is no better time to see it. . . no golfers, good conditions, and $20 green fees.

Well, not quite intact.  I miss playing 3 and 6 and 7.  14 is now a simpler hole without the extended carry, but the green is still exceptional.  11 and 18 are different.  11 may be better than it was.  I was worried originally about the damage from the washout on the left side of the 11th fairway, but not anymore.  18 will be a bit more interesting with the extended bunker right, but I'm still undecided if it will be a better hole.   The shaping that was done there on 18 looks good, but I'm unqualified to say that it'll turn well in the end.

The conditions at RC are now not just good, they are exceptionally good.
Nearly immaculate.  Almost perfect.

It's been quite a change in overall course conditioning going from 200 people per day to 20.

I've played it 3 times this week and I'm playing tomorrow too.

[Tom_Doak]

I can't believe you guys are spending this much time debating the placings of these rankings.

What do all of the courses which shot up the most in the rankings have in common?  All of them are heartily endorsed and promoted on Golf Club Atlas.  I believe the rankings are by the numbers because I know the people involved, and yet when I see the results, I think back to the "smoke-filled room" system that GOLF DIGEST used to use in the 1970's.  The results were almost completely predictable, which is not to say that they aren't deserved.

I am curious about one thing, though.  Was Apache Stronghold still ineligible because of conditioning?  Or is it back "on the ballot," just tarnished by its previous censure?

[Brad Klein]

Tom, I'm disappointed in you. The answer to your question is evident in last year's (2004) state-by-state rankings in the America's Best issue (with you on the cover!) in which Apache Stronghold is no. 1 in Arizona among all state daily-fee/resort/public access courses. This year, too, in same issue:

Apache Stronghold, 6.34722 avg., 36 raters, no. 1 daily-fee/resort/public access in the state of Arizona, as per the new Golfweek list that's just been published.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Brad - how in God's green earth can you write down a number like that?  With 6.34722, you are saying you can measure Apache Stronghold's average rating out to one hundred thousands of a place!  Using junior high school math, with a 1-20 rating system and 36 raters you can establish AP's average rating to no more than 6.3.  There is no significance beyond that.  The rest is not a measurement, it's just having fun with a calculator.

JC

[Brad Klein]

Hey Jonathan, a quick math lesson. How much is 228.5 divided by 36? Last I looked it was 6.34722. You can write that any way you want.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I am curious about one thing, though.  Was Apache Stronghold still ineligible because of conditioning?  Or is it back "on the ballot," just tarnished by its previous censure?

Brad,

Same question for Yale. Scott has turned the place around from a conditioning issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

You and Geoff Childs may be aware of the turnaround, but, have enough raters seen it since the turnaround to cast the minimum number of ballots required to rate it ?

And, if they did, were the numerical equivalents in that category sufficient enough to elevate its ranking ?

[John_Cullum]

Mike Sweeney,

You and Geoff Childs may be aware of the turnaround, but, have enough raters seen it since the turnaround to cast the minimum number of ballots required to rate it ?

Well Pat, I expect that problem will be rectified by the end of August.

Always remember-The BBGE works in mysterious ways.

[Kyle Harris]

Brad,

John is using a strict statistical system, he is saying that there was not enough data to have as many significant figures like you do.

If this were life threatening medical statistics, he'd be right, but you can have your ratings any way you want, as far as I'm concerned.

[John_Cullum]

I can't believe you guys are spending this much time debating the placings of these rankings.

Tom,  you're not serious, are you?

[THuckaby2]

JCullum - what you have to remember is that Tom Doak and a few others posting in recent pages here just look at the page total and assume we've been battling over the GW rankings.  A fair assumption to make, given the topic.  Oh how surprised they'd be if they did read all the posts here!

 

[NAF]

On Yale-

Although the conditioning is much better, GW doesnt place as much emphasis on this as say Golf Digest.  Basic conditioning is one of our factors of course but giving Yale a 10 in this measure as if it was Augusta wouldnt change the fact that the bunkering/integrity of the original design is still "butchered" as Dr. Geoff Childs would say by RR.  Architecture is paramount in a GW rating, Yale by ranking should be an 8.5, but I have it lower b/c I know what it should be and isnt.  An unpolished diamond still has no sparkle even if the stone is smooth..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

John is using a strict statistical system, he is saying that there was not enough data to have as many significant figures like you do.

Of course there's enough data to generate the numbers.
There are eleven categories, each with a 0 to 10 score.
Factor in the number of raters to ultimately arrive at a score for each category and simple math generates the final number.  It could be a whole number, or a number expresed to the ten thousanths or more.  And, that number is then used to rank the golf course.[/color]

If this were life threatening medical statistics, he'd be right,

Medical statistics are NEVER life threatening, it's the disease that's life threatening.

And, if you're the patient, there's only one statistic that's important...... YOURS[/color]

but you can have your ratings any way you want, as far as I'm concerned.

That's nice.
Brad and Golfweek do a nice job at compiling the ratings.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

On Yale-

Although the conditioning is much better, GW doesnt place as much emphasis on this as say Golf Digest.  Basic conditioning is one of our factors of course but giving Yale a 10 in this measure as if it was Augusta wouldnt change the fact that the bunkering/integrity of the original desigh is still "butchered" as Dr. Geoff Childs would say by RR.  Architecture is paramount in a GW rating, Yale by ranking should be an 8.5, but I have it lower b/c I know what it should be and isnt.  An unpolished diamond still has no sparkle even if the stone is smooth..

Noel's absolutely correct.

Perhaps it's just from growing up on some threadbare public courses but I wasn't much offended by the "conditioning" of Yale at all when we got together there a few years back.

Instead, the neutered bunkers, the shrunken greens, the amateurish job in "restoring" the course that was so evident...those were the things that were painful to see.

I'm glad that the Superintedent is getting the place spruced up, but it's the architecture that needs the face-lift, as well.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

By rule, based on the size of a sample set, there is a limit to which the numbers beyond the decimal place means something. For example, 6.3, 6.32, 6.324, etc. In this instance, 36 raters were used for the course, therefore, there probably isn't enough data to make a fair evaluation against a course that had, say, 50-100 raters...

However, people fail to realize that Brad and any other rater are in a position where they have to make an absolute ranking. They have to take these ratings out to 4, 5, 6, or more decimal places in order to get these absolute rankings. Which is why I have no problem with them, however, statistically, there is a negligible and borderline insignificant difference between the figures after the tenths place. Plus, people would get in an uproar if there was a large, seven way tie for twentieth place - and we all know there would be an outcry that Brad had no gravitas to take a stand and say one was better.

I give him a lot of credit for making the decision, but unfortunately, rankings will be scrutinized regardless of the decision.

Would you rather be shot or stabbed?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Noel,

Although the conditioning is much better, GW doesnt place as much emphasis on this as say Golf Digest.  

Basic conditioning is one of our factors of course but giving Yale a 10 in this measure as if it was Augusta wouldnt change the fact that the bunkering/integrity of the original desigh is still "butchered" as Dr. Geoff Childs would say by RR.
Here's where I take exception to your perceived role as a rater.  You are not there to rate potential, history or pedigree.
You are there to rate/evaluate the golf course as you meet it on that particular day.

If you bring your preconceived baggage with you, then you're being intellectually dishonest in your role as a rater.[/color]

Architecture is paramount in a GW rating, Yale by ranking should be an 8.5, but I have it lower b/c I know what it should be and isnt.

Again, that's not your function.
Your function isn't to measure potential and debit points due to failure to reach potential.

Your function is to evaluate the golf course, based on the criteria posed in each and every rating category, absent all of the tangential issues, be they political, historical, traditional or potential.

If a rating system is to be valid, it can't have its individual raters deviating from the published guidelines for rating for personal reasons.

You've inserted a deliberate bias into your evaluation.
A bias formed by information you may have received from the likes of the honorable Dr Childs.  However, that identical information might apply to another golf course that you rate, but, you may not be aware of it.  So, that course gets higher marks because of your ignorance, while Yale gets lower marks because of your awareness.

Now, suppose the reverse were true, that another rater wasn't aware of anything at Yale, and performed his evaluation as instructed, and didn't lower the course's marks due to his interpretation of what had or hadn't happened at Yale.

Whose rating is more valid ?

I say his is because he rated what he saw/played, while you rated by including collateral issues not deemed appropriate in any of the rating categories or in the rating methodology itself.

You've inserted your personal bias.

And, therein lies the danger when raters free wheel it.
It undermines the integrity of the rating process.

At the AKC due the raters look at potential, history, politics, or the dog on the floor ?

Stick to the guidelines and not your personal interpretation of the guidelines and you'll perform a more valueable, more accurate measuring stick for the rating body.[/color]    

An unpolished diamond still has no sparkle even if the stone is smooth..

Yes, but it still retains its inherent value[/color]

Kyle Harris,

How do you break ties at 6 ?
You do it by going to tenths.

How do you break ties at 6.3
You do it by going to hundreths

How do you break ties at 6.32 ?
You do it by going to thousanths.

How do you break ties at 6.325 ?
You do it by going to ten thousanths.

Brad's statistical analysis is correct.

To answer your question, it would depend upon the nature of the wound.

[David Wigler]

The one thing that I do not know if rankings have ever figured out how to deal with is places like Franklin Hills or MPCC.  

Franklin was shut down this past summer until August.  When it reopened, the bunkers were fixed, the canopy was pulled back and a course that was pretty fairly rated at #82 last year is now horribly underrated at #79 this year.  Franklin probably has 36 7's or 7.5's and I do not see how it can move up, given that many rankings to overcome (It is night and day better - WOW!).

As an aside, Max Fisher, Franklin Hill's most prominent member and maybe the most influential American Jew of the 20th century died yesterday - Detroit lost it's patron saint and he will be missed.

In the case of an MPCC, I think it should move from classical to modern and start over.  If you only counted the rankings since it reopened, I cannot fathom how it would not be a top 20.  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).

 

[Kyle Harris]

Pat, but it's not significant...

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.

[NAF]

Pat-

I am in COMPLETE agreement with you.  My rating is as the course is TODAY.  I am fortunate enough to know what could be there not only b/c of Dr. Childs but because of George Bahto and a bunch of others. We happen to be fortunate enough to know what Yale COULD be..  I read MacWood's article about what Yale was in 1938 and still that had nothing to do with my rating.

Pat this is one of our rating aspects..

Integrity of original design:
-extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it

I have played Yale 9 times.. I rated the course based upon what is in the ground and with one of the criteria aspects above.  You may want to rethink my bias.  Just because I am privy to info on what the course was before does not mean I deviated from my guidelines.  In fact, I was more than TRUE to them.

Unfortunately or fortunately for you, you can't get Inside my head.  Having worked extensively on the Alpine restoration, I know what goes on and I know what is good and poor work.  Even my love of Alpine does not bias my opinion of what is a good but flawed Tillinghast course.  I take the role and responsibility of rating seriously.  It is a privilege, but I will not submit my integrity to anyone or anything. I like what I like, no matter what designer.

My 8.5 comment was just to say what I think it could be. Not what it is or what I gave it.

Yale is a travesty as we've all said, not a tragedy.  The inherent value is not being seen.  In my world, someone would buy the gem and restore it.  But that is Wall Street.