[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

Here is the criteria list that Golfweek raters need to evaluate; (taken from Dunlop White's "In my Opinion" piece on GCA.com).

1.   Ease and Intimacy of Routing
2.   Integrity of Original Design(Classic)/ Feature Shaping(Modern)
3.   Natural Setting and Overall Land Plan
4.   Interest in Green and Chipping Contours
5.   Variety and Memorability of Par 3’s
6.   Variety and Memorability of Par 4’s
7.   Variety and Memorability of Par 5’s
8.   Basic Conditioning
9.   Landscape and Tree Management
10.   'Walk in the Park' Test
11.   Overall (not an average of the above)

As raters play more golf courses, and are exposed to greater variety that may yield new definitions for "ease & intimacy of routing". Suppose CPC were built next year, would that not re-define any rater's judgement as to what constitutes a perfect 10 in terms of memorability of par 3's. Personally, that does not make one a "bad" rater now or then, it simply means that the rating process is evolving and is not fixed in time. I think this allows people to alter their opinion of the "interest in green and chipping contours" even though they have remained unchanged. Further, often the impression left by a golf course changes upon a repeat visit, the mind does not always percieve things the same way. Ultimately, golf course rating isn't an exact science - I mean "basic conditioning" is an official factor in the rating process. Now the superintendent, and not just the architecture must remain in place. I haven't played Augusta National, but I can only imagine the conditioning would leave me speechless, and force me to re-evaluate what constitutes ideal conditions (if I felt Augusta-like conditions were beneficial to the game). I realize that the rating process is not a comparison of courses, but surely it would be fairly myopic to not consider how the course in question relates to the gold standards by category of others courses played.

TK    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tyler,

Here is the criteria list that Golfweek raters need to evaluate; (taken from Dunlop White's "In my Opinion" piece on GCA.com).

1.   Ease and Intimacy of Routing
2.   Integrity of Original Design(Classic)/ Feature Shaping
      (Modern)
3.   Natural Setting and Overall Land Plan
4.   Interest in Green and Chipping Contours
5.   Variety and Memorability of Par 3’s
6.   Variety and Memorability of Par 4’s
7.   Variety and Memorability of Par 5’s
8.   Basic Conditioning
9.   Landscape and Tree Management
10.   'Walk in the Park' Test
11.   Overall (not an average of the above)

As raters play more golf courses, and are exposed to greater variety that may yield new definitions for "ease & intimacy of routing".

HOW ?[/color]
 
Suppose CPC were built next year, would that not re-define any rater's judgement as to what constitutes a perfect 10 in terms of memorability of par 3's.

Do you believe that every rater has seen CPC ?
What percentage of raters do you think has played CPC ?
If they've never played it, then they have no frame of reference, no basis for comparison.[/color]

Personally, that does not make one a "bad" rater now or then, it simply means that the rating process is evolving and is not fixed in time. I think this allows people to alter their opinion of the "interest in green and chipping contours" even though they have remained unchanged.

Then which opinion is more "on the mark' ?
People don't always evolve for the better.
Nor do their tastes and evaluative ability.[/color]

Further, often the impression left by a golf course changes upon a repeat visit, the mind does not always percieve things the same way.

Are you suggesting that raters have to have a minimum number of times playing each golf course before they can render an evaluation ?[/color]

Ultimately, golf course rating isn't an exact science - I mean "basic conditioning" is an official factor in the rating process. Now the superintendent, and not just the architecture must remain in place.

I have no idea what you're talking about.[/color]

I haven't played Augusta National, but I can only imagine the conditioning would leave me speechless, and force me to re-evaluate what constitutes ideal conditions (if I felt Augusta-like conditions were beneficial to the game).

If you played Augusta in October, November, December, January, February and the first half of March you would have just the opposite impression.[/color]

I realize that the rating process is not a comparison of courses, but surely it would be fairly myopic to not consider how the course in question relates to the gold standards by category of others courses played.

That's the purpose of the numerical equivalency.[/color]

[Jason Mandel]

Pat,

One thing that may support your argrument is this.  With Golfweek, at least with the classic courses, raters are NOT allowed to request access to rate at any course in the top 50, unless the course specifically asks to be rated.  I believe the reason given is that these coures have been rated enough and don't need to be rated any more.  This would support your argument that many raters are rating a course on a basis of not getting to see the actual best courses. i.e. Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Seminole,etc.

Jason Mandel

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

What I am trying to say is this; at present course X is a perfect 10.0 in my evaluation for memorability of par 3's. A few years later I am fortunate to play CPC, which now, given my new perspective is a 10.0 in the same category. By comparison, course X is no longer a 10.0, and falls to 9.75. Is this not possible? The experience at CPC opened my eyes, and proved that architecture can reach another level. If this process cannot occur, can you ever give a perfect 10.0, because this precludes you from saying anything is better, ever.

Your right about Augusta, my rating for the "basic conditioning" would alter greatly if I played it consecutive years, first in April, and then in winter. Wouldn't that change the rating I give the course, causing an overall numerical rating change the next year, even though the architecture had not been meddled with.

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

What I am trying to say is this; at present course X is a perfect 10.0 in my evaluation for memorability of par 3's. A few years later I am fortunate to play CPC, which now, given my new perspective is a 10.0 in the same category. By comparison, course X is no longer a 10.0, and falls to 9.75. Is this not possible?

I don't think so because the evaluation isn't in the context of comparing courses or holes or features with others.
It's an evaluation in the absolute, absent comparisons.[/color]

The experience at CPC opened my eyes, and proved that architecture can reach another level. If this process cannot occur, can you ever give a perfect 10.0, because this precludes you from saying anything is better, ever.

Are you saying that every rating where the rater has never seen CPC is flawed ?

You're saying that unless every rater has played every course they can't make an assessment, which isn't true.

You continue to get ahead of yourself, ranking, rather then evaluating.   Do you understand the difference betwen the evaluative process and the ranking process ?

Tell me, what's so great about the GROUP of par 3's at CPC ?
Are they better then Pebbles, Pacific Dunes, Seminoles ?

The evaluative process is not about relativity, it's about analysis in the absolute.  It's not about one course being a
10 and every other course being less then 10.

The critical factor that you're missing is that more then one course can have their SET of par 3's evaluated as a 10.[/color]

Your right about Augusta, my rating for the "basic conditioning" would alter greatly if I played it consecutive years, first in April, and then in winter. Wouldn't that change the rating I give the course, causing an overall numerical rating change the next year, even though the architecture had not been meddled with.

If you're that limited, mentally, then you shouldn't be a rater.
  [/color]

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

CPC was a theoretical example, so I'm not going to argue about the relative merits of it's one-shotters versus other sets at other clubs.

I find it hard to imagine that one can evaluate a golf course without any point of reference, except for the Golfweek criteria explanation  You need to have a fairly well-established resume of courses played to properly evaluate what constitutes excellent design. Looking at the critieria and explanation on Golfweek's website ,(http://www.golfweek.com/americasbest/criteria.asp) there exists a little room for interpretation. I would argue that the wiggle room is a little tighter after seeing some of the most highly acclaimed designs - because you have a reference point.  

I'm not saying every rater needs to play CPC or PV etc., but without question I think that experience would help shape their evaluative process in a positive way.

Can a rater's evaluation change from one year to the next?

TK

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick,

Is Bo Derek still a 10?

Mike

[Wayne Freeman]

  Tyler,  I really like all of your insight and comments.  Let's face it, rating is far from a perfect system.  So much depends on such a variety of factors-  just getting on some of the courses is often difficult or impossible. And a lot of the rating might depend on the time of year played, the conditions that day, and even to people you meet there.  When I played Friar's Head, they would not allow raters on the course, and I was able to get on thru a PGA pro friend of mine who knew the owner.  I was the only one on the course that day, and although it was cold and windy,  I was completely awed by this beautiful course, and have no doubt that it will rate at least a 9 in everyone's book.  But just recently, I have been unable to get on courses like Bear's Club and Pablo Creek in Florida, or the private courses on the Big Island ( like Charles Schwab's 60 million layout Nanea).  So in many cases, not enough raters will play these courses to qualify for the lists.  

[Jonathan Cummings]

Rich - I'll betcha not a single GW rater has ever been comped on any of the top 20 classic courses.

The problem with the classical list is that it is static.  Renovations and restorations aside, any small movements up and down the rankings are a function of of the difference in the number of samples.  

Updating a static list over and over again more reveals "noise" in the rating process then actual changes in rankings.

JC  

[ForkaB]

Jonathan

You of course know I was joking.....

I don't follow the GW ratings, but there certainly have been some significant changes in similar lists over the past 5-10 years.  Favored oldies like NGLA, Fishers, Crystal Downs going up; less favored ones such as Baltusrol, Olympic, TCC going down.

Surely you hae not found perfection?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Rich - "similar lists" (I assume you mean GD and GM) have to make room for new courses like Pac Dunes, Friar's, Sand Hill, etc, so the Baltusrols must naturally go down in rankings.

This is not true with the GW classical list.  It's static and doesn't need to make room for anything.  I'll bet Baltusrol's ranking hasn't changed much from the first GW classical list to the last.

JC

[Top100Guru]

Hendren;

Good point!!!!!!

No she is not a 10, at least to my young eyes, but to the guy that is 75 now and remembers her for what she used to be like, she will always be a 10 in his book.

Which gets to Pat's pont, she has matured over time, the mounding and subtle contours surely have been altered over time, the playing surface is no doubt not of the same condition it once was, therefore, she is "not" the same "course" she use to be, but nearly everyone remembers her as a 10 and she likely still receives higher praise than she should.

As PAT said:
      "While YOUR tastes may change, the criteria used in
       the evaluative categories hasn't."

So where does she rank now?

Pine Tree is no "Bo Derek".....if anything, PT gets better over time and deserves more accolades.....IMO


 

[JakaB]

Rich - I'll betcha not a single GW rater has ever been comped on any of the top 20 classic courses.

Is this a joke....if not one of your minions has pulled one hell of a good joke over on me...we're talking Pebble here..

[Jonathan Cummings]

John,

I have never heard of any GW rater who has been comped at Pebble.

JC

[THuckaby2]

John,

I have never heard of any GW rater who has been comped at Pebble.

JC

JC, please.  If you haven't heard of this you haven't been listening.  I could name at least 5 who told me personally about their experiences there.... and this is GolfWeek we're talking about.

I won't name them of course, out of confidentiality.  But Pebble does offer comps to raters, hell yes they do.  I haven't done it myself there yet but damn straight I will some day.

TH

[Brian_Gracely]

JK,

For somewhere like Pebble, it probably makes sense to comp some raters as they've seen the positive effects of ratings boost (2000 - although not via GW...but any PR is good PR).  But the other classics probably know that lists like GW-Classic are static and hence don't bother.  But I'll bet, as much as they won't admit it, that they monitor where they stand on different lists and would comp raters at the magazines where they saw their stock dropping or thought there was a chance they could move up with better exposure.  

Managing the ratings game is just an extension of a club's marketing policy.    

[JakaB]

Thank you Jonathan,

I have to say that I have a ton more respect for the rating process now that I know that Golfweek raters are not allowed to ask to rate the top 50 classic courses and not one Golfweek rater has ever taken a comp at a top 20 classic course.   It really makes for an even playing field in the world a access.....as a matter of fact, let me take this time to apologize to any rater who may have been offended by my comments concerning them being access seeking comp whores..

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - I must have missed a thread.   The times I've played there I've ponied up the going fee.

I'm sure what you say is true, but I have never personally heard of any GW rater getting comped or even discounted.

Brad Klein asks his raters to go to the top 50 classics only on there own, not as a GW rater.  He already has plenty of ratings for those courses.

JC

[THuckaby2]

Tom - I must have missed a thread.   The times I've played there I've ponied up the going fee.

I'm sure what you say is true, but I have never personally heard of any GW rater getting comped or even discounted.

Brad Klein asks his raters to go to the top 50 classics only on there own, not as a GW rater.  He already has plenty of ratings for those courses.

JC

JC - OBVIOUSLY none of this would have been discussed on a thread on here.  Hmmmm.. I had no idea it was against your rules.  Sounds like some of the guys are fudging such a bit.  Hey, no harm by me, I can't begrudge anyone getting a chance to avoid the outrageous fees at Pebble.  Just rest assured this has indeed happened several times, and it's just the people I know....

BTW, in case you're interested, the process is absurdly easy.  There's one contact at PB who handles all raters.  You call her, she sets it up.  And I learned this from a GW rater.

 

[JakaB]

JK,

For somewhere like Pebble, it probably makes sense to comp some raters as they've seen the positive effects of ratings boost (2000 - although not via GW...but any PR is good PR).  But the other classics probably know that lists like GW-Classic are static and hence don't bother.  But I'll bet, as much as they won't admit it, that they monitor where they stand on different lists and would comp raters at the magazines where they saw their stock dropping or thought there was a chance they could move up with better exposure.  

Managing the ratings game is just an extension of a club's marketing policy.    

Brian,

I take full advantage of the comp system in that I enjoy playing with my friends who come into town and play.  As a matter of fact I have has some of my best times on my so called almost home course playing with raters who most probably would not have showed if not for the comps.  It almost borders on unfair to the other members who have to make their friends pay....of course, most members pay for their friends so it some ways I am the one saving the money..

[JakaB]

Tom - I must have missed a thread.   The times I've played there I've ponied up the going fee.

I'm sure what you say is true, but I have never personally heard of any GW rater getting comped or even discounted.

Brad Klein asks his raters to go to the top 50 classics only on there own, not as a GW rater.  He already has plenty of ratings for those courses.

JC

Jonathan,

What are you going to do now....revise the rules.  Its seems obvious to me that in order to be comped at Pebble (a top 50 classic if there ever was one) you need to inform them you are there to rate the course.   Will it be open season for all classic courses from this day forward....Lord knows Medinah needs some better numbers..

[A_Clay_Man]

J.B. You're barking up the wrong tree with Pebble. While they do have a list that shows all the comp play for that day, it is nearly impossible to get on that list, unless you know someone very high up the food chain, within the company.

[THuckaby2]

J.B. You're barking up the wrong tree with Pebble. While they do have a list that shows all the comp play for that day, it is nearly impossible to get on that list, unless you know someone very high up the food chain, within the company.

Adam:

Want the phone number of who to call?  There are many raters you could ask...
 
It's very easy... and if a yokel like me can make it happen, than that's not a very tough food chain.

I had it set up once, had to cancel.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

Could you please save Ran some bandwidth and just publish the woman's name and number so we can put this to bed.

[Kyle Harris]

John,

No double meanings there, right?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()