[Matt_Ward]

Robert --

Let's get this straight.

There are raters -- you may be clueless on this -- who are not rich but love golf with a passion no less than you, I or anyone else for that matter. I grew up on the blue collar side of the tracks and still play muni golf. I didn't start at 3rd base and think I hit a triple.

This isn't about being elitist --- it's about getting some real solid information that goes far beyond the local guy who can only play in his own backyard.

The issue many Digest raters have with what I am suggesting is how it may threaten their personal involvement. Nothing like the self interest to consider -- right?

When you apply the tag "national course rater" it doesn't mean you know the golf of Long Island or some other local area alone. It means you cover the full terrain of the USA. Is it a tough assignment? Sure is! But there are countless examples of people I know -- many of who are not even raters -- who do it and don't have the personal bank accounts anywhere near the Wall Street types.

I know raters who criss cross via car and have blue collar jobs. They find the time -- how they do it is an amazing story. Not all of these folks are blue-blood types who kick back and drink Pinot Noir.

I have already suggested a return to what Digest did previously -- a split panel -- one at the local / regional and one at the national. Digest did this years ago but the national panel at that time contained too many honorary members like Sam Snead, Tom Watson, Jim Hand, etc, etc. These folks only were included for the prestige side of the equation.

The value of local / regional people is certainly needed -- but one needs to balance that with people fully capable in assessing how the courses from one end of the country stack up against other courses. Without that cross comparison inclusion all you are left with is the need to create some NASA oriented tabulation system that may sound logical but fails to unearth what is truly going on in the field.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Now that's a thinly-veiled low blow.  When you say:

"The issue many Digest raters have with what I am suggesting is how it may threaten their personal involvement. Nothing like the self interest to consider -- right?"

Just to whom might you be referring?

And sorry my friend, but that is not the issue this rater has with this, even though if it goes to a system you suggest I, as one who just can't travel all that much, would be among the first to be booted.

Nope, the issue is that I just don't see the value in the opinions ALONE of a select group of jet-setting rich guys.

And that's necessarily who such a group would have to be, 100%, for all of the courses that need to be seen actually get seen.  Come on, who else could afford to do this?

What you seem to require is a full-time job.  How else could all the courses that need to be seen actually get seen, giving this national context you require... especially when it's the small group you advocate....

Nope. Either these guys are gonna have to be paid - which ain't gonna happen - or it's gonna be a small group of super-rich raters, which isn't good.

A split panel of locals and nationals, as you say at the end, seems very wise.  Just give up this idea of one group of super-raters.. it ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

TH

[JohnV]

Nope, the issue is that I just don't see the value in the opinions ALONE of a select group of jet-setting rich guys.

TH

Shouldn't that be "jet-setting rich guys with very low handicaps"?

See you Saturday.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think the most telling thing about the GD panel is this....

On the Internet, on the World Wide Web, accessible to the public, for FREE, you have a website that is dedicated to golf courses, golf course architecture, and the discussion and detailed dissemination of same by a fairly educated and erudite group including many people in the field...

Of the 800+ GD panelists, why do only a very small handful of them even find this site??!?

Perhaps they're busy reading "How to correct your slice in 4 easy steps", or worried about the amenities and locker room differences between Rich Harvest Links and Friars Head, but the sad fact is that they don't seem to be much interested in anything about golf course architecture, per se.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I ask this honestly and with no ulterior motives and with nothing but sincerity:

Why SHOULD more GD raters access this site?

The prevailing view here seems antithetical to their views about golf and golf courses.  Why should they come in here and get ridiculed?

Of course this begs the next question:  why are THEY necessarily WRONG?

TH

ps to JV - good call there!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

I ask this honestly and with no ulterior motives and with nothing but sincerity:

Why SHOULD more GD raters access this site?

The prevailing view here seems antithetical to their views about golf and golf courses.  Why should they come in here and get ridiculed?

Of course this begs the next question:  why are THEY necessarily WRONG?

TH

ps to JV - good call there!

Tom,

Is there an alternative site where people who hold GD-like views of golf course architecture wax philosophically on the desirability of 8,000 yard courses, discuss the detailed nuances of Tom Fazio's design tenets, predict which public venue Rees Jones will next miraculously modify into a US Open site, or discuss why Trump International is only the 3rd best Trump course in the country?

I must have missed it.    

The fact is Tom, and you know this to be true, as well, is that for anyone with even an inkling of interest in golf course architecture, history, detailed understanding, debate, and/or love for the courses of the game, this is the place to be.

I suspect many of these 800+ folks don't have a single friggin book about architecture on their shelves at home, don't you?

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: Always a pleasure to be insulted by someone so singular in their cloudy vision.

Once more, this is simply an example of your myopic view of things -- the Matt Ward way is the best way. Apparently the GD people didn't see it your way -- does that have anything to do with you being booted off the ratings panel? I see several have asked you about this, but you don't seem too keen on clarifying why you have so much venom on the topic.

OK, so let's boil down your idea -- a bunch of "guys" (though not necessarily rich), who still have the resources and time to drive or fly where ever is needed to play and review the "appropriate" golf courses to devise "an appropriate list."  Still sounds like a pretty elitist group to me.  Sure the GD list has 800 individuals and that's pretty small. I guess it would be much better if that was brought down to 40 of "the right" people.

Aren't you on the GW rating panel? Does it function like your idealized panel?

Maybe one day, though I'm not sure when that day is coming, Mr. Whitten or Mr. Klein or Golf Magazine, will let you run their ratings list. Until then, I don't really see where your solitary take on this issue will ever catch on. Oh wait -- doesn't Jersey Golfer publish a list of the best courses in the state compiled strictly by you? That's really what you are looking for, isn't it? A national ratings panel completely determined by your observations and personal taste.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

You are completely missing the point.

You described this site well and it remains fantastic in oh so many ways.

It also just isn't the ONLY way to look at golf and golf courses.

Because sure, I suspect many GD raters - as well as other magazine raters - don't own a single architecture book.

But to me, that does not come close to disqualifying them from being able to assess the worth of a golf course.

Because love of the game, and passion for it, is as important if not more so than the study of "architecture."  One can have the former in spades and not give a crap about the latter.

I submit an example:  ME.

TH

ps - yes, I do own many golf architecture books and obviously participate here regularly.  But I swear to you the study of golf course architecture in a vacuum is meaningless to me.  That being said, I do believe I am qualified to assess the criteria I am asked to assess as a magazine rater.

[Mike Benham]

Of the 800+ GD panelists, why do only a very small handful of them even find this site??!?

With baseball opening day this week, Mr. Cirba has thrown the first letter high fastball to JakaB ... and JakaB is no where to be found to impart a reply on raters and access ...

But Mike, do you have anything more then anecdotal data on the number of raters, for any publication, that frequent this site?  And do they have to post or is lurking allowed?

[Scratch_Nathan]

I'm beyond words on these rankings.  Tossing out tradition points seemed like a great idea until I saw the rankings and realized that their brains flew out the window too!

Never played Sage Valley but I'm sure the the GD CEO's membership there had absolutely no impact on its debut in the Top 100.  

Considering the competition for the century of spots...Trump, Atlantic, Hudson....  GD list is no longer credible based on any criteria I can think up for the best courses in America.

Can't wait to compare GOLF MAGAZINE's new rankings due out late summer. In the past, it was a panel of roughly 50 people (including Ran, I believe) without a points system.

[Mike_Cirba]

Of the 800+ GD panelists, why do only a very small handful of them even find this site??!?

With baseball opening day this week, Mr. Cirba has thrown the first letter high fastball to JakaB ... and JakaB is no where to be found to impart a reply on raters and access ...

But Mike, do you have anything more then anecdotal data on the number of raters, for any publication, that frequent this site?  And do they have to post or is lurking allowed?

Mike,

I have a pretty fair idea who's who on this site and I've actually suggested this site to a number of Golf Digest raters I know to no avail.

The fact that only Huck and Joel seem willing to step up and be publicly proud of these latest rankings seems proof enough.

Shouldn't someone who is being asked to rate courses (and I consider it a privilege) know what's going on in golf course architecture, past, present, and future, and thus have some interest in learning here?  I know I've learned a LOT here over the years.

The funny thing is that GD has a "low handicap" qualification for their raters.  I suck, but one fellow I played with twice who rates for GD I whipped straight up both times.  

[George Pazin]

While I don't really endorse Matt's cabal of national raters, he does have a certain point, which I would illustrate through the following question:

Can you really evaluate where a course like Dallas National ranks in the grand scheme if you haven't played The Valley Club, Merion, Black Diamond, Olde Kinderhook, etc.? Even if you are asked to provide a numerical component for shot values, for example, if you haven't played a lot of other great courses, can you really evaluate shot values for the course you just played?

[Mike_Cirba]

oh...and that low handicapper I beat wasn't Huckaby.

Huckaby always beats me, and anyone who gives him strokes is crazy!  

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Tricky question, George, but a good one.

For certain areas, I think you can give a numerical rating without playing a large number of diverse courses.  Conditioning & Walkability are two that come immediately to mind.  I would also probably include Design Variety in that group, for it is fairly easy to measure the vareity in a routing - although it is not as clean cut as the other two.

However, for other areas it is helpful to have a background of experience to rely upon.  It allows you to relate courses to one another and to establish personal "high-water" marks.  Play Kiawah (Ocean) or Bethpage Black from the tips and you probably won't give Dallas National a 9.5 in Resistance to Scoring.  However, if you only play courses in that region it might make sense for you to do so.

I see the merits in a local & national grouping - but both need to be included in the survey.  The local players should have greater knowledge of the area and are logistically required to cover all of the courses - especially the new ones.  The national players bring a greater amount of experience to the table and are probably more conservative and less apt to get caught up in a recent "fad".  Both views should be represented.

I feel like we should be having this conversation at Independence Hall in Philly... I guess the questions of local vs. regional representation, the influence of factions and economic wealth have still not been resolved after 216 years.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

My main issue with the Golf Digest methodology is the ranking for courses who do not meet the minimum # of ratings either due to location or the club's policies.

Friar's Head and Myopia are courses that come immediately to mind as routings which are adversely affected by the system (as a result of their club's policies).  Kapalua Plantation and Sankaty Head are good examples of courses underrated because of their location.  It's not that the raters don't see the merits of these designs, they just don't get a chance to SEE the course at all.

In those cases, I think that the few raters who do have access to play them need to come up with a score and have it approved by the overall group.  Those ommissions are the single biggest flaw in the system.  The current list should be titled the Top 100 Raters Can Play.

[Robert Thompson]

Geoffrey: I think you bring up a valid point about the regionality of ratings. It is a concern I have as well. GD's raters guide gives raters specific instructions on how to place a course in the overall scheme of things. For example, the guide says that Augusta is considered the best conditioned course, and therefore gets the top grade of a little over 9. That suggests that even a 7 in conditioning would be a good mark and that most good courses would receive marks between 4 and 7. These would be good courses -- not world class, but good.
I think there is a danger that some give certain courses marks that are simply out of line with what they deserve. I don't know why GD would let this happen -- since they could simply take a look at a panelist's ratings and determine whether he is rating in line with expectations.

[George Pazin]

Wow, that's a problem right there, if Augusta is held up as the ideal for conditioning. No wonder Pac Dunes got low marks.

P.S. to Mike Cirba -

I think Robert outed himself as a GD rater, so you have another guy to pick on.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

What cabal

The fact is there are people who do play a good deal of golf and have the mental acumen to make serious analytical evaluations. They exist today. The issue todai is that when you get a bunch of other people who are a part of the rating process and factor in the scant number of courses they play it does impact what's eventually decided upon.

What's funny is that once people get invited to the raters party they don't take too kindly to be reminded of their limited sense of what's really needed at the national level.

Robert:

Once again -- when all else fails let's throw in point "X" which has nothing to do with what's being debated.

My time as a Digest rater was 17 years -- the end of my relationshp with Digest has to do with an internal manipulation of the ratings process / re: best new candidates. It has been stated a few times here on GCA.

I appreciate the Bush-tactic of diverting attention from the main discussion at hand.

Let's go through your points.

I believe there is merit to what GolfWeek does with a split assessment of courses -- the classic and modern. I don't always agree but that's a function of things whenever golf courses are discussed. GolfWeek has not seen fit to expand their panel to some sort of walking yellow pages like Digest. GolfWeek also didn't interject non-architectural elements like tradition into the mixture which now even Digest admits was not needed and frankly served as a convenient prop to some of the old-time courses.

Let me also point out that Jersey Golfer uses raters for our overall 50 best courses. I did the public ratings myself this year for a host of reasons. First, I know the state as well as anyone. Jersey's size -- or lack thereof allows me to return to courses on a continuous basis whenever the moment arises. I've also played public golf my entire life and understand what those at the muni side face since that's where my genesis with golf began and still resides. In the final analysis -- yes -- it is my opinion but I reserve that right as Editor for a publication I have headed for 14 years. There's another plus with one person doing the assessment -- consistency. You know what the author thinks and if you cared to read the article I wrote you will see the nature of what I mentioned from a range of perspectives -- both pro & con for all the courses listed. If you have not read the article in question if you provide your home / business address I'll be happy to mail you a copy.

Robert -- step out of your ignorance and smell the coffee. I've never advocated a like-minded Stepford type rater who falls in line with Ward. Not for a New York minute have I suggested that. What I did advocate is getting information from people fully capable in producing lucid and well thought out analysis. These same people who would be "national" raters would be people who have the passion and wherewithal to see all the top courses eligible for such a lofty inclusion.

Right now you have people who live in their cocoon and then ipso facto we get some "collective" assessment from people who stay, for the most part, in their own little world. Through some magical formula you then get a "mathematical consensus" on what is the best in America. Frankly, I don't see the merits in such a system and I have proposed a workable reform that can be easily adopted with a split level panel -- Digest, in fact, had such a situation a number of years ago.

Like Mike Cirba said - both of us likely agree about 80% of the time and I respect his take because I know Mike has done the heavy lifting in seeing a broad swath of top courses. Yes, we do disagree at times and I think that's healthy because people learn from those type of situations.

Robert -- there are people who are Digest raters who do what I have suggested. They are far from rich but they love golf. Frankly, the Digest's commitment to low handicappers is really not needed. There are raters from GolfWeek who are very astute on the merits of a course and whether they be a 15 or 1 handicap is really irrelevant IMHO.

Last item -- I don't have venom. Once again the favored Bush tactic of interjecting "spin" into the discussion. I have spoken from my own experiences. I am one of a few people who have served as a panelist for two different publications. I have also tried to make a series of recommendations that can be tried if the spirit is there. I didn't just condemn -- I did provide an alternative.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoffrey:

I don't think the low ranking of Kapalua Plantation has anything to do with how many people have seen it.  It's a resort course, they play 50,000 rounds per year, and I'm sure a LOT of GOLF DIGEST panelists have been there.

It's just not their cup of tea.  They're mostly two-handicaps who can't get their minds around a course with fairways 80 yards wide ... they think that's a weakness in "shot values".  And a lot of them play it only once, and when they get on the wrong side of a hole on those severe and tricky greens, they think it's unfair when they three-putt from fifteen feet.

I personally think it's a terrific golf course [not one of the 20 best in the world, as Ran thinks, but terrific].  But I can understand why a certain type of player with a certain mindset doesn't like it.  Bernhard Langer wouldn't like it, either.

The problem with GOLF DIGEST is that they have a lot of people who think the same way, and who dismiss courses like the Plantation because it doesn't quite fit their interpretation of Bill Davis's definition.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Tom,

I’d love to see the # of raters that have played Kapalua.  My guess is that a huge percentage of raters live east of the Mississippi or in warm climates and do not make the trek out to Maui.  For those that do, I am sure that most are low-handicappers that fall into the category that you described.  Maybe you are right and they get plenty of raters who don't see the merits of the design, but that would greatly disappoint me.  I was simply blown away by the place (literally with the winds and figuratively).  If there are 73 public courses in the country better than that design / experience, I’ll eat my hat.

What are your thoughts on Sankaty?  It has always been a personal favorite of mine, and I think it stands up nicely to the courses in the bottom quartile of the Top 100.

[THuckaby2]

The problem with good players is that the "hard=good, really hard=really good", damn near impossible=great" mindset is really, really engrained in them.  If you set up a panel full of those guys, you're going to get results that put damn near impossible courses at the top and shorter, sportier, funner courses at the bottom.  Good players are masochists by nature, generally.  They got good at golf by beating more balls than everyone else, putting in the time.  They revel in the advantage that their practice and work ethic has given them, and they will not rank courses highly unless those courses support their golfing superiority.  

This is just a guess, but I'd guess that the average course rating of the GD top 100 is at least a shot harder than the GW list, and that the ratio of slopes is even greater than the difference in course ratings.   They want courses that beat them up, but beat up chops even worse.  That placates their needs.

Of course that is true, for the most part.  But there are low handicappers who don't fall into this trap and who hate overly severe courses.  I know one very well.

But of course you know the converse holds true as well:  higher cappers bias against tougher courses because they beat them up and thus are no fun... and love "sportier" courses because they can score well on them.

What one needs is a happy medium, if one wants universally acceptable results.

Kinda like the GW panel, except from what I can see you might need a few more lower cappers.  But you come close, anyway.  Now if you guys would just get some nads and actually rank courses instead of this pussy old is so different from new stuff, you might really have something.  Oh, and get over the groupspeak lockstep stuff as well.

 

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: It is impossible to argue with someone who uses "ipso facto" in a sentence. That said, Matt, you did agree that you did all the ratings yourself for your publication and that adds consistency. Indeed it would. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

By the way, Mr. Ward, I'm from Canada, a country that dislikes Mr. Bush to a high degree. I'm a conservative in a Canadian sense, and that would make me a Democat in the U.S. I'm not trying to spin anything -- just trying to get you to open your eyes beyond your singular opinion.

I don't think GD is the best system, though I do participate in it. But at least I'm not arrogant enough to think my opinion on how to change it or alter it is more worthwhile than anyone else's take. You seem to be of the "my way or the highway," kind of mentality on several subjects. There is no debate, just your opinion. No wonder Jersey Golfer has one person do its ratings.

Given what you've said, Matt, I assume that GD's ratings would be better if it too had a singular vision -- that of Matt Ward alone.

[texsport]

The problem with good players is that the "hard=good, really hard=really good", damn near impossible=great" mindset is really, really engrained in them.  If you set up a panel full of those guys, you're going to get results that put damn near impossible courses at the top and shorter, sportier, funner courses at the bottom.  Good players are masochists by nature, generally.  They got good at golf by beating more balls than everyone else, putting in the time.  They revel in the advantage that their practice and work ethic has given them, and they will not rank courses highly unless those courses support their golfing superiority.  

This is just a guess, but I'd guess that the average course rating of the GD top 100 is at least a shot harder than the GW list, and that the ratio of slopes is even greater than the difference in course ratings.   They want courses that beat them up, but beat up chops even worse.  That placates their needs.

Of course that is true, for the most part.  But there are low handicappers who don't fall into this trap and who hate overly severe courses.  I know one very well.

But of course you know the converse holds true as well:  higher cappers bias against tougher courses because they beat them up and thus are no fun... and love "sportier" courses because they can score well on them.

What one needs is a happy medium, if one wants universally acceptable results.

Kinda like the GW panel, except from what I can see you might need a few more lower cappers.  But you come close, anyway.  Now if you guys would just get some nads and actually rank courses instead of this pussy old is so different from new stuff, you might really have something.  Oh, and get over the groupspeak lockstep stuff as well.

 

Obviously, there are very few courses designed so well that players hitting from the tips will have the same impressions as  players using the senior tees.

I think that this is one of the main reasons for varying opinions in any rating system.

How about a rating system for average players and another for good players?

[THuckaby2]

JK - sure this is one of the big reasons for variances in rankings.  People do see things different ways.

But I don't think I'd want separate rankings for the better and lesser players... because the very best courses can please them both.

TH

[texsport]

TH
   But are there 100 of these for a list?

   I'm talking about a different list for everyone.Everyone would have their own list and be happy. Just think of the endless discussions about who's list was more valid.

   Mike Nuzzo is developing a number of these on another thread right now.

JK

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()