[THuckaby2]

Paul:

Please do contact the Vegas folks as man I do want to win my bet and the count is at 33, including today's.

 

As for the rest, I think Ron will live.  The only places the GD list are "taking a beating" are in here, and at courses that got left off this time.  

The rest of the world either doesn't give a rat's ass, or is quite happy with them.

Paul, obviously I am trying to make light of this as it's really getting old at this point. But if you want to keep beating this horse, well there's little I can do to stop you.... I just do fully believe you have a good sense of humor about this... so there is hope... as for others, well...

TH

[cary lichtenstein]

My hometown for 50 years was in one of the Northern Suburbs, called Highland Park. I worked downtown in Chicago, and I was so in love with Cog Hill, that I must have played it over 100 times. In order to do that, I had an hour ride from downtown, and a 2 hour ride back home.

Everytime I went out there to play, I thought the course was very special. It has everything you could ask for. Real good topography, lots of stragetic positioning, wonderful bunkering, I prefer the new sand as the silica used to bury too much, great variety, grainy greens full of poa that were like Pebbles, you really had to grind of some of those 3 footers.

I have never played Rich Harvest, nor do I believe you should denegrate one course to prove your point.

The point is that Cog Hill, without a shadow of a doubt is a top 100 course on anyone's list.

Is it worthy of an Open? That question has always intrigued me. You could certainly toughen it up by narrowing the fairways as the USGA always does, but I think the greens were designed for a public venue and not a U.S. Open. They are simply too large.

When people ask me where they should play in Chicago, first on my list is always Cog Hill #4.

[Nate Mady]

From Huck

"The rest of the world either doesn't give a rat's ass, or is quite happy with them."

I fall into the doesn't give a rat's ass category...

PV America's greatest course.. I think not, not for me it's not, I'll never play there, unless I hop the fence in the middle of the night with a glow ball.. sounds like a possible GCA outing;]

The best course in the world, is just down the street from my house, has a Styles 9, and a Cornish 9, it's $12 after 5pm.. The cart girl is a cutey.. Golf at it's finest if you ask me...

[tlavin]

Cog Hill is a great course and probably is deserving of being in the Top 100, IMHO, but I completely disagree with the suggestion that the course is not as good as it used to be "in the old days" before the PGA Tour showed up.  it is much better now.  

Several people have suggested that changing the silica sand took the teeth out of the course, but the truth is that those bunkers were a sick joke with that sand.  Balls hit in the bunkers routinely wound up "fried", regardless of trajectory or location within the bunker.  This situation was so goofy that people with regular tee times on the weekend often adopted a "rake and roll" rule, which is about as contrary to the rules as you can get, but desperate men seek desperate measures, as the saying goes.

After the Western came to Dubs, there were other beneficial changes.  They cut down a bunch of trees, particularly on #3, #7, #9, #13, #5 and #16.  They improved the drainage of a very wet parcel of land.  They extended tee boxes and, in general made the course more challenging and with better sight lines from virtually every tee box.  Best of all, they took that stupid sand out of the bunker.

In terms of the greens, as a general statement, there is not enough slope on most of the greens to present the type of challenge that the USGA would appear to favor.  As a definite non-expert, I would also venture to say that the angle of attack on the overwhelming majority of holes is not all that demanding of touring professionals.  That's not to say that they couldn't be re-built or that Cog Hill wouldn't do just about anything to get an Open, but there are a lot of greens that don't offer the type of hole locations that one typically sees in a major championship, IMHO.

Is it a gem?  Do I love playing it?  Is it a worthy tour stop?  Yes, yes and yes.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul R:

Huck can't get over the fact that the key issue of credibility is what makes or breaks a ratings essence. When your unscientific poll showed what people think of the two courses -- Cog v RH the situation was perfectly clear to me.

Local people know the local courses better than anyone. When someone is putting together a state listing for such a rich heritage of layouts from within Illinois -- it's the folks who play there regularly who will truly know what layout is best.

I also concur with you -- Cog Hill would likely make the very rear of my top 100 layouts -- but it would be there. Rich Harvest is a wonderful layout but it fails to inspire you the way Cog consistently does. And I say that whether or not the Western Open was ever held there.


Jim K:

After researching the issue I stand corrected. The "tradition" category came into play in 1985 -- Shadow Creek was rated #8 when it became eligible in 1993. However, if memory serves, I believe the "tradition" category was talen in-house sometime after that and calculated by the folks within Digest.

However, my assertion for a bifurcated panel still stands. Digest had it years back and I believe it makes even more sense today.

[Ken Fry]

So could Cog Hill host a successful U.S. Open?

The question has been asked often over the last 10 years.  The consistent reason I hear are the greens.  Think about how U.S. Open greens are prepared for play;  rock hard and fast.

For those who have played Cog Hill, what do you think those greens would be like to play under typical U.S. Open conditions, not what you see on a daily basis or even during the Western Open?

Ken

[cary lichtenstein]

Good question:

Built in 1964 for a stimp probably of 6, so put em at 12 with some wicked pins, makes for serious putting, but they greens for the most part are very big.

[Ken Fry]

Why are big greens such a bad thing for a course to have?

How do big greens contribute to a course not being viewed highly, or in Dubs case, not viewed as a potential U.S. Open venue?

[A_Clay_Man]

IMHO, but I completely disagree with the suggestion that the course is not as good as it used to be "in the old days" before the PGA Tour showed up.  it is much better now.  

Several people have suggested that changing the silica sand took the teeth out of the course, but the truth is that those bunkers were a sick joke with that sand.  Balls hit in the bunkers routinely wound up "fried", regardless of trajectory or location within the bunker.  This situation was so goofy that people with regular tee times on the weekend often adopted a "rake and roll" rule, which is about as contrary to the rules as you can get, but desperate men seek desperate measures, as the saying goes.

After the Western came to Dubs, there were other beneficial changes.  They cut down a bunch of trees, particularly on #3, #7, #9, #13, #5 and #16.  They improved the drainage of a very wet parcel of land.  They extended tee boxes and, in general made the course more challenging and with better sight lines from virtually every tee box.  Best of all, they took that stupid sand out of the bunker.

Terry- You bring up an interesting phenomenon in GCA(and Life), and that is the changing of a mindset. Not the penality of a bunker but of what the owner/visionary intended.

Joe Jemseck loved that sand, he had it specially delivered from Greenlake. He use to snicker when he'd find-out you were going to be golfing there with, "The only place you'll break a hundred is at the bar".

Allowing the pga tour in, because of Butler's refusal to alllow women, gave Dubbs the opportunity to make it on the big stage. I doub't it's ever a good thing, save for the owners balance sheet.

Re; Size of the greens

Joe once told me that the greens were made large so that there was a full club change from front to middle, and than another from middle to long depending on pin positions.

[THuckaby2]

Paul R:

Huck can't get over the fact that the key issue of credibility is what makes or breaks a ratings essence.

And just what is a "ratings essence", Matt?

Oh yeah, the whole world outside of a few people in this nutty forum, and the handful of courses who say they got screwed, is just screaming out against the credibility of GD's ratings.  Yeah.. there they are.. I can see them marching in the street down below me.  What's that I hear?  

"GD sucks that's what we say
We don't believe them anyway"

Shit, it's a crowd of thousands... I better make alternate plans to get home today....

 

Don't you think you're making only a teensy-weensy too big of a deal of all this, Matt?

 

TH

ps - thanks again for helping me win my bet.

[Lou_Duran]

I'll add to Paul Richards' unofficial survey, for whatever it and my opinion are worth.

This past October, I was privilidged to play many of Chicago's finest.  And like its reputation for pizza and the blues, there are very few places with a higher concentration of outstanding golf.

#4 and Rich Harvest (RH) are both outstanding courses.  They serve entirely different markets, but have some similar characteristics of parkland designs.  Both can be set-up to hold a US Open where the objective is to protect par.

RH is awsome, but it does have some routing problems, probably due to the way it was designed and built piecemeal over a number of years.  In my opinion, the site, the collection of holes, and the green complexes are sufficient to overcome the routing issue and it makes my top 100 modern list.

#4 is a better course in my book.  I don't know why anyone would want more slope in those greens.  Running around 10 when I played it last, they more than held my interest.  As was noted earlier, each green is two or three connected greens and the course can be set-up to handle all types of play.

My biggest objection to #4 is the use of trees with bunkers to in effect make certain recovery shots impossible.  Many of the trees were less than 10 years old, some were planted behind the bunkers, some in front, and a few in both places.  Frank Jemsek did say that the PGA Tour is "suggesting" certain things to make the course play harder.

I have not been to the Black, but #4 is by far the best truly public course I have played.  I see it in my top 50, not too many steps behind Medinah.

[JakaB]

Lou,

How do you explain Cog Hill getting killed in this years Golfweek list....I think it is a huge stretch to assume that if Golfweek only listed a top 100 in the country that the 47th Modern would make the list.   When you say top 50 do you mean overall or modern..

As a resident of Illinois I can promise you the buzz over Cog Hill has been dead for years...

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

I don't doubt the merits of Rich Harvest -- the issue is does the course belong among the nation's top 50. In my mind -- it's a no-brainer decision - no way.

Here's what you have to ask -- how do other top tier Chicago courses -- Skokie and Beverly -- to name just two classics -- get nary a mention ?

Much of that is attributed to the iterlopers who come in and cherry pick off the most recent additions to the local golf scene.

Rich Harvest has a very "interesting" routing and the juxtaposition of trees during the play of several holes was quite disturbing for me. In so many ways Rich Harvest is like 18 individual acts. It rarely has a connection to the 18 holes and is more about being "over the top."

When compared to Cog Hill #4 it makes me wonder if Digest panelists really understand the qualities fo such a long time gem like #4.

Huck:

The "credibility"  -- lack thereof -- of this year's Digest ratings is self-evident. There are too many numerous examples to mention. You can start with the state ratings from a number of places -- Pennsy, NJ, AZ, Illinois, etc, etc. Ditto the national ratings with a whole host of omissions and inexplicable drops (e.g. Plainfieldl, the rapid elevation of Rich Harvest, etc, etc).

Huck - I know plenty of Digest raters who are collectively scratching their heads over this year's results -- the silly idea that adding more panelists will provide for better coverage and analysis doesn't wash -- all it does is dilute the vote of the most knowledgeable people who are ALREADY panelists. They don't post for fear of being removed. A reorganiztion of how Digest assembles its listings would make for a better end result. I've already put forward an alternative that would build back the qualities of the respective states and the top 100.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

While I do appreciate once more your efforts to help me win money, you again miss the real point here, and you failed to answer my question as to what is "ratings essence." I would love to hear that definition.

Oh well.  You have damn near worn me down.  It's less than fun bulldogging you like this.  But I'm not ready to give up just quite yet.

Because the real point is this:  as much as you talk about credibility, as much as you say "this course is clearly better and GD blew it by getting it wrong", as much as you say how things would be done correctly in your view.... as much as you put forth your recommendations as to the right way to form a panel, and the right criteria to use....

None of that matters.  You're a quixote and these windmills are going to be here no matter what you do.

Thus I am just trying to save you from yourself, my friend.  There are bigger issues in life, and golf.  And your very obvious axe to grind just makes every word you write taken with an ocean of salt... as does my loyalty to GD do the same thing.

So why not give it up?  Who are you trying to convince, or what point are you really trying to make?

None of it matters, Matt.  GD raters have their opinions, you have yours, others in here have theirs.  None are right, none are wrong.

I fully expect you to accept none of this.  Oh well... I am just trying to help.

Recognizing one's biases and limitations is a rather liberating experience.  You ought to try it some day....

As for me, hey I fully believe GD's system is far from perfect... I just still do maintain it's the best of the current three.  I'm not the blind loyalist you make me out to be.  I also have no fear of posting here, because if they remove me from the panel it changes my life not one tiny iota.  This whole rating thing is comically unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

BUT... it is important enough such that your word should not be the only one.  Thus I continue to bulldog.

Of course we could give the whole thing up, which I'm sure would please the rest of the group here immensely....

 

[JakaB]

Matt,

Before the next time you complain about the increase in Golf Digest raters please explain to me the benefit of Brad and Jonathan adding new Golfweek raters to the point that the number has nearly doubled in the last three years.   Personnally I take great satisfaction in knowing your, Cirba's and Tommy's votes are diluted every time they add a new swinging fellow so to speak...

[Lou_Duran]

JK,

I am not privy to GW's internal data, so I have no objective way to explain it.  If I could guess, it would be all the tree plantings which are reducing the effective width and viable angles to the greens.

Even though I referenced Medinah, I did indeed mean top 50 on the modern list as I had opined earlier that Rich Harvest, to which I was comparing #4, was in my top 100 modern list.  

As to whether #4 would make the top 100 in a combined list, my catholicism has not allowed me to think in those terms and complete that exercise.  Prior to your posting, I didn't remember where #4 stood with GW.  I think that I have it a bit higher.

To the extent that I generally believe that the average modern course has an edge over the average classic course, it would follow that if I was to combine the lists (which I am not), that #4 could very well fall comfortably in the overall top 100 list.  This of course is moot.

As to #4's buzz being dead in Illi for years, perhaps this is the second exception to the rule that those closest know best.   It is possible that the good folks there like newer stuff.  Maybe the aggressive pricing at what was once a blue-collar facility have the natives all riled-up.  Who knows?

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Let me say this -- the idea that adding more and more people will somehow magically produce a more credible accounting of the best in American golf doesn't resonate with me.

All it does is dilute the vote totals of those truly national in scope.

John -- you don't see to grasp an elementary issue -- there are people who are truly state / regional based. They are clearly needed but their scope / expertise should be valued and accounted for at THAT level. The top people who handle the various ratings panels have, IMHO, the capacity to identify those individuals who possess the wherewithal to rate courses across the nation. I see no reason why such folks could not be rotated on / off as needed to prevent any stagnancy in what is assessed.

You can't simply permit a person who only plays "X" amount of courses from only a locally based number of courses to be "equal" to someone who plays far more courses and across a greater terrain area that encompasses the USA. This isn't politics where the "one man / one vote" belief holds. If people bitch and moan that they don't have the time / money to be national in scope then remaining at the state / local level would be just as important.

The flaw in the Digest ratings -- and you can see it very clearly in the state evaluations -- is that they have "interlopers" who come in to cherry pick off one or two  courses and then magically these courses rise to a high level. The reality is that locally based raters will know the quality of courses better because they see / play them much mroe frequently. If the state ratings aren't very good -- it's likely and far more certain that the results at the national level will reflect that as well. The falling of Cog Hill #4 and the rapid rise of Rich Harvest Links is a clear testament to what I just said.  

[JakaB]

Matt,

You didn't answer me if Golfweek adding raters is a good thing or not...or maybe you did.  I'm an interloper, you're an interloper, wouldn't you like to be an interloper too.  It is no big deal that people like to play the best and most famous courses when they travel or even when at home.   The only way to cure it is to eliminate comps and access from all the rater corps....I mean, how many raters play or even know about the new Tim Liddy course not a few miles from Victoria National and next to the local airport.   At no more than a buck a hole I promise you alot more would if we weren't giving away our $10 a hole product....keep it up my friend because I can only hope your own boss wakes up and listens to you and makes interloping against the rules of engagement or at least common decency....like it already isn't.   Isn't it funny that when a guy like Pat Mucci and the good people of Hidden Creek open their doors to us that the very next day people are posturing to play courses higher up the various scales....even a hick like me was taught to dance with the one that brought ya....

So, more to the point....what would be the perfect number of Golfweek raters and how many of the existing ones would you dismiss or only allow to rate in their home state...

[Matt_Ward]

John --

There is no "perfect" number for any ratings panel.

The key, from a national perspective, is getting info from people who do travel frequently, play a wide variety of courses -- including the ones off the beaten track and that includes muni's and the lesser known architects. The last aspect is no less important -- getting detailed analysis that demonstrates a capacity to cross compare courses to determine which ones are better or worse than others. Simply saying that course "A" is better than course "B" is dreadful and shows little real insight.

Simply playing courses alone is also not the answer -- on the flip side -- great analysis without a sufficient pool of courses becomes difficult because the limited base of candidates provides for a scope that prevents one from drawing any meaningful trends, assessments, commonalities, differences, etc, etc.

From a national perspective it would not surprise me or be too difficult to have a national panel of 100 to accomplish the task. I have met a good number of people who could fit the bill to what I have just described. Many of these same people do not own their own jets -- have breakfast each day with Warren Buffet or are somehow only blue blood types. They do have a passion for the game and for course architecture.

John -- the state / regional info is really where the magazines could show improvement. In my "backyard" I see all of the key courses on a fairly regular basis -- both the top tier private and the muni's on the other side of the tracks. The rater who enters a state for a first time visit sees only certain courses and this involvement as an "interloper" likely skews the results unncessarily. Frankly, who knows the local courses better than the people who live in the area?

If the info from the state / regional info is solid it's likely the results at the national level will be too.

The key people who handle the various ratings panels could very easily ID the top people who are bonafide "national" panelists and simply group the remaining ones at the state / regional level. The identity of just who is on what side of the ledger need not be disclosed so as to prevent courses / ownership groups / architects from lobbying. In addition, I am also a firm believer that assigning people to golf courses -- as started by Digest and now GolfWeek is also a major plus. This prevents groupies of certain architects / course types from lumping their votes together and providing a surge for a respective course(s).

Over a short period of time -- for example every four years -- you could easily have a rotation system in place to prevent the same people from having a continuous impact on what is decided upon. Those at the national level could easily revert back to a regional / state level and those that have demonstrated their involvement at the regional / state level could move up to the national.

The results from Illinois are only part of the breakdown -- if you go to other key golf states like Pennsy, New York, Florida and NJ you will see similar outcomes. A reorganization of the process may be just the ticket.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt Ward,

Don't you agree that all rating methods have inherent problems, and that the "ideal" method exists only in the cluttered, impractical minds of practicing academics?

I do see some strength in numbers, though your points on local/regionals vs. national make a lot of sense.  Wide coverage and depth of experience and interest of the rater are very important to my way of thinking.

The one problem that I see with GW is that there are considerable differences in the experience base of raters, specially as it relates to the top 50 on the classic list.  As you know, GW does nothing to assist raters with access to these courses, and many are among the most difficult to get on.  I fully understand the magazine's position on this, but I do think that it may be one additional reason why there is so little movement among these.

It is my understanding that GD has made considerably more progress in this area, and that a good number of its long-time panelists have played the vast majority of their top 100.  As with GW, growth is always problematic, but over the long run, I do think that it will lead to better evaluations.

For people who give a lot of weight to the lists for picking vacation spots, a good thing might be to synthesize the major three and focus on those courses.  I can't remember who on this site sent me a spreadsheet with such a list, but I found it to be rather interesting.

JK,

Is your constant harping on comp rounds a class thing with you?  I would be curious to know how you price your asphalt contracts.  If you had excess, perishable material, would you not try to offset hauling, waste, and dumping expenses by doing a job that you would not otherwise get at a price that barely covers your variable costs.  Perhaps you see the logic in dumping thousands of gallons of milk down the sewer to support a higher price, but this isn't even analogous to what happens with comp rounds in golf.

After some reflection, please tell me if your objections are based on your contempt for ratings and raters.   Or do you just resent that others may have similar access that you as a successful person with many important contacts routinely has?  Certainly, you don't consider yourself to be a disadvantaged guy.  Why would you spend so much time reading the raters' guidelines and fussing about a few folks getting an occasional peek at heaven?  Does it somehow diminish your enjoyment of the very best?  Would me playing Victoria National for nothing as a guest of your good-hearted professional (if you consider spending $500 to come up there nothing) somehow detract from your experience (assuming that I am playing behind you several holes)?  If the answer is yes, all I can do is quote my most beloved figure on this site, "pity".

I do understand that as a member of what, four or five clubs, you have every right to voice your opinion and have it considered seriously by each of the boards.  Fortunately for some folks, many people aren't so possessive of what is experienced but not consumed, and quite a few enjoy sharing their good fortunes with others so long as they are not coming much out-of-pocket.

[JakaB]

  Perhaps you see the logic in dumping thousands of gallons of milk down the sewer to support a higher price, but this isn't even analogous to what happens with comp rounds in golf.

I always thought that is exactly why free golf is given to raters...in the hope they will give your course a high mark and you end up on their list, or higher on their list so you can either charge more or sell more memberships.  It is exactly like dumping milk down the sewer to support a higher price.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Speaking of "growing on you" -- does that mean you believe it's the 45th best course in the USA AND among the 3-4 best in all of Illinois and ahead of Cog Hill #4 ?


Lou:

I've said this before -- it's not the different "methods" but the actual people involved that lies at the heart of this issue. Greatness will surface to the top no matter what -- provided the right people are there to play them and provided the needed analysis -- pro, con and in-between is put forward on a consistent and timely basis.

Lou -- my point was a simple one -- get local people to handle 100% exclusively the standing of courses from the state / regional area. Let me ask you this -- do you believe you know more about Texas golf than some guy who hitches a plane ride from Vermont and comes to the Lone Star State for a once-in-a-lifetime visit ? Might it be possible that the guy making the one time visit will skew his grades higher or lower based only upon a one time visit ? Isn't it more likely that people who play the state / regional courses much more often will have a deeper awareness level than just about any person making such a limited excursion ?

Frankly, I don't know what "strenth in numbers" provides. Having more people doesn't mean more knowledge -- more critical analysis -- it simply means more people. Like I said it's likely such additional people will dilute the very qualities of the better people you have already.

I've also suggested a rotation of people -- from being on or off a panel -- to moving those from the state / regional level to national and reverse. Assignment also work to minimize the opportunity for groupies to weigh in on specific favorites or to keep numbers low on those layouts from designers they may not favor / prefer.

Lou -- a rater should not need to depend upon the connection to the magazine to gain access. If that's the primary reason for their involvement I have a simple answer -- stay home. I also believe no course -- even those that have been mainstays should be treated like an "absolute."

The reason why there's little movement is that few modern courses have the capacity to compete at that high a level. I mean if you look at the GolfWeek numbers for Classic and those of the Modern you can get a fast idea on how the two lists compare through the same shared criteria.

What will be interesting to see, since Digest no longer includes tradition, is if there is movement among other key modern courses to break into their top 50. Clearly, you have an instance of it this time around with Rich Harvest -- but I can't for the life of me see how the course even made the top 100 -- let along the top 50. It's a good course but not that good.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou -- a rater should not need to depend upon the connection to the magazine to gain access. If that's the primary reason for their involvement I have a simple answer -- stay home. I also believe no course -- even those that have been mainstays should be treated like an "absolute."

Matt,

That's a rather odd thing to write for a guy who is not shy about revealing his connection to "Jersey Golfer".  I doubt that gaining access is "the primary reason" for volunteer raters.  I suspect that the love of golf and golf architecture is what drives most to seek the best courses.

However, gaining access is an important aspect for many if they are to grow as raters and improve the validity of the ratings.  You see Matt, just as very few of us have your prodigious length, we also lack the requisite network to be allowed on many of the classical courses and quite a few of the modern.

In any event, I don't have a problem with GW's policy.  But if the same panelists are the ones voting on these classical courses year after year, is it any wonder that there is little change in the top 25 - 30?  Won't the list also have a susceptibility to regionalism?

Regarding the strength in numbers, I think that I learned in statistics some 30 years ago that by increasing the sample size, holding all other things equal, the precision or significance of the data improves.  If nothing else, the effects of a rogue or wacko rater is diluted.  You know, the guy who takes points off if Fazio or Rees Jones is the architect of record.  Or the scratch who automatically adds points if the course is at least 7,200 yards at sea level, with a rating above 75 and a slope in the 140s.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

I simply list my involvement with The Jersey Golfer as a matter of fact -- nothing more.

Lou -- you may not agree but there are plenty of people -- who are no less passionate about golf / architecture AND have the network to gain access to the courses that need to be seen.

You artfully tapdanced around my main point -- it's not the criteria that lies at the heart of this issue -- it's the people themselves. I have already outlined a number of steps that can be incorporated for Digest that would boost what it is they are attempting to rate. Like I said before -- assignment of courses is a critical component because there are raters that are nothing less than zealous groupies for a particular architect / developer, etc, etc. Rotation from the state / regional level to the national would also be a positive step. That would answer your concern about the "same" people being the only ones involved.

Lou -- you also ignored my other main point -- the state / regional level works only with people who see the courses more than a one-time visit. Check out the Digest state ratings and you'll see plenty of instances of the interlopers who boost the numbers from recently opened layouts.

On your last point you said, "I think that I learned in statistics some 30 years ago that by increasing the sample size, holding all other things equal, the precision or significance of the data improves.  If nothing else, the effects of a rogue or wacko rater is diluted."

Lou -- how can you say "holding all other things equal?" The people included are far from equal -- that was my main point. You have people who play and rate only courses from Alabama and then they have the SAME WEIGHT as someone who plays a ton of courses across the country and provides equal or better overall analysis. When you add "people" you simply get a yellow pages listing of courses. The Digest move to more and more people is not the way to go IMHO -- the proof is in the pudding and the outcomes at both the national and state levels indicate that to me.

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>Oh yeah, the whole world outside of a few people in this nutty forum, and the handful of courses who say they got screwed, is just screaming out against the credibility of GD's ratings.


Earlier in this thread, I mentioned my informal survey of some 25-plus (over 30 now) well-traveled Illinois golfers, and not one of them felt that the list of Best in State for Illinois by GD in 2005 represented anything close to being an accurate list.

I have also privately communicated with about 10 GD Raters and almost all of them have expressed their incredulation over many aspects of the 2005 lists.

There may not be anyone marching on the town hall over this, but the reaction I am hearing over and over is not positive towards the process now being employed by GD and its 'Best of" lists for 2005.

Almost to a man, they hope the 2007 list will 'straighten out' the many anomolies.


 



In fact, when you said later:

>As for me, hey I fully believe GD's system is far from perfect...



I have to say, "Wow", we finally agree.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()