Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds

[Paul Richards]

John:

>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..

Dubsdread is currently ranked #47 on the latest list of Golfweek's top 100 Modern.  That is a drop from #36 last list.

IMHO, Dubs should be in the 15-20 range for Modern courses on this list.  There are a few anomolies, of course, where you don't agree with everything, but I think that it still being in the top 50 is a good indicatio of its worth.  Personally, this and Kapalua-Plantation are two of the courses that should be much higher on this modern list.


 




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


I don't agree with this statement at all.  I still know a LOT of people who love to play Cog #4 - there's a reason there are no foursome slots open for play on weekend mornings.  People who play there love the place, even if it beats them up a bit.  I don't see any 'drop' in buzz around here - all the local publications pay it its sufficient homage.  

How do you believe that it's 'lost its buzz'?

 

[Paul Richards]

Lou said:
>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.



I have to agree with your analysis.




Shivas said:
>I happen to have been out at Rich Harvest yesterday.  I will say this --the more I play it, the more I like it.  I think it gets a bad rap from first timers because they don't know where they're supposed to hit it.  I've been lucky enough to play it probably 25-30 times, and it is growing on me.



As I mention above, to me, Cog Hill #4 is a top 15-20 modern course.  I also agree that Rich Harvest makes my top 100 modern list, albeit in the 90-100 range.




Matt said:
>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 ?


Matt, to myself and to the well-traveled Illini I have conversed with on this topic, Rich Harvest is not above Cog.

Most think of Cog as top 6-8 in the state and Rich Harvest more in the 10-15 range from what I have gathered and I concur.



 

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

You are right on the first point.  I don't agree with you that there are plenty of people who are passionate above golf architecture that also have the network to gain access to the top couple hundred courses AND are willing to be part of a volunteer rating panel.  I perhaps know a couple of such folks, but most people with those types of contacts either through family ties and/or business are too busy working or playing in the big leagues.

I've only been around the GW rating process for a few cycles, and would not presume to know enough to make serious proposals for significant changes.  As a participant in a few of the outings, I've met a fairly good sample of the rating panel.  My general impression is that a sizable majority is not only very qualified, the interest in golf is much more than at the regional level.  The people I've met enjoy travelling to play golf nationally and internationally.  Nearly every person I've talked to indicated a need for help in getting on at many of the highest rated private courses.  Like in so many other ways, perhaps the situation is different for you in the NE.

I didn't "artfully tapdanced" around your main point.  I am just not negative at all about the other raters, nor do I believe that the regional vs. national distinctions that you make are particularly instructive or useful.
 
BTW, I think that I have a fairly good background on Texas courses, but there are many that I've only played once.  So, again, I don't see where by having a regional or state panel that the quality of the ratings would be much better.

Matt, did you not take science in college?  Surely you've herd the expression "holding all other things equal?" (ceteris paribus) which is that you attempt to keep all conditions and variables the same so that you can see the effect of changing the variable you are studying.  It has nothing to do with "The people included are far from equal -- that was my main point".

In fact, there are what, 2,000 rating panelists among the three major publications?  Statistics would suggest that as we increase the sample size (by either having more raters and/or increasing the volume of courses they play), that the accuracy of the data should improve.  Of course, this would not hold if the population of potential raters was somehow different than the population of actual raters.  I think that there is a large population of potential raters out there that will one day replace the current corp with ease.  

Personally, I think that the ratings work relatively well.  There is room for improvement, but we'll never achieve significant concensus anymore than we'll experience world peace if we just could all learn to get along.

It would be interesting to see what a panel of professional raters could come up with.  Would they be any less susceptible to their personal biases?  Would a 6,500 yard course have a prayer if the group was made up of long knockers like you?  What if it was made up of egalitarians?  Would a Fazio or Nicklaus course have a chance?

Yes, I do believe that the quality of the raters is very important.  But, I also think that the process and education are critical.  Quite simply, access is critical to experience.  The better read the rater, the better are his inferences and opinions.  Holding everything else equal, of course.

Really, how many normal folks really give a s--- about all this?  




 

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

You missed several of my points by a country mile. As a media member and rater I have come in contact with a number of people who share the passion of the game -- have the wherewithal to rate / analyze courses and frankly also have the appropriate number of contacts to access the courses in question. If you personally don't know them that doesn't mean what I just said is not the case.

One of the issues that people should concern themselves with is when raters "need" to have access. Once the "need" becomes obvious then the probability in gettinmg a probing "no holds barred" anaylsis of that respective course(s) becomes an issue. I have seen in previous posts here on GCA a unwillingness to discuss a course because of the invitation a person received. Once people start to build up walls because of "sensitivity" issues to hosts then the sheer value of what robust dialogue can provide becomes undermined IMHO.

Lou -- I am not "negative" about raters -- I simply opined that having a split panel would operate more efficiently and not mix "apple" raters with those that are "orange." The bulkf of many raters is state / regionally based. The input they provide at THAT level is critical -- you don't want interlopers bumping up or down the numbers from just a one-time visit.  On the flip side there are people who can provide a "national perspective" and can include the needed "cross comparisons" that give such a national assessment credibility.

You may have played certain Texas courses once -- but you have played far more than a guy who hops on a plane from Vermont and makes only one stop -- possibly in a lifetime. C'mon Lou, let's be a bit more forthcoming on this point. The local guy is more apt to know their own neighborhood than the guy who jumps in one time and then forever leaves. If you can't concede that point then you and I are on different wavelengths big time.

This idea in increasing the number of people falls on its face when you size up the coverage area that many do or fail to do. How does having 200, 2,000 or even 200,000 people mean anything if the sheer bulk of them are nothing more than local / regional in practicality? How does one "presume" to have a really solid assessment of courses at the national level when the overwhelming bulk of the info is simply nothing more than rating numbers thrown together in some sort of hodge-podge? I gave you a clear example -- if you have some guy or guys who only plays Mississippi courses and then you compare that same guy or guys with someone who plays a national sampling of courses how does one then presume to equate them as being equal in terms of their vote? I'm assuming each of them is rather asture in their analysis.

Oh -- I see -- it's the "consensus" approach that is the final determinant.

I do agree with you -- replacing raters can and should be done in order to keep the info fresh. I even suggested that rotation should be done between the solution I mentioned -- local / regional and those at the national level.

Couple of other points -- what is a "professional rater?" I guess you are saying those from the architectural side of the equation. I think it would be great if such a poll could be included. Clearly, architects could not vote on their own projects. The differences, if any, would be interesting to assess and discuss. Frankly, many of the architects, from my discussions with a number of them, don't have the time or inclination to travel to the sheer number of courses that need to be reviewed.

Let me also straighten out a HUGE misconception you made. Contrary to all the BS on this site -- I don't give mega points because a course happen to be 7,500 yards in length and carries a 75+ CR and 150+ slope. That is a convenient stereotype. I have rated a number of courses quite high that fall in the 6,500 yard category any number of times when the circumstances warrant. I also don't judge courses based on my game -- I attempt to see how courses stack up against other playing levels and in many of my visits I usually have in tow a few other people whose opinion I value.

Lou -- let me quote your final comments -- "Yes, I do believe that the quality of the raters is very important.  But, I also think that the process and education are critical.  Quite simply, access is critical to experience.  The better read the rater, the better are his inferences and opinions.  Holding everything else equal, of course."

I don't doubt anything you just said -- but simply adding people for people's sake isn't going to provide the kind of "analysis" or course coverage that you believe will occur. Having a bifurcated panel would provide the kind of information flow / credibility that's missing now. In regards to your "how many normal folks really give a s--- about all this?"

The answer is more than you think -- I hear from plenty of such people throughout the country who are raters, owners and just interested people who love the game and architecture.  

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

I must go back and take some remedial writing courses.  Or perhaps it's my thinking that's gotten foggy.

First of all, I never suggested that raters should be rotated out for freshness.  What I said was that there are plenty of good candidates out there who can step in and do a great job when we go.  It would be unfortunate if a good rater was weeded out due to seniority because I believe that experience- breadth and depth of knowledge- is the key to the process.  As you know, GW management culls out the bad apples, and that should be enough.

My main point, and I apologize for being so repetitive, is that for raters to do the very best job they can, they need to have broad exposure.  If we can't see the Pine Valleys, Augusta Nationals, Seminoles, etc. how do we know that Brookside or Brook Hollow are really 7.5s and not 10s?

Likewise, if most raters haven't played Sand Hills or Friar's Head, how are they to determine that a Cog Hill #4 is a 7.5 instead of a 9.5?  I would be curious to know how many "fresh" ballots GW gets annually on the three aforementioned classic courses.

As to the many people with the contacts to gain access to all the top courses nationally, who also possess the knowledge and passion for gca, and are willing to be raters, I'll just have to take your word for it.  Like I said, I know of just a couple on the GW panel, and both are retired.

We all have our biases or preferences that are brought to the process.  I know many raters who wouldn't be caught dead playing the tips.  Some can't or won't walk the course.  Do you think that they would see Dallas National with a perspective similar to yours?  To them it is a long, brutish, unwalkable course.  To you it may actually play on the short side with the greens and surrounds providing the course's primary defense.

And yes, concensus, or the cumulative results of large sample sizes, does offset many errors, particularly if the outliers are not normalized.  GW could very well have reached a good number with its current panel.  I don't have a clue as to what the optimum would be, but I am fairly sure that whatever the number is, it is important that each is rater is well-versed and widely traveled.

I would like to see courses like Dallas National and Friar's Head get wide exposure on a national level.  I am not terribly concerned about it, but regionalism could very well be a problem, which could be made worse by having a split panel.  My recommendation: encourage all raters to see as much as they can throughout the country.  Those who are overly aggressive and discourteous, deal with them harshly but fairly.  For feedback and learning, I would also like to have the raw data that results in the list available (without specific rater identification).

     

   

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

We agree to disagree / re: local people handling state & regional level evaluations. Having the guy from Vermont fly in for a one-time visit to Texas really doesn't demonstrate anything in my book except to boost the latest new courses or those designed by their personal favorite architects.

I also believe -- even if you don't -- that a rotation of people is a good idea. One need not continue with the expansion for expansion sake for panelists -- you can rotate from the state / regional level to the national and vice versa. Ditto the concept of assigned courses which is clearly needed to weed out the "groupie" effect that can happen.

Lou -- the "exposure" you keep harping upon -- does happen for those who are among the more traveled and seasoned people. If being a part of a panel is simply there to be a trophy hunter of top courses then those individuals are simply on board for personal reasons and frankly little else.

I appreciate you taking "my word" for it but I do come in contact with plenty of people who are raters and the idea that having more and more people -- although accepted in statistic circles -- doesn't really fly in the course rating world from the time I have spent.

I have to say this again -- with emphasis -- I don't rate a course on how it fits my game or if it doesn't. I try in many cases to play with a range of people with different games and I observe very carefully how they handle what's been provided by the design. Good raters can observe carwefully what other players attempt to do and use that info on their overall assessment.

I also have to say this again -- most raters are truly regional based. Nothing wrong with that but Digest has made it a point to equate the Missisippi area only guy on the same par with the guy who travels to a much broader array of courses nationwide. Any system needs to equate the discrepancy and factor that into the final product. A split panel -- which Digest previously had -- would serve both purposes well IMHO and likely add to the credibility that this year's version certainly has lost.

[Mike Hendren]

Nothing wrong with that but Digest has made it a point to equate the Missisippi area only guy on the same par with the guy who travels to a much broader array of courses nationwide.

What if the Mississippi guy is Neal Meagher?

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

...and in many of my visits I usually have in tow a few other people whose opinion I value.

Matt,
Do you call them a) your posse; b) your entourage; c) your groupies; or d) your playing partners?

Do you provide them "I'm with Matt" hats?

A tow job is better than no job.

 

Mike

[Paul Richards]

Mike

>A tow job is better than no job.


In "Grand Slam", Bobby Jones was described as 'tow-headed".

 


Is that similar??

 

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I'll answer you question seriously -- even if it was meant as a verbal jab. The golf industry / universe is a small one and from my many travels over the years you do meet a good number of people -- some of whom are raters for a range of publications -- the big ones and small ones.

I don't see "eye-to-eye" with these folks 100% of the time and I frankly think that's healthy and good because it allows for the kind of robust discussion that's needed. But, I also know that many of these people see as many, if not more so, the total # of courses I personally play each year. I respect that because their portfolio of courses allows them the platform to provide some kind of meaningful analysis from the personal visits. Let me add that simply because someone plays plenty of courses -- even nationwide -- doesn't mean they also provide the kind of detailed analysis / cross-comparisons that is also required.

My point is that national raters are fully capable in discussing the qualities of golf whether it be in Washington State all the way to the south Florida area and nearly everything in between.

I believe state / regional raters are crucial -- but to lump someone from state "A" (forgive the Mississippi example! ) who only plays 8-10 courses from his own backyard and then say that person is the equivalent of others who take in 40, 50 or more courses per year spread throughout the country doesn't provide for the kind of identification and consistency of selection of great golf courses IMHO.

P.S. To answer Lou's concerns -- I don't weigh the merits of any course simply on how I played it. If people choose not to believe that so be it. I always try to observe how my playing partners for the day handle what the course offers.

[Mike Hendren]

Matt,

A FRIENDLY verbal jab.  Your practice of watching others of varying skill levels play the hole has merit in evaluating a golf course.  

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Paul,

The word tow in towhead means 'the fiber of flax, hemp, or jute, prepared for spinning'. Such fibers are both light-colored and messy, and so towhead can refer to someone with light or messy hair. The word is very often used of children.

My phrase is a play on a response typically given when a golfer laments that he hit one on the toe of the club:  A toe job is better than no job.

I am easily amused.

There you have it.  Today's cultural exchange.  

Mike

[Paul Richards]

Mike:

>I am easily amused.

>There you have it.  Today's cultural exchange.


Thanks for the culturing.