"Tradition" an invalid criteria ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Or was that 99% of all GD readers - I forget.  

[Mr. KISS]

Pat
I understand your desire to better understand GD's criteria, but GD doesn't have an "obligation" to do anything.  You are looking for science where it doesn't exist.  Their rankings are subjective and this is just an additional fudge factor category.  Just read what mark fine wrote.  The raters only rate ambiance.  That means that the magazine figures out the balance.  What more do you need to know.

As I previously wrote, GD does not rate just ARCHITECTURE as I'm sure you would agree.  The architecture most certainly serves as an important criteria, but it's unquestionably not the only thing they consider.  So rather than thinking of GD's rankings as "Best Golf Courses" as they call it, just think of them as "Best Golf Course Experiences" as determined subjectively by 800 raters, 99% of which are clueless according to TEPaul!  

You continue to question Atlantic's tradition ranking, but do you really think that hosting a Met Open and a USGA Sr Amateur is going to add a lot to its appeal from a "tradition" perspective.  Who can even remember who won those tournaments.  Is a rater (or reader of GD) playing Atantic going to get goosebumps for walking down the same fairways as the local Met area pros and Sr. Amateurs as he or she might when playing Augusta or Winged Foot or Merion, etc?  I think not and I'm sure you would agree as well.  Just think of sitting in the men's grills at Augusta or Winged Foot and compare that to sitting in the Atlantic dining room (remember we are talking about "experience" here not architecture).  You get the picture.  I'm not denigrating Atlantic in any way because it's a very nice place to play golf, but no matter how you define "tradition" most golfers "know it when they see it" and as of right now I don't believe that many people "see it" at Atlantic.  Of course, the passage of time could change that!

[Mr. KISS]

Excuse me TEPaul.
It was Tom MacWood that characterized 99% of the GD raters as clueless.  Sorry for using your name in that context!

[THuckaby2]

Dave - riddle me this:  if a course pleases the vast majority of golfers, why does it NEED to "survive the scrutiny that comes from thorough examination of its architecture"?

Do golf courses exist to please golfers, or architecture aficionados?

THAT is the fundamental issue behind everything we discuss on this site.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:  Large sigh.  If you care to, go read my by-play with Mr. Mucci as to what GD means by "ambiance".  None of what you imply goes into this at all.  To save you the trouble, ambiance is:

"how well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"

And we are given much more instruction as to what this means.  Nothing off the golf course counts whatsoever....

I hear what you're saying, but we are truly not judging art.  At least we shouldn't be... This isn't a picture to be looked at, it's a site on which to play a game.  So yes, the Mona Lisa can be appreciated by all, but those who truly appreciate painted art find better instances of it.  They don't use the canvas to roll a ball across....

Golfers most certainly can and should judge golf courses... Quality of design is the art you describe, and that is a completely separate issue, best left to the aficionados and those in the business.  And if you are going to judge that, then what they did with the land, the cost-effectiveness of their efforts, obstacles they overcame - all things having nothing to do with the playing of the course - all necessarily should be part of the judgment.  You're judging their skill... Obviously what the course "evokes" would be the most important thing (just as in painted art) but all this would have to matter....

So "best golf course" can have these two different meanings... I don't find one any more valid than the other - they are totally different things.

TH

TH

[Guest]

Hang in there Tom.


Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly.

[ForkaB]

Whilst perusing this bemusing and endless thread I noticed that nobody seems as yet to have pointed out that the proper word is "criterion."  Has Dan Kelly's near-death experience taken away the joy of editing from his life, or was he just afraid of duelling with the duellingest of the Duelling Doyens?

In any case, in my impartial judgement, the improper use of a plural noun downgrades the "ambience" of this thread by 1.72 points, and the repetitiveness of the arguments another 3.05 points ("lower resistance to scoring" points).  As a result, this thread is no longer in the GCA Top 100, and can only hope to get back in if it lasts long enough to gain points in the "tradition" category, just as did the "Bridge" thread.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:  I used the singular "criterion" and the plural "criteria" properly throughout - please re-read.  Dave just used the plural correctly as well.  I didn't re-read the whole thing to check for misuses, but at least these are correct!  Does that save this wonderful thread?

Dave:  I have no answers for you.  I kinda like what Guest said.  No rating is meant to be anything but what it is - a subjective rating of what a specific group decides to rate, using specific CRITERIA and defining each CRITERION how they wish.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Does anyone know how long they have been doing rankings? My perception is that it was mid-eighties? How many new courses have been built since the mid-eighties? Why hasn't the list grown to be the top 200 or 1000? Or even more equitable would be those course which made the next 100. I'd bet that list would still be a desirable playlist.

[Grumpy Old Man]

They started ranking courses in the mid 1880's and they haven't stopped.

I think they should rank each and every course in the world from top to bottom with emphasis on resistance to scoring--with the cart girl.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, friend Dave. Great minds were thinking alike on the use of the wonderful word criterion.  All those years of Latin would not let me miss a plural like that... Kinda like alumnus/alumni, another great one with which to freak out your friends, each of whom insists he is an "alumni" of their school...  

TH

[ForkaB]

Dave

The DD's are, of course, Paul and Mucci.  You and the awShuckster are just pale Gen X wannabies from the Provinces.  Christ, you live west of the Main Line and haven't even learned how to properly insult each other, yet................

[THuckaby2]

AHA!  So the bumbling dueling Doyens younger (Dave and I) know Latin-based plurals, and the real Duelling Doyens elder (Paul and Mucci) don't... you know what that is, Dave - it's ODD....  

And yes, I too get a kick out of those "alumni" stickers.  I just figure they're all representing their association... but I like your thinking better!

TH

[TEPaul]

Guest said above:

Hang in there Tom (that would be Huckaby).

Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly.

I don't know what Dave Schmidt is a rabbit or a flyer but as far as I'm concerned if he's a rabbit he can fly if he wants to and if he's a flyer he can rabbit if he wants to. Call him whatever you want to but on this thread he's on the mark, in my opinion.

Tom (the titmouse) Paul

[TEPaul]

Who said the older doyens (Paul and Mucci) don't know the meaning of criterion, criteria, whatever?

Ridiculous, I say! Pat practically invented the modern usage of criteria--although I still had to tell him what the meaning was he was looking for and today he probably still doesn't understand! I love the guy but it's a tremendous burden on my time to always have to educate him.

I grew up speaking Latin for Chrisssakes, but it's been a while now as the guy I spoke it with died some time ago and there's no one around now to speak Latin with.

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Titmouse:

Omnia gallia...

Aw hell, I don't remember the rest, nor do I care to relive Caesar's Gallic Wars!  But I am comforted with your transference of the blame here to Mr. Mucci.  I look forward to his defense.

As to the matters at hand, yes, rabbits shall rabbit and flyers shall fly.  But since you seem to have given up playing the game in favor of walking and studying (which I find very admirable, if odd  ), I would certainly expect you to find wisdom in Dave's wise, if misguided words.  

For those of us who actually play the game, well...

Let's just say there are at least two ways to look at this.  Like a great man once told me, it is a big beautiful golf world.

TH

[Doug Siebert]

How many of the 800 GD raters actually know a Cape from a Biarritz from a Redan from an Eden?  How many would be able to spot a Road Hole unless the little sign on the tee named it for them.

Why should we care?  In fact, why should we care if an architect can tell a Redan from an Eden, so long as the end result of his work is a great course?  In any field, sometimes the greatest works are done by those who don't know the full history and thus don't suffer from preconceptions on what is required to be great.  Equally true when evaluating greatness.  It doesn't happen often, but when it does the results can be important enough that lack of knowledge can't result in someone being discounted out of hand.  Someone who has no clue what an Eden is might independantly create a wonderful one that works perfectly with the land and the course in question, while someone who knows everything about it and all the variations that have been done through the years might produce an uninspiring clone that looks forced and out of place.

This is all irrelevant for GD ratings though, because I think you are worrying too much that people will mistake GD ratings for ratings of architectural greatness as you see them, since it isn't explicitly stated how their ratings are obtained.  If they did define it exactly its still up to humans to make subjective ratings, and you can't be sure they are doing it the way you would like, or even how you tell them to.

You could equally fault say college football polls and computer "polls" for not explicitly stating what criteria each pollster is using or the exact formula the computer is using.  Is the BCS ranking the best because its exact formula is known, even though the input is sometimes questionable?

[Gene Greco]

TE:

   Better call Alpine to change your nametag to "Titmouse" or Matt Ward won't let you into the meeting. It would be "Titmice" if you're bringing a peer with you.

[GAP member]

TH
With all due respect, I feel confident Thomas Paul could take you behind the wood shed on the golf course.  

Have you always been a fan of the GD method? I recall you being critical in the past.....what gives?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

You're getting defensive with respect to GD and the results.
I'm not referencing the results, I only want a clear understanding of the process, the components, and the criteria utilized to arrive at the conclusion.

Rich Goodale,

I don't think I used criteria in the single context, do you ?

Mr Kiss,

Rather extreme examples, Augusta, Winged Foot and Merion.
But, let's take Kittansett.  They held a Walker Cup 50 years ago, what are their "tournament history" points and how does that compare to Atlantic's "tournament history" points.

I just want to know how these points are determined.

If a magazine, any magazine is going to rate/rank golf courses they have an obligation to inform the reader with respect to the formula or methodology used to rate/rank these courses, and more importantly, if they are going to sub-contract the job out to 800 independent consultants, shouldn't they provide UNIFORM guidelines for each of those consultants, such that the ranking process is performed under the same standards ?  

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mr. KISS]

Pat

Again, I understand what you are asking for, but I think you may be missing the point that I'm trying to make.
If the criteria were perfectly clear with respect to every element, do you think that every panelist would come up with the same rankings for the same course?  Of course not.  And why not?  Because it's all subjective.  Just read what Mark Fine wrote:  

"The bottomline is that if a panelist happens to play what he thinks is one the ten best courses he's played or a course that deserves top 100 consideration, he rates it accordingly."

And "Panelists DON'T rate tournament history.  Someone at GD does all the research on the courses with regard to this."

You are asking for the truth, but there is no truth.  There is no right answer and that's why I personally think these rankings aren't worth a hill of beans.  But they do sell magazines.  I'm not suggesting that the ratings issue sells a lot more copies, but it's part of their overall annual content and that's what they are selling.

Now I don't know what Kitansett's tournament history rating is relative to Atlantic, and frankly I don't really care.  But if I had to rate tournament history based on 1 Walker Cup 50 years ago versus 1 Met Open & 1 US Sr. Amateur in the last 10 years, then I would certainly give more weight to the Walker Cup.  How about you?

[Willie_Dow]

It has been a long read, on a snow covered ground, and I like both Pat and you're positions.  Pat you are a great moderator, but the best courses I have played I can remember each and every hole, let alone, maybe, each and every shot.  Some of these courses, and I admit they are few, I can still recall that round many years later.  At age 74 this is fun to think back on if I'm having trouble getting to sleep.
My rating system!

[texsport]

In the current movie, "Two Weeks Notice", the female lead, Sandra Bullock, calls the playboy character played by the actor Hugh Grant..."the most irresponsible man in the world".
His response is, "That's rediculous, you don't know all the men in the world".

It reminds me of GD calling course X, Y, or Z one of the "Best 100 Courses In America".

I know that each GD rater has not rated every course in America either, so maybe it would be better if GD only rated courses by "Best In Each State". That way, every local rater could play every reasonable candidate, compare them all, let regional preferences enter their thinking, and then record their scores. GD could have a lot more raters, since they don't pay them anyway, and also create a lot more experts.

No national or world wide best list would be published and great regional rivalry, complete with shouting matches would result. Fifty states could each claim their local course as the best, creating road trips to play neighboring state's courses. There could be tailgating parties and loud talking concerning each person's favorite. Many more people would be happy and GD would sell a lot more magazines and advertizing because you could easily travel to play the local best course instead of making only 1 or 2 cross country trips a year to play the national "best".

I like it! It's better than the current system!

Texsport

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr Kiss,

I know it's subjective, but I would like to know the system the magazine uses for determining "tournament history".

Unlike Coca Cola it shouldn't be a secret formula.

With respect to the relative value of one recent USGA SR Amateur versus a Walker Cup 50 years ago, I don't know the answer.

Has one's history ended, with the other's just begining ?

I'm merely looking for the magazines to disclose the methodology used in determining their ratings/rankings.

I would think that a formula, coupled with a weighted time frame would be a reasonable approach.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I hear what you are saying but I don't know the answer?  Again, it doesn't bother me too much one way or the other.  Whether you like GD's system or not, you have to admit they provide a lot more detail about how they arrive at their numbers than the other magazines.  Again, Golf Magazine doesn't even have criteria.  Do you think Jack Nicklaus looks at a course the same way as Ran does or Bryant Gumble or some of the other GM raters?  Frankly, I don't get too hung up on that.  I find their lists interesting and if they list a new course in their Top 100 that I haven't played, I'll research it and probably go check it out.  The same goes for Golfweek's lists.  

Again, GD's Top 100 list is NOT correct!  I repeat, it is NOT correct.  But it is not wrong either!  That is because there is no correct list.  I've said many times, my personal Top 100 list is very different than GD's.  But that doesn't make my list any better or worse, only different based on my perceptions of a great design!   Ron Whitten would probably say the same thing if he cared to chime in but don't hold your breath  
Mark