"Tradition" an invalid criteria ?

[brad_miller]

where can Mike's post of the GD list ex tradition be found?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nobody has addressed the tournament history question I posed.

Is it:
PGA events
USGA events
Regional golf association events
State Golf association events
Club invitationals or special tournaments
or a combination of the above.

What is the SPECIFIC CRITERIA for determining "tournament history" ?

How did Maidstone, Seminole, Somerset Hills, Kittansett and others score in this category ?

If a club held a Walker Cup 50 years ago, and nothing since, is there a shelf life to "tournament history" points ?

How did Atlantic's tournament history compare to Maidstone's, Seminole's, Somerset Hills's and Kittansett's ?

Is there a clear definition for determining "tournament History" and is it applied equitably, consistently and universally ?

[TEPaul]

Pat, Pat, Pat!

Go easy on the twenty question posts, will ya? Those questions don't matter.

There's only one legitimate question here.

How many more magazines get sold with the ranking issue?

[John Conley]

Tom Paul:

Pat's questions are all valid.  How can you not see that?

As I've read through this, he has mostly asked questions in hopes of getting an answer he understands.  Saying, "We rank 'tradition'" doesn't really clarify it well enough if someone wants to know how it works.

I'm reminded of a discussion with the old pro of White Bear.  He asked for and received a breakdown of the Golf Digest numbers on his course.  He was appalled - I think justly - at the "Tradition" score his course received.

Donald Ross designed the course and one of the most prolific champions in the USGA's history was an early member.  (Johnson or Johnston?)  "Well, we didn't mean THAT KIND of tradition," was the only response a defender of the GD list could have possibly come up with.

Tradition of what?  Good question, Pat.  My guess is that USGA events matter.  Ditto TOUR.  I'm guessing hosting a State Am every 5 or 10 years doesn't register.

In some ways, Tom Huckaby is right.  But I don't want him to be.  Take an average golfer, put him on a course in excellent condition, tell him it is a great course, and show him the photos in the clubhouse of prominent tournaments the course has posted... a course has to be pretty bad NOT to make a good impression.  In Orlando, this explains people's love for Lake Nona, Bay Hill, and Disney's Magnolia.  People don't form their own opinion so much as their opinion is formed by others.  If most of their readers think playing a course with a pedigree is part of the intrigue, isn't GD just pandering to them?

The GD list is accurate.  As accurate as one can be when  you use a category that can't be defined.  (I'd like it better if it were "10 pts. for each U.S. Open, 8 for the Am, 3 for hosting an annual TOUR stop for 5+ years, etc..."  I'd still disagree that it was a relevant criteria, but at least it'd make sense.)  I don't pay much attention to it because it has become self-fulfilling to some degree.  Once a Classic makes the list, it is nearly impossible to fall off.  The composition has remained fairly stable as far as representation from Modern/Classic.

Since none of us seem to love any of the lists, why not just make your own?  

[Steve Lang]

I believe that GD, GW, and other's need these annual ratings to sell paper, that provides income for writers, photographers, etc, down to developers, pros and greens keepers and to advertisers... It doesn't matter what their criteria are... so as several have suggested, why not have a CGA.com criteria set?

I believe there's already criteria on the GCA.com homepage within Ran's descriptive prose..  throw up to a hundred points at each, mix and meld them against each other as you see fit, compile and sort, voila'  .. It would be nice if GCA.com could provide a means of capturing such for every course where folks have played and to average their determinations.

1) Enjoyment is the primary theme
2) place in history and improvements/setbacks in golf course architecture.
3) architectural periods divide the courses for comparison
4) minimalism and natural challenge
5) modification needed to adjust to equipment changes.
6) architecturally imposed movement and shaping of land
7) hazards and features of strategic interest
continuity of style
9) brute length and strength required
10) variety within and between holes of shot making options
11) rennaisance value, the king is dead, long live the king!
12) manufacturing quality & visual impact
13) playing strategy risk & reward
14) charm & subtleties in design for play
15) subjective art form versus function
16) the tests of time, as play begets maintenance, maintenance begets continuity, continuity begets understanding and understanding begets a return game.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
If GCA tried to come up with a more acceptable rating criteria, I'm 100% convinced they could not do it.  They would never reach agreement.  If GCA just tried to list the top 5 or 10 courses they could not do that either!  So how could they ever possibly agree on the top 100??

Let me throw out what should be a "simple" question for such an architecturally astute group - What are the five best designs "from an architecture standpoint" in the U.S.?  I'm sure there is no way GCA could ever agree on even this!

Mark

[guest]

Mark Fine,

Your five best designs question is exactly what I was getting at above. I agree. And anyone who tries to lay out criteria that will always be addressed evenly across different raters will be run through the ringer just like Tom in this thread. And now that I mention that, that might just prove to be very useful.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think Tom Paul is right about the number of issues being sold. Does the ratings issue sell more? What's the economic reality as it pertains to any list? Certainly more to the courses than to the magazine.

Tom H- Why are you a rater? If there is no larger purpose why the heck would anyone want to do it?

[Joel_Stewart]

Personally I don't think the semi annual edition of the top 100 sells more and if so I bets it less than 1 or 2 percent. Its not like people go to buy the SI swimsuit edition.

Does ANGC or Pine Valley care, no, its only the resorts and especially the golf courses with developments who advertise themselves as being a top 100 course and probably they don't even buy more magazines.

Pat:  No one at GD has ever told us (at least me) what specific tournaments qualify for this catagory but I'll ask Ron.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel Stewart,

Thanks,

If you're going to have a rating category, it would seem logical to have guidelines and/or parameters by which raters can evaluate in that context.

While the "club" may not care about ratings, it has been my limited experience that members and potential members do.

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

You're right--I shouldn't tell Pat not to ask all these questions about the nitty gritty and nuances of the magazine rating criteria, like 'tradition'.

It's certainly no secret that as time goes on I think the whole magazine ranking issue is a ridiculous joke, but that certainly doesn't mean I should expect or assume that others think the way I do about it.

People really do believe in the magazine rankings and take them extremely seriously. I just think that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't feel that way at all if they'd bother to try to explain and educate people about architecture. Sometimes it appears that some of these magazines can't be bothered to explain it to their own panelists or maybe they don't even know how!

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine said:

"Let me throw out what should be a "simple" question for such an architecturally astute group - What are the five best designs "from an architecture standpoint" in the U.S.?  I'm sure there is no way GCA could ever agree on even this!"

Mark:

You're exactly right! And that's just another really good reason why these magazines, ranking the way they do is basically the height of ridiculousness! Golfers don't really even need to know what the 5-10 or 110 best are, unless there's some consistent architectural reason why they should be the top 5-10 best that's explained by the magazines and probably in detail!

What they need to do is start to write about what's good or bad or mediocre about any particular course and its architecture!

But they don't do that. Frankly, I don't think they're even capable of doing that without just simply turning the project over to a few Ron Whittens and such.

But they can't do that and the reasons why are pretty apparent and more evidence of why the whole thing is not really worth it except to the magazine's own sales!

I mean, come on, I know a little bit about golf architecture and I've yet to see most of these magazines with their rankings tell me one damn thing I'd like to know about why they think some of these courses are so good!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
No long debate on the lists as I know you hate them.  But I am surprised you can't understand at least some benefit.  First of all, a top 100 list itself isn't going to "educate" you about golf course architecture.  That is not what they are for.  However, if you do want to get educated, simply go play some or all of those courses on the list and I guarantee you will learn at least a little something about it.  

I've never been hung up about whether these lists are right or wrong because there are no right or wrong answers.  But for golfers who get around, the top 100 lists, the state lists, the best new lists, etc. provide a decent guide as to where they might want to try to play.  Sure some of the courses are not easy to access but for many of them, where there is a will there is a way.  I should note that I have a buddy who is putting together a worldwide network that will actually make it much easier for many of us to make some of these connections.  

Anyway, all of us on this site should stop looking at the negatives when it comes to these lists and embrace (or at least try to find) the positives.  The lists are not going away and we should think about how we can use them to our advantage.  They influence a lot of people including developers and architects.  I'd venture to say 99% of us  

Mark

[Steve Lang]

Mark_Fine,

   Are you wanting it multiple ways?..  Criticizing criteria,  wanting only a small group of reference designs to hold up as the gold standard and copy?, then accepting and wanting to embrace the ratings lists, for the lowest common denominator to find where to direct the hordes to play?

Anyway, all of us on this site should stop looking at the negatives when it comes to these lists and embrace (or at least try to find) the positives.  The lists are not going away and we should think about how we can use them to our advantage.  They influence a lot of people including developers and architects.  I'd venture to say 99% of us  

I simply think GCA.COM folks could create a better set of criteria and then exercise them to death.  look what PatM has done with one...

 A scribe is needed to carry this out, could there be an electronic one?

I'm not looking for comparisons between courses as much as opinions of those within the larger group or population that has played the specific courses..   If there's consensus on a feature, fine, dissension, fine..  We don't need a popularity contest which the listings seem to be.. with ballot stuffing etc.. but some do irregardless.
 
There will never be any agreement on gca.com until we've all played the same courses, under similar conditions.. not likely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

You understand, why don't others ?  

When the raters don't have an understanding of the criteria for "Tournament History" how can they effectively rate any golf course ?

Shouldn't they know what it is that they are looking for so that they can factor it into their evaluation ?

Not one rater has defined this sub-set category.

I don't have a problem with anyone creating a list, but the methodology employed to determine the relative values resulting in the rating should be defined, understood, and applied equitably, consistently and universally.

Tell those guys, "it's the process, stupid"  

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

I don't want to debate you either but your post is no answer as far as I'm concerned. If you're really looking for some positives in those lists then make some positive recommendations instead of always simply saying there must be some positives in there somewhere because the lists aren't going away.

I've no doubt that clients and architects probably do put a lot of stock in those lists for marketing their products--that's certainly undeniable.

But if that's happening wouldn't you think the magazines might then accept some responsibility of trying to do some educating of golfers within their magazines about architecture and what exactly is good about it and what isn't?

You don't have to answer that because obviously you don't think that--since you're on record on here many times about that 99% who don't know, don't care and probably never want to know or are even capable of learning. And I suppose in your opinion that 99% might also be the magazine's readership!

And you have a buddy whose trying to put together a worldwide network so "MANY of us" can make better connections?

Man, that's really ridiculous to me. People who have even half an idea about this whole panelist rating thing that doesn't seem to educate anyone very well on architecture anyway have always suspected most of the panelists as blatant "access seekers" anyway. That really solidifies that impression, in my book!

Personally, I'd take one Matt Ward who may write in detail about his architectural impressions of a course, even if in his own magazine, over 100 magazine panelists! I'd also take 5 Ron Whittens over all 800 panelists.

But it seems like Matt Ward may have been too honest about something to do with architecture or his feeling about the way the magazines might go about it. So what do they do instead of considering what he's saying to them? They get rid of him--that's what I heard.

And the dumb beat goes on just to sell magazines! If they thought about it a bit more clearly they'd probably sell a helluva lot more magazines if they tried to educate golfers on architecture.

Oh, that's right, that niggling old 99% again. I momentarily must have forgotten about that.

[A_Clay_Man]

I am pretty new to even ever seeing a ranking list but I'd bet there is some positive that could emerge. That would be the trend  of what's considered good/great. It seems only natural that as time goes on we learn more and perhaps there is a trend in GCA, and therefore the entire industry, that can't really be seen any otherway than to use lists. I predict that if enough of the lower budgeted firm and fast projects all make splashes on the list circut, one would have to have too much money to continue to waste it on what has become the norm, or better known as.. the previous trend.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
You must be confusing me with Mark_F.  I am NOT posting as Mark_F, that is someone else!

Tom Paul,
Please tell me the names of all the courses these clueless panelists have voted for on GD's current top 100 list that would be a complete waste of time and effort to go play?  

Also, regarding access, I have heard many times about people complaining they can't get on private courses.  Even you might admit that it's hard to study a golf course if you can't get on it.  It's no different than an architect designing a new course without ever seeing or walking the site.  There may be panelists who are panelists because they want access.  I was not one of them as when I joined, I had already played nearly 500 courses around the world and most of the so called top 100.  I didn't need access but some people do.  So be it!  If there is a way to help with that, what is the downside??  I don't see any and I'm sure many people here would agree!  

Matt Ward was taken off the panel for other reasons than you suggest.  Ask him in private if you want to know why.  

I'm tried to explain many of the positives of the lists many times but some people are closed minded and don't listen.  Just the fact that developers and most every architect out there is influenced by these lists should be enough for you!!!!!  Until you grasp reality and buyin at least to some degree on what I mean by my 99% rule you will be living in a pipe dream.  

Let me put it one other way - There is an old saying, before you can fix a problem, you better make sure you fulling understand what it is!  If you want to really influence the direction of golf architecture, you better understand the golfers you are catering to and all the influences out there and figure out ways to use them to your advantage.  Think about that  
Mark

[Tom Doak]

I am positive that this group (or many others) could come up with a better list of criteria to define a "great golf course" than the GOLF DIGEST system.

However, where this group would fall down (as GOLF DIGEST does) is in weighting the relative importance of those criteria.

GOLF DIGEST makes "Shot Values" worth 20 points, and then all its other categories (condition, tradition, memorability, etc.) worth ten points each.  Other than for simplicity's sake, does that make any sense?  Of course not ... but no two panelists would agree on which criteria were worth more.

At any rate, many of the best courses are the ones which break the rules successfully and stretch the envelope of golf course design.  That right there is difficult to quantify.

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the obvious flaws in any rating that implies "Top" something, is that every panelist hasn't played every venue.

Even in beauty pagents, the judges get a feel for   every contestant.

[Steve Lang]

If anyone is really serious about creating a new "quantitative rating" they need to move beyond Math 101.. and take some more cues from nature, the arts AND science.

Diversity of opinions may be captured by various metrics and used to form "distributions".  Many physical things in nature are log-normally distributed, like the particle sizes of dust blowin in the wind..  We're not talking nice and neat bell curves (arithmetic probability distributions) here, but if that's what you can relate to, use it.. average, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis anyone?  

The processes of trying to figure out what criteria should be used or what metric values should be given or what weighting should be provided create unique distributions which may be merged mathematically.  

So it doesn't matter whether "everyone" agrees on a unique metric value or not.  It does matter that the rules for defining these relative metrics be established.. perhaps by the benevolent dictator?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak,
You know very well that it's the weighting that is most important and the experience of the panelist.  Look at the "criteria" that Golf Magazine has?  They don't have criteria!  However, I guarantee you that every one of their panelists do and it's surely all unique!  Golfweek is no different.  Heck their numbers don't even add up.  You can give a course all 5's and then give it an overall rating of 7.  At the end of the day, you can make the numbers come out to what ever you want them to be.  And there is nothing wrong with any of this.  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.  

The criteria does not "force" anything.  Take the controversial resistance to scoring category.  There may be times I play a very difficult course and give it a low resistance to scoring number.  I might do that because the difficulty is one dimensional.  Firestone South comes to mind!  This is not paint by numbers as some people think.  

Adam,
Your point about seeing all the courses is a good one and one that I have raised in the past.  If you haven't seen all the best, its quite hard to rate all the best!  Like Doak says in his book, if you haven't played all the 10's, you don't know how good golf can get!

Steve,
Afraid you won't get too far here.  Again the subject of rating is very subjective and regardless of the criteria, everyone will view things differently and give their own weightings.  No one has the right answers because there are none.  There might be more knowledgable opinions but they are still just personal opinions.  
Mark

[Guest]

Regardless of how you rate a course, the outcome expresses a bias. There is no way around that. So, to determine the real value of a rating, you need to fully understand the biases at work in the raters and in those rating the raters. Good luck to anyone trying to do this.

Wouldn't it just be more productive to go out and play golf--even a bad round of golf on a "bad" golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

If 100 raters play and evaluate a golf course, don't the biases cancel each other out, leaving you with a reasonable, balanced evaluation ?

But, this thread isn't about "the ratings" it's about the internal criteria for evaluation purposes.

Noone has yet to address, let alone answer the
"tournament history" question.

So I say to all raters out there, what's your basis for establishing points under the "tradition" sub-category of
"tournament history" ?

The lack of a response would seem to indicate that the raters themselves have not been given specific guidelines by those responsible for the rating criteria.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

Again, you're not answering the question of the magazine rankings failing to educate the golfing public on what constitutes good architecture.

Saying things like 'before you can fix the problem you have to know what the problem is', is something everybody's heard about any problem under the sun.

The problem to me with those magazine ranking lists is they just don't educate the golfing public about what constitutes good architecture, Mark!

That's the thing to concentrate on here! What in the world gives me one damn indication of the architectural reasons those courses are chosen for quality architecture. What is it about a single list from 1-100  that gives anyone an education on what stands out about one course over another even on those lists? Nothing I can see.

Why's it so hard for you to admit that those magazines should spend the time to explain in detail why the architecture of a golf course is so good, deserving of being ranked? Why can't they do individual articles on the courses ranked by them explaining why those courses deserve to be recognized and also why one would deserve to be ranked over another?

To me that's the meat of the problem--they aren't really explaining anything about the architecture, not comparatively or even individually.

Do you expect that the reading public is supposed to analyze in detail the "criteria" that makes up how these courses are ranked? Why would they bother to do that when even the panelists don't seem all that familiar with it or even how it all pans out into the rankings?

Just tell me that you don't think that well-written articles by a few really good golf analysts would be a far better way to go about ranking courses and educating the golfing public on what constitutes good golf architecture.

The problem is the magazine's don't or won't do that. The way to fix the problem is to get them to do that! Get them to hire a few good writers and send them on the road analyzing and writing about what makes this course good architecture and why it's ranked higher than that other one on the list.

If I ran a really good course and a magazine like Golf Digest asked me to let as many of their 800 panelists (probably all of whom I'd never even heard of) as possible on the course to rate it so the magazine could compile a list with no architectural explanation I'd tell them to go jump in the lake. But if they told me they wanted to send a good golf analyst writer or two my way to really look over the course's architecture and play it a few times that would be fine with me.

And as far as continually telling us you've played hundreds of courses, Mark, I'd say, so what? I've played hundreds of courses too. So what?