[Guest]

If 100 biased raters rate a course you end up with a subjective result based in some way on bias. If you have one, please seek a patent on the machine you would use to sort through, or as you say "cancel out" the inherent bias that accompanies each and every human thought. You would need omniscience just to "balance" out or factor in the bias at work when a rater makes a value judgement about rating courses to begin with. Not all raters value rating equally. Not all human beings value anything equally. By the way, when you make a case for a "balanced and reasonable evaluation", you show your own cultural or intelletual bias. In some cultures, balance and reason are not involved in making value judgements. They have their own, different biases. "Resonable" is not a bad way to go in my opinion, but that too is my bias.

If the raters do answer your question, and I hope for the sake of discussion they do (since the winter is upon many of us and what the heck, it might as well be outlined), it is likely that you will insert your subjectivity and bias into the mix and, like Tom H., they will find that they have to defend something, any alternative to which would be equally indefensible beyond simply saying, "This is our critieria." And if we end up at "This is our criteria and anything else will be equally biased" then where have we gone?

Maybe we need ten or twelve rating methods to satisfy the majority of those seeking a worthwhile evaluative system. Maybe we need ten or twelve thousand.

[Mark_Fine]

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

Tom Paul,
You are still missing the point, golfers don't want to read about golf architecture!!!!!  Get that through your head!  Why would GD or any golf magazine focus on something golfers could care less about!  Didn't you comprehend what Brad Klein said a year or so back about golf architecture books - you don't write them for the money because you'll only sell a thousand or so and probably only to the guys on this site who are already converted.  You've heard Ron Whitten say the same thing!  I guarantee you GD would write about golf architecture constantly if they felt a decent portion of golfers cared about it but they don't.  That is a fact!  

So where does that leave the rankings.  Well golfers like playing those noteworthy courses whether it be top 100, best in state, best new, best resort,...  Well why not get the guys who vote for these courses to vote for the ones with the best architecture (as you call it)?  Well you are not going to get them educated if you piss them all off!  Few participate on a site like this (where they could learn) because they can't deal with the BS and constant downplaying of how clueless they are.  

GCA has enough panelists that participate that if they wanted to they could dramatically expand that audience by networking with other panelists to chime in but they will not pass on the word about this site with so much negativity going on.  They don't have time for it!  We, GCA is missing an opportunity to do this "educating" that you talk about.  

You downplay about actually "playing golf" and seeing lots of courses but that is the one thing panelists do (at least some of them) so their reviews might be questioned but at least they've seen what others are just talking about.  

We always talk about "designing courses in the field".  Seeing lots of courses, studing different routings, ... etc. is no different.  
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

When publications add "criteria" as GD has done with tradition it's clear to me what's happening -- if you don't like the results you're getting from your panelists then add other specific criteria that will add "bonus" points to maintain the status quo -- particularly at the very top of the pyramid of key rated courses.

I've never understood the whole tradition criteria and I personally believe a course rating should be laser-like in its assessment of the most important characteristic -- the quality / comprehensive nature of the shots needed and the integration of am 18-hole package that brings to bear the maximum skill for any player at nearly all levels.

Tom Paul is quite correct -- ratings without some sort of detailed accounting of "why" and "how" is pointless. It just becomes a yellow pages of information that few really understand.

At Jersey Golfer we enlist the help of 50 learned observers of the Garden State golf scene. We also do follow-ups with our internal editorial team (that means all the courses eligible for consideration are personally visited). We also try to specify why certain courses have risen in stature and why others have gone down. We also start with zero-based ratings and no past rating is maintained.

Clearly, the subject of ratings is subjective. The more important question is the scope of the review and what is pertinent in the overall analysis. I believe the element I mentioned at the end of paragraph #2 is where the focus should lie. But, I also concur with Tom Paul that it's no less important for any serious magazine to highlight the reasons why. The answering of "why" helps inform and elevate the understanding of many who clearly want that kind of detailed information.

Pat Mucci is quite correct -- the GD listing does have impact because it does "influence" how people perceive what is good and it does drive interest from the standpoint of readership for the publication. GD is still the perception leader as the magazine of record within the golf industry -- even though I'm sure others see it differently. Heck, we run ratings biennially in Jersey Golfer because we believe it is something readers do want --however, we also try to inform readers on how choices are made and what is happening within the field. We don't throw in additional categories to obfuscate what is truly the most important aspects in a rating and when other magazines do I believe any fair minded person can see the effect by the outcomes it produces.

There are plenty of superior new courses in the USA today that I have visited in the last number of years that are shortchanged because criteria like "tradition" is clearly an exercise in exclusion. That's just my opinion and to borrow a phrase from my Jersey native and friend Pat Mucci -- I could be wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

We're not talking about other cultures, we're talking about this culture, so let's confine ourselves to this culture and not drift to irrelevant tangents.

Let's also not discuss generalities, let's focus on specifics, exactly what biases are you referencing ?

I'm not asking anyone to defend anything, I'm just asking them to DEFINE something.  

What is the criteria for "tournament history", what exactly qualifies a course for points in that category ?

Mark Fine,

If the Magazine provides that component,
1.  I'd like to know how it is determined
2.  How does a rater blend it in with the other two (2) sub-
     components previoulsy listed as composing the general
     category of, "TRADITION" ?

The more people try to explain the category of "Tradition" and its applications, the more it seems that no one has a solid explanation of what the criteria are, how they're arrived at, and how the raters utilize and blend them, in forming their final evaluation.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
You are still missing the point, golfers don't want to read about golf architecture!!!!!  Get that through your head!  Why would GD or any golf magazine focus on something golfers could care less about!  Didn't you comprehend what Brad Klein said a year or so back about golf architecture books - you don't write them for the money because you'll only sell a thousand or so and probably only to the guys on this site who are already converted.  You've heard Ron Whitten say the same thing!  I guarantee you GD would write about golf architecture constantly if they felt a decent portion of golfers cared about it but they don't.  That is a fact!"

I don't care what you say about that! Brad Klein or Ron Whitten either. Why are they writing about golf architecture then? For the people on this site only?

The problem with you, in my opinion, Mark, is you tend to make these huge generalizations and assumptions (99%) and they're then gospel in your mind. And you don't even say that golfers DON'T read about architecture, you say they DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT.  

How the hell do you know that? Because Ron Whitten told you? He probably says that because Golf Digest has never been interested in really letting him do it the way I'm talking about him doing it anyway.

Brad Klein is probably right about the likely sales of architectural books or his book but Brad Klein is not Golf Digest either. He doesn't have that kind of market.

I think a lot more golfers than any of you realize are interested in reading well written and informative information on golf architecture. Even if 5-10 percent of GD's readership actually read it that would seem to be enough of a start to me.

I think people tend to get into architecture if a modicum of information and understanding is given to them and they begin to establish a foothold of understanding about it but the problem is no one today is used to reading about it because no magazine with the impact of Golf Digest has given it to them in decades.

Even at my own golf club the interest in architectural information has gone from zero to a pretty interesting slice of the membership in very little time.

You sound a little like Fazio to me when he said he knows EXACTLY what all golfers want and don't want. He doesn't know anything of the kind despite who he is.

He says things like that, in my opinion, because it sounds knowledgeable but all it is is the easy way out--the super safe route to take to have a leader in architecture like he is follow the crowd instead of leading it! And the irony is it's probably largely a crowd whose thinking he once influenced! Go with the safe product ad infinitum because one doesn't feel like taking a chance and leading the golfing public, trying to educate them.

Golf Digest could do this and it at least could SUPPORT their ranking lists and it would be more understandable to lots of golfers. Why is it exactly that you think the lists are popular anyway, Mark, what do you think is the necessity of them if all these golfers--this 99% of yours doesn't give a damn anyway?

Frankly, I find your generalization of this 99% who seem to be mindless sheep-like golfers in your mind, arrogant as hell--even elitist on your part!

Almost any architect I've ever met who seems worthy of his profession has always said education in architecture is the name of the game and here you're saying no one cares an iota about it anyway!

I'm not necessarily talking about starting this effort directed at the so-called CCFAD crowd--they probably don't care right now. Start it at the innovative clients and their constituencies because historically they've always been on the cutting edge of innovation and leadership in golf and architecture anyway.

Otherwise why would some of these great new courses we've seen in recent years have happened? Are all those people completely disinterested in architecture? Do you think it's possible there may be a lot more of them out there if given a nudge--an education? And why is there all this new interest in restoration? Are all those people oblivious to architecture and completely disinterested in it as you say?

I don't think so!

[Guest]

Ah grasshopper (Pat), any butterfly will tell you that the best way to get from point a to point b is not always in a straight line. And any scientist will tell you that the fluttering of a butterfly's wings will influence the whole universe. Your counting machines are no match for the butterfly's wings, grasshopper.

It is okay to accept your hopping bias grasshopper. It is who you are.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

This makes no real sense to me;

",...  Well why not get the guys who vote for these courses to vote for the ones with the best architecture (as you call it)?  Well you are not going to get them educated if you piss them all off!  Few participate on a site like this (where they could learn) because they can't deal with the BS and constant downplaying of how clueless they are."

And this coming from the guy who came up with the clueless 99% in the first place? Or are you now talking about Golf Digest's panelists (as clueless) and not pissing them off?

I'm not talking about any group of clueless golfers or pissing anyone off, Mark--you are. All I'm talking about is education. Are you now talking about a better way to EDUCATE Golf Digest's panelists by finding ways to increase their access to great golf courses?  

If that's so that really is unbelievable! And if that's so I really can't believe then that you defend this GD ranking thing and the process they use to do it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Any scientist will tell you that the best way to get from Point A to point B is a straight line, especially if you know how to hit a one iron that bores into the wind, but not if you're low on the food chain.

Any scientist will tell you that the reason for the butterfly's erratic flight has to do with natural selection, the survival of the fittest.

Those butterfly's whose flight is smooth, straight lined, get picked off by predators (birds).  Those butterfly's that fly in erratic, jerky patterns, up and down, side to side, present a more difficult target for their predators, hence they survive, and produce offspring with the same traits.

Forget about golf course architecture, you need to spend more time and bone up on entomology, and one iron flight characteristics.

[Guest]

Survival? Ah yes. Maybe you should not hop in such a straight line grasshopper.

[TEPaul]

guest:

Would you care to speak with Dr. Katz? If so, I'd be more than happy to try to arrange it.

[Guest]

TEPaul,

Thank you for the offer. But it is often the case that the doctor is more ill than the patient. Unless Dr. Katz understands that there is no objective way for human beings to rank anything, then he too will go the way of the grasshopper: stubbornly trying to fly like the butterfly only to crash to the ground under the force of gravity. It is better for the grasshopper if he does not confuse his wings for those of the butterfly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Guest forgets that, while the grasshopper was hopping and flying, the butterfly, in his earlier life was crawling, and thus is a rookie at aerobatics.

But, make sure that Dr. Katz is on call.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
The problem here must be written communication as you are missing my point and I am missing yours.  First of all the access I am talking about is not for panelists as they don't need it but let's stay off that subject.  

On the 99%, that is not at all elitist.  This has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence or being clueless.  It has to do with interest level!  I believe there are few golfers who are out there looking at or interested in the architecture.  It doesn't mean they are "clueless" or stupid or anything at all like that.  It means they just are not interested.  They are like you were five years ago Tom!  Get that picture through your head!  You yourself said you could not properly evaluate courses you played years ago because you were not concerned about the architecture but were worried about your golf game!!!!!!!  Like you, most guys are out there to better their best score, forget about life, or enjoy a few hours away from it all.  They want to spend time with their buddies, make a few bets, make a few birdies, putt on smooth greens, ...

If I am wrong and 5 or 10% of golfers (as you point out) are interested (not clueless) about golf course architecture (that would be about 1 or 2 million golfers in the U.S.), then why are there only a thousand copies of any golf architecture book sold?  Why don't golfers want to read about this stuff    Explain that one?  Why does this website only have 40 or 50 regular posters and not 40 or 50 thousand!

By the way you should know from spending time with Brad Klein and listening to his talk that restoration is mostly being done as a marketing ploy for golf clubs.  There is a financial purpose for most of it.  Most clubs are not "restoring" their courses because they love golf architecture (though some of us might be pushing them to do it for that reason).  It is generally an image thing that helps them differentiate themselves.

Remember Tom, 99% are NOT clueless, they are just not interested, just like you used to be    If that sounds arrogant than you are still missing my point!

Mark

[Steve Lang]

Hey y'all, let's not get too mad about things eh?  
Winter got you down?  

After all, it was near 70°F today in the Woodlands, and while I went 38-47 for a rollicking 85 on the Player Course, losing 1 & 0 to ms. sheila,  whether you call it understanding architecture or a what a slope of 134 from the blues really mean, I think most players want to know how to do it better.  I think getting inside the archi's mindset helps a little.  

Could I have broke 80 today and won? Definitely maybe, because I've studied the course for the last 6 months and experienced it enough and done it. Did I care to? No, it was so great out there, it didn't matter.  I went for every career shot possible on the back, because I was basically hitting it well, had a lead, and wanted to challenge my execution skills for fun in a relaxed match play setting.. Just can't control my opponent shooting a 42 on the back and parring the 18th, a stroke hole..  I knew better, but challenged the architecture.   Not agin, fer a while..

I for one gave up on GD long ago, after all, how many times can you read that cure your slice article???  It seems only reasonable that such publications could offer more architecture related stuff, beyond the fluff, just like they offer and keep repeating other technique tips etc..
  
I know some don't want to see this kind of stuff, but here's a look an example of a nature based log-normal distribution ( i.e., by using logarithms for values (on left chart) versus the values themselves, the transformation looks like a normal bell curve (right chart).  



Now where is that 99% cut off in distributions?  Depending on your hypothesis, out on the tails folks..  My premise is that l-n distributions are the reality out there and evaluations could be portrayed as such no matter what the criteria or metrics.

 

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I'm not missing your point at all and I basically never have. But I sure am growing weary of you saying that. That's seems to be what some on here tend to say if someone disagrees with something they say.

I don't really care whether you call 99% clueless about architecture or just not interested. I really don't think 99% of American golfers are either, as clearly you do.

Why use me five years ago as an example of golfers being everlastingly disinterested in architecture or disinterested in an informed education on golf architecture? What happened to me then? Am I one in a 100,000 for some odd reason and how would you know that? I would suggest that you have no idea the number of golfers who might get interested in architecture as I did. No more idea than when you state that 99% of golfers are never going to be interested in architecture. Basically, Mark, you don't know that, although you think you do! There's no way you could know something like that--no one does!

The sales of Brad klein's book, I've been trying to tell you, doesn't have much comparison to Golf Digest and their marketing and circulation reach if they wrote architectural articles. I'm sure you can understand that. Is Sleeping Bear Press comparable to Golf Digest in their circulation ability? Of course not! Is Golfclubatlas?

What you're saying is if Golf Digest with their circulation did run some really well written and informative articles on golf architecture no one would read those articles because so few are interested in them and I'm disagreeing with that and very much so. I think a good number of golfers would read them and frankly I think it would probably inspire a number of them to get more involved and the extrapolation would begin. The primary reason so few people seem to be interested in reading those kinds of articles in magazines like GD is because they've never been given those articles by GD--certainly not the way I'm suggesting.

You, obviously don't see it that way and that's where we disagree. There's no missing of points here just very different opinions.

You, like a number of others, seem to be quite pessimistic about the potential interest in golf architecture and I suppose I just don't feel that way.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
Sounds like you are having fun.  Don't worry about Tom and I.  We are both stubborn and strong in our opinions (maybe too strong).

I'll get him to come around sooner or later    I just have to keep reminding him what his opinion of this architecture stuff was five years ago when a center fairway bunker complex was nothing more to him than a pain in the ass and some idiot's idea to keep him from making an easier birdie!  

Mark  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom P

The old magazines and journals were chock full of architecture, and really fine articles at that.  So it did appeal at some point.  Sadly you can see the emphasis shift to instruction through the years.  

I believe the new magazines could at least try and shift some focus back towards intelligent discussion on architecture.  Perhaps not quite in the Max Behr style!  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Ron Whitten has tried for years to do more architecture stuff for GD.  Where did he go wrong?  If I recall correctly, Geoff Shackelford used to do a section for Golf Magazine but got tired of it (they were always editing what he wrote) and stopped.  I'm not sure, do they even have that architecture section any more?  

Remember I never said I liked that 99% concept, I just happen to believe it's not far off.  I was in that group for a long time and was just fine with it.  I don't think I was any dumber than than I am now, I just had different interests and priorities.  I didn't really care where I played golf just as long as I got to play.  The biggest difference to me frankly between courses back than was the price of the green fee.  I remember I was a member of The Golf Card.  The courses that participate are not exactly the best golf architecture has to offer.  But who cared, we could play for cart fees!  

Honestly, despite where I get to play now, I still enjoy some of those courses like Mt. Airy Lodge for example.  As I'm sure you know, it's a marginal design at best "architecture-wise", but it brings back some great memories of the rounds we used to play there.  Fifteen years ago, that course to me was a 10!  I didn't know any better and I didn't really care!

Mark

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Of course the magazines could try to do that again. I find Mark Fine's rationale as nothing more than a weak defense of a magazine rating system that's basically indefensible--except for strictly commercial reasons of various entities.

[TEPaul]

Mark;

Come on now--you're asking me where Ron Whitten went wrong?

He didn't go wrong. Either did Shackelford. This is a question, if you rate for Golf Digest, I think you should ask the publisher! He'll probably tell you some tale like 99% of golfers are either clueless or completely uninterested in reading about architecture. Just give them a list of 1-100--that's all they need and that's all they deserve!

It costs the magazine's less to enlist 800 panelists who have very little of the architectural understanding that Whitten and Shackelford do and get them to try to filter through a bunch of criteria most of them neither understand nor agree with and once that's in the magazine editors probably put their own spin on the lists that fewer understand or agree with. And of course through all this no one really knows much at all about the architecture of these courses which is supposed to be the point of it all.

I don't think Whitten's done anything wrong. They should let him write more about the details of architecture--that's what I've been saying all along here. Of course that would put you and your other 799 panelists out of panelist business. Oh my God, how horrible!

[Guest]

TEPaul,

If Golf Digest is not doing enough golf architecture analysis for your liking, maybe you should stop reading it and spend more time here at GCA where it's all architecture all the time. Hey, rabbits believe in "Tradition", flyers don't.  Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly. And have fun out there!

[TEPaul]

guest:

At the risk of driving Dr. Katz crazy, I really think you need to see him anyway.

Heh, I guess I'm just a rabbit rabbitting! I have no problem with flyers flying but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their rationale too.

Me read Golf Digest? Are you serious?

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Can Dr. Katz help someone who is addicted to a certain golf architecture website?? I need help! The number of times I check in here daily to follow threads such as this one is becoming obscene! Repeat, I need help!

 

[TEPaul]

Gary:

He might. Personally I think Katz is an outrageous quack but the fact is he's the only head doctor Golfclubatlas has.

[texsport]

Since Steve Lang has raised the question of a more statistically valid tabulation of "Bests", I'd like to inject the thought that the qualifications of the people doing the rating must be examined. Votes by unqualified raters must be thrown out as stray, unexplainably variant data.

I like what Matt Ward said about a highly qualified group of evaluators. To be really valid, golf professionals and architects should do the rating. Otherwise, you end up with something like the baseball or NBA All Star games with "fan favorites" picked by the fans.(a clearly unqualified group to make such selections). Neither All Star game rosters or "Best Course" lists are anything more than fuel for media hype.

To be able to truthfully claim their list of The Best Courses as valid, GD must have a qualified rating staff, not a bunch of 20 handicappers playing from the foreward tees who have the time and money to play a lot of courses. If their rating group is qualified, GD should present the qualifications to prove the validity of their claimed "Best" list. Additionally, GD should state whether or not their raters are paid. Obviously, if they're not paid , or only given a token stipend for expenses, they are amateurs, further bringing their qualifications into question.

GD should also drop everything not directly related to shotmaking, though the raters may be more qualified to judge these frills than the architectural merits or shot making requirements of a golf course.

In any statistically valid examination of facts, bad data is worse than no data at all because it misleads you into making false conclusions-in this case about which courses are best. Evaluation  points for tradition, atmosphere, whether or not they allow walking and,how many times they've been on "The Best List" further invalidate the data base. The way GD does it may be their way but it's scientifically worthless.

Texsport

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()