What is the "Highest and Best" use for magazine ratings?

[Mike_Young]

At the end of the day the reason I become most frustrated with this  rating thing is "why"??
I say development and resort play

[wsmorrison]

I am in complete agreement with you, Mike.  Why?  The ones that benefit the most are the magazines themselves, as you say resorts and housing developments, and the raters who get an ego boost thinking they are providing a real service when the process cannot be rigorous or meaningful.  Is Pine Valley really better than the second best course in the world, whatever that is?  It is an impossible conclusion to make and frankly insults any intelligent person.   Do I want to hear what my friends and playing companions think of certain courses?  Yes, it makes for a good discussion over cocktails.  Do I care what some guy in East Japip thinks?  Why should I?  I'd prefer to think for myself.

The rankers benefits are obvious, access, access and access.  Whether out of pocket or not, these guys can plead their case that they are doing it for the greater good but the actual beneficiaries are a very narrow cross-section.

[JESII]

Do I care what some guy in East Japip thinks?

I always thought it was Jabip!
thoughts?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,
Right again.  It is Jabip.  Here's an entry from Wikipedia:

In some forms of English, kadigans exist to represent places, particularly the stereotypical backward, insignificant or isolated town in the middle of nowhere. These include:

    * Anytown, USA and Dullsville in the USA
    * East Jabip/Jebip in the USA
    * East Jesus in the USA
    * (East/West) Bum(ble)fuck in the USA (somewhat impolite)
    * Bumfuck Egypt or Butt-fuck Egypt (commonly abbreviated BFE, used in the Midwest of the USA)
    * Dog River, Armpit or Moose Fuck in Canada
    * Sainte-Clotilde-de-Rubber-Boot in Quebec
    * Podunk in the USA
    * Woop-woop in Australia
    * Waikikamukau (pronounced ‘Why kick a moo-cow’) in New Zealand
    * Black Stump in Australia and New Zealand (“Beyond Black Stump” indicates an extremely remote location).
    * Timbucktoo is still commonly used to refer to an unspecified but remote place.
    * Blackacre, Whiteacre, and Greenacre are widely used in law courses to represent hypothetical estates in land.

Common components of placeholders for places are -town, -ville, -hampton (in the United Kingdom), -vale, Big-, Mid-, Middle-, Little-, Small-, Bally- (in Ireland), and Any-. The National Health Service of the UK, as well as the Department for Transport, use a large variety of placeholders as examples, including:

    * Axtley
    * Port Lever
    * Lampton
    * Middlehampton
    * Anyshire
    * Eastern Vale

[Jason Blasberg]

Mike:

Is it the process or the results that are stuck in your craw (extra points rewarded for he or she who ids the comedy skit that best used the term "craw")?

Some very good work is done by many that go nameless, and the point isin't to sell memberships or houses b.c it's done by those who have only a genuine interest in archie merits . . . something that is often lacking here . . . and something that is always lacking in these "ranking" posts.  

[Michael Moore]

Jason -

I would have to say the "What's Up Your Craw" skit from Kids in the Hall number 506.

What's this about playing golf being likened to heavy lifting? I don't get it . . .

[Bill Gayne]

Yes, it makes for a good discussion over cocktails.  

Wayne, I can probably think of a hundred better topics to discuss over cocktails.

I use to be of the mind that rankings were positive in that they provided a consumer guide of sorts. Than I came to realize that there really wasn't a whole lot of consumer benefit and viewed the rankings as harmless fun for guys that enjoy applying numbers to golf courses and guys that like to name drop courses. I think of it as harmful fun when I read that members want so and so golf course changed because it lost its place in the rating. Although this really isn't a rating problem it's a users problem.

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Nothing is "stuck in my craw"..but I would like to know the skit of you speak.
I consider rating an avocation for some but I think that opinions are worth what you pay for them and I would not pay for them.  I have no ax to grind with most raters...I just find the entire system intriguing and humorous.  I think most in the business have nothing to gain by discussing it.  I certainly don't but when the subject comes up with golf professionals, developers and some architects there is not much weight paid to raters other than it is a necessary part of the marketing machine.    Personally I think the most necessary qualification for rating is the ability  to travel.  
Now having said all of the above, I think it is great if a segment of the golfing public wishes to evaluate, score, rate and judge golf courses.  And I am sure there is much information to be dissected and discussed amongst those people ...but where is its value?.  
What is in my "craw" is where is the credibility when it is all based on opinion.....
The only reason it is in the magazine is because it helps sell advertising for developments.
Take care,
Mike

[Bill_McBride]

Wayne, down here in the Panhandle, we don't call it "Jadip," we call it BFE.

[Mark_Fine]

I'm not sure why we have to rank anything?  Think about it, why do we need to rank college football teams?  Just let the kids play.  Who cares who is first or fifth or top 25?  Does it really matter?  Very few of the teams play head to head so how does anyone really know who is best anyway?  It's a joke!  

Why bother having a magazine like Consumer Reports trying to rank everything from the best blenders and computers to the type of car you should buy?  It's a waste!  And who cares what car wins the Motor Trend Car of the Year award?  What good does that do for me?  

We're preparing for a ski trip and the more I think about it, why do I need to bother reading about a list of "the top 50 ski resorts".  They all have websites, I can figure out where I think the best place is to take my family on my own!  Why do I need some magazine listing that suggests these five or ten are the best ones to think about chosing?  

All any of these lists do is keep people talking and arguing about the various things that are ranked.  Why talk and argue about which golf course is better than another?  It's a waste of time and doesn't do anyone any good.  I say just go play them (or in John K's situation, just look at photos) and figure it out for yourself    And what ever you do, don't make your own list of what is best, because that is just as bad as having somebody else suggesting it for you.  
Mark

Note:  As much as I am "against" lists, there is one good one that this is my Christmas list.  My wife better remember what I have on it!  

[TEPaul]

"At the end of the day the reason I become most frustrated with this  rating thing is "why"??"

MikeY:

I'm not frustrated with the "why" of magazine rating. I'm pretty cofident I know why it's done. My frustration with magazine rating of golf courses is that it doesn't remotely do what I'd like to see it do, but I understand why that is too. And I'm certainly not saying it's not popular with a good many people---it obviously is. I just don't like to see magazine rankings of golf courses passed off as ranking architecture because I don't think it really is that. But if magazines ranked architecture the way I'd like to see them do it they'd have to explain in detail, architectural detail why, and I do understand that that may not be very popular. So all they do is list them numerically because obviously Americans (or perhaps most people) like that. It just doesn't explain the architecture of the best courses in the country or world very well. Basically there's just nothing educational about it.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Paul

If the rankings were done the way you want you would also need somebody that knows something about architecture.

The most likely reason for the rankers ranking is for access.  Surely they can not be pleased with the result of their altruistic actions.  

We constantly get "raters" on this site telling us how important they are and how necessary their good deeds are.  However, it is very rare that we see even a hint at their individual rankings or heaven forbid some architectural discussion.  

There are some raters on this site that do understand architecture but their efforts are drowoned out by the junk that the magazines produce.  They are no better than the product of what i see in GW,GD,GOLF, and that is Tom Fazio with 150 top 100's.

There is no highest and best use, when someone finds it let me know.  If the magazines would kindly remove all classic courses from the mix and only rate the post war real estate sales machines that would suit me.  Does SFGC need to be "rated" against it's peers every two years? Merion?

I do know the worst use of these ratings and that is that it encourages the disfigurement of classic features either by keeping up with the jones (and fazios) for that matter, or by micromanaging and changing small things to keep from dropping a few slots on what has been a highly regarded course by it's members from the beginning.

[JohnV]

(extra points rewarded for he or she who ids the comedy skit that best used the term "craw")

Get Smart!!! Not craw...CRAW!!

[Jason Blasberg]

I would have to say the "What's Up Your Craw" skit from Kids in the Hall number 506.

What's this about playing golf being likened to heavy lifting? I don't get it . . .

If I knew what a craw was than I might be able to tell if something was up it!  

Gotta love the Kids in the Hall!  

I have no desire to bash or support raters or ranking but I will say that if everyone is so concerned about access seeking there is likely more of that done by non-raters on this site  than raters.  I personally have no problem with seeking access through this site as I've generally tried to accomodate folks that I've gotten to know.  It's like an extended network of golfing buddies which is very cool, especially when folks actually care about, and can formulate intelligent conversation about, GCA.  

Mike, I guess my only point on this is that this site is as much a marketing and networking tool as anything in this modern world so to fairly criticize ranking I think one must also take a good look at this dicussion group too.  

At least here there are no secret ballots that I'm aware of . . .  

[TEPaul]

Hamilton:

I couldn't agree more with everything you say in post #11. I couldn't have said it better myself either---at least not in as few words.  

[Robert Thompson]

I'm not frustrated with the "why" of magazine rating. I'm pretty cofident I know why it's done. My frustration with magazine rating of golf courses is that it doesn't remotely do what I'd like to see it do, but I understand why that is too. And I'm certainly not saying it's not popular with a good many people---it obviously is. I just don't like to see magazine rankings of golf courses passed off as ranking architecture because I don't think it really is that. But if magazines ranked architecture the way I'd like to see them do it they'd have to explain in detail, architectural detail why, and I do understand that that may not be very popular. So all they do is list them numerically because obviously Americans (or perhaps most people) like that. It just doesn't explain the architecture of the best courses in the country or world very well. Basically there's just nothing educational about it.

Tom: This may be the most astute, interesting comment I've read on rankings to this point. I'm trying to digest the Best New Canadian Course list, and having a tough time making sense of it. Maybe the GD process is just so flawed as to not offer any value or ability to distinguish great from good and good from bad.
In Canada, a course called Georgian Bay Club came in second ahead of Doug Carrick's Eagles Nest. I have yet to run into anyone within the community of media or golfers that I know that feels that is the case. Even other rankings of Canadian courses have these two widely distinct from one another. One course is a good, private track, while the other may be one of the best modern golf courses built in Canada in the last 30 years. I simply cannot understand how one places one ahead of the other.
This leads me to believe the Digest process is deeply flawed, and I say this being one of the panelists. Maybe it would be better if in Canada, for example, they insisted the raters play every new course. Then there would be a true head-to-head comparison. As it stands, it is quite likely that the few people who went to Saskatchewan to see Dakota Dunes, did not see the courses in Ontario. So you end up without a benchmark from which to compare.
Anyway, enough of this. Last year's top GD Canadian new course, The Rock, is a disaster of epic proportions. I have no ability to even rationalize how it ended up as the top course. My only thought is the list's reliance on difficulty places some bad, but hard, courses on top. Of course, there's inconsistency there because Eagles Nest is a really tough track, and ended up behind easier courses.

I guess I just give up when it comes to these things.

[RJ_Daley]

Why... because this is about the 10th thread this week on rankings and ratings that aren't even officially out yet.  Controversy is publicity, and that leads to sales.

The highest and best use of rankings is grist for the mill, lubrication for forensic masturbation, ammunition for pissing matches about mine is better than yours, validation that one has arrived and has access, perpetuation of assignment of status within a caste system of most favored and publicized archies.  Or, maybe highest and best use of rankings and ratings is for kindling...

[wsmorrison]

(extra points rewarded for he or she who ids the comedy skit that best used the term "craw")

Get Smart, The Craw (Claw) was a villain that Maxwell Smart had to fight.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Y:

You hit the nail squarely on the head with your comments on "the ability to travel."

Unfortunately, the ratings have lowered themselves with the idea that you can make it more democratic by including a ton of people who often times really don't have a clue on applying criteria and in many instances as Wayne has described fairly accurate in a number of instances are simply there for the access. If one were to take this approach seriously then you would have someone like me who has a keen interest in rockets running NASA. Heaven forbid indeed!

There are some very intelligent and very well read / traveled people I have met over the years that clearly have the capacity to do the kind of cross comparison analysis that is sorely needed. Many of them only lurk here on GCA and they often laugh at the armchair qb analysis of people who weigh in solely from photos or third hand accounts.

Hey, it's no doubt very difficult to see the courses in question -- especially when they are spread out in so many directions. I feel for the architects who don't have the heavy gravitas because often times it is what they are doing that can make for such pleasant surprises on the many road trips I take throughout the year.

I have opined previously that the entire process can be moved within the framework of any publication for a host of reasons that would most likely eliminate the serious omissions and the half-hearted analysis you see today.

Ratings may not matter to a great many people but I don't doubt they push the button for a much wider number of people than many might claim.

Digest has major reach because of its circulation size and ad dollar revenue. Yes, there are issues with it -- but until someone supplants it for the greater canvass within golf -- not just the pointy headed intellectuals here or otherwsie -- it still has a major impact -- flawed IMHO in any number of ways.

[Jim_Kennedy]

What is the "Highest and Best" use for magazine ratings?

As back-up for the Sears & Roebuck catalog you keep in the one-holer.    

[Mike_Young]

[quote author=Jason Blasberg link=board=1;threadid=20713;start=0#msg371972 date=11336265


Mike, I guess my only point on this is that this site is as much a marketing and networking tool as anything in this modern world so to fairly criticize ranking I think one must also take a good look at this dicussion group too.  

At least here there are no secret ballots that I'm aware of . . .  

Jason,
I don't see the two as the same.  While TD says this site might bring him business...it has never brought me any that I am aware....and not near the people see this site that see GD.  This is just a place to "play" when there is spare time....
Take care,
Mike

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason,
I don't see the two as the same.  While TD says this site might bring him business...it has never brought me any that I am aware....and not near the people see this site that see GD.  This is just a place to "play" when there is spare time....
Take care,
Mike

Mike:

We "met" on this site and then we met in person in Athens, and after playing Athens as your guest I've gone out of my way to play there as travel permits (access the 2nd time was reciprical as a Cuscowilla member).  If you ever get your hillbilly ass out of GA I'd love to show you around NYC!!  Seriously, I never thought my Liberal-ass would let me, in good conscience, befriend a Texan, but than I met L. Duran.  

You gotta love GCA, for that reason alone.  And the friendships continue . . . but dont think the "rankers" are the only ones seeking access or publicity . . . I've met my share of GCA YAHOOS that I've skillfully avoided since.

[John Kavanaugh]

Few people seek what has been presented to them on a silver platter.

[wsmorrison]

I'll take the silver platter.  The deliverers can keep what's on it 'cause it sure don't smell too good.

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Rednecks invade Manhattan.  Man, I should have called.  I was in NYC for 5 days two weeks ago watching Basketball and eating at Carnegie Deli. I think I still have part of a corned beef sandwich in my overcoat.  I would have called but I could not decide if it was safe to use those little "cell phones" you guys have up there.
When will you be back in Athens??
Mike