[Joel_Stewart]

Matt:  Valid points.  I know panelists that will only play new courses and have no interest in "old stuff".  I would rate Mountain Ridge slightly below Hollywood and ahead of Forsgate and Essex County.  On GD New Jersey list, they have it way down at #14 in best of state.  To me its top 100, at least boarderline.  I agree with Baltusrol and have never met some that loves the course.  Never understood how it stays so high.


NEW JERSEY
?‹ 1 Pine Valley G.C.
Pine Valley ?š
?‹ 2 Baltusrol G.C. (Lower)
Springfield ?š
?‹ 3 Somerset Hills C.C.
Bernardsville ?š
?‹ 4 Galloway National G.C.
Galloway ?š
?‹ 5 Plainfield C.C. Plainfield ?š
?‹ 6 The Ridge at Back
Brook Ringoes
?‹ 7 Trump National G.C.
Bedminster
?‹ 8 Baltusrol G.C. (Upper)
Springfield
?‹ 9 Atlantic City C.C.
Northfield
?‹ 10 Ridgewood C.C.
(East/West) Paramus
?‹ 11 Metedeconk National
G.C. (1st/2nd) Jackson
?‹ 12 Hamilton Farm G.C.
Gladstone
?‹ 13 Hidden Creek G.C.
Egg Harbor Township
?‹ 14 Mountain Ridge C.C.
West Caldwell
?‹ 15 Hollywood G.C. Deal
?‹ 16 The Bedens Brook C.
Skillman
?‹ 17 Shadow Isle
Colts Neck
?‹ 18 Royce Brook G.C.
(West) Hillsborough
?‹ 19 Pine Hill G.C.
Pine Hill ?Ÿ
?‹ 20 Neshanic Valley
G. Cse. (Ridge/Lake)
Neshanic Station

[Richard Boult]

Did anyone see Geoff Shackelford's blog entry on why Architects shouldn't be able to rate courses? Kind of a lame argument based on a seemingly humorous/sarcastic remark made by Tom Doak.

Is This Why Architects Should Not Be On Course Ranking Panels?

[Andy Troeger]

R. Boult,
Personally I think Shackelford makes a very good point. There's a benefit to architect's insights due to their knowledge and experience, but seeing as their ratings remain secret to all those but the editors, the potential for some interesting results certainly exists, whether it happens or not.

But I'm an auditor, so I'm paid to be skeptical about such things

[Richard Boult]

Andy, "the potential for some interesting results certainly exists" no matter who does the voting.  And since they can't vote for their own courses, I think an architect's "insights" make them good candidates.

[Andy Troeger]

R. Boult,
There are two ways to affect their courses' placements. Only one of those is addressed by not allowing architects to rate their own courses. Just as much can be done by their ratings of competing courses if they chose to do so.

In my opinion, if you trust them to rate courses fairly let them rate their own courses too. Otherwise don't have them on the panel. GOLF believes in them obviously, but I would side with Mr. Shackelford in that their panel is not inherently better than the others due to the names involved. Its not worse either, just different. Just my take.

[Matt_Ward]

Joel:

The issue I have with state ratings is that people who provide input often only make one time visits to a select few courses and often times it's the same courses over and over and over again.

That's one of the reasons -- I believe -- that Baltusrol stays as high as it does.

You didn't mention Montclair GC in West Orange (#2 + #4 nines by Ross & Banks respectively). The course hosted the '85 US Amateur and often times the US Open sectional for the greater NYC area -- no one ever torched the place and the total yardage is just under 6,600 yards from the maximum tips.

Don't know if you've been to Essex County and Forsgate since they have done major revisions there. Much of GCA time is spent, quite rightly I might add, on Plainfield and what's been done there. Plainfield isn't the only course that has made major improvements.

State ratings develop a herd mentality and you get the same tired / predictable outcomes. Frankly, Digest lost me when The Ridge at Back Brook was rated the 6th best course in NJ. Clearly, something is amiss.

[Jeff Doerr]

What is so magical about the number "100"?

I think this is why I like the golfweek list. It would be nice to see 101-250 on GM and GD lists...

[Tom_Doak]

It's a stretch to say my quote in Michael Bamberger's article has anything at all to do with rankings.  All I said was that I hadn't seen Gil's work in Boston; Geoff has no basis to infer that I wouldn't be fair to Gil if I had seen the course.  

In fact, Geoff says he's "uncomfortable" with me evaluating Gil's work, when I made a point of saying that I hadn't seen it or evaluated it.  Michael kept pressing to get me to say something about a course I hadn't seen, and we wound up on the subject of Gil because Michael had been out at Stonewall with us all those years ago.

I've written nice things about a lot of modern architects' work over the years, and I'd bet I vote for as many competitors' courses as any architect on that panel does.  Yes, I have avoided going to see some of Gil's courses, but it's more because if I don't like one and I say so, then I will be accused of being unfair to him.  This is no different than what Pete Dye would say about me -- he admires what I'm doing, but he's not my biggest promoter, either.

Geoff is Gil's biggest promoter though, and found a way to mention him again in his blog, even though Gil doesn't have any courses listed in the top 100.  So he questions the results, and my integrity.  All of which is perfectly understandable, given Geoff's heavy conflict of interest in Gil's career ... except he doesn't mention that on his blog, does he?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

As one of Geoff's commentors mentions, it would be hard not to have any bias on a panel of people made up of those in golf circles.  Anyone could vote their club higher, or a competitor lower, if they felt that a ranking would help them.

Why start and stop with gca's?  Do we believe we are, as a group, less honest than anyone else in the golf biz?

Gee, thanks guys!

Tom D -

How do you like the comment on your being an "angry young man?"

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,
I totally agree with your point, and the same can probably be said with anyone in the golf business (and probably anyone period). My point is that lets either trust the panelists to do a good job and rate their own courses, or none of it. Lets not go halfway in the name of avoiding the conflict. I wouldn't mind allowing Erin Hills to be on the GD list either, wherever it might fall.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andy,

Do the mags trust the panelists?  Brad and then Ron started those "education seminars" to "get them in line" for lack of a better phrase......I heard GD has some real scmuck architect come in and talk to guys in your region.  

So, how's that working out for you in subsequent evaluations?

More seriously, in theory, Golf prides itself on NOT telling raters how to think, but uses a limited number of supposedly previously educated panelists.  The others use more, but presumably not as well traveled panelists (at least across the board) and give them guidelines that are substantially similar, and yet, panelists for each mag can debate endlessly which is better.  Better yet, I think they vote their gut, and work the numbers back to justify their personal rankings (which is how it should be, IMHO)

I don't want to turn this debate over to methodology, but I have always favored the idea (as anyone with a stats background probably would) of larger numbers eventually getting you to the right numbers/rankings.  Matt will disagree!

There is as great a risk, when using a small panel, of picking people who think like you do, and getting the herd mentality that Matt speaks of at the state level.  Despite pleas for transparency, I think the private ballot is important to avoid the herd mentality, too.  On a public ballot, who would cast a vote against a sacred course?

Short version: Rankings sell a few magazines.  No system is perfect.  Get over it, if you aren't! If you are a panelist, take it seriously, but not overly so.  No animals get hurt in the ranking of golf courses......

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,
I'm certainly a worse panelist since listening to said panelist's presentation  

I do think there is a difference between trusting panelist's intent and trying to improve their knowledge and experience. You can improve the latter two, although its tough to do so in an unbiased way.

I agree with your last couple sentences, we think too much about all this  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andy,

I wasn't even thinking of trusting panelists intent, I was thinking in terms of trusting their knowledge.   As we all know, only golf course architects serving on panels have devious intentions.......

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

I wasn't even thinking of trusting panelists intent, I was thinking in terms of trusting their knowledge.   As we all know, only golf course architects serving on panels have devious intentions.......

Haha, don't we all  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just got back from walking my Corgi and been thinking.....

I think my cynicism about rankings started on the playground with the first kid to say "My Dad is better than your Dad."

[Matt_Ward]

The real issue for ratings can easily be tested by asking those doing the assessments -- the raters -- how much do they really travel during any year and how many courses do they play that falls outside an immediate area of 100 miles from where they live?

To be a bonafide national rater you need to travel nationally in order to provide comprehensive cross comparison assessments.

The answer would likely be very small -- as a result the same people reinforce the same votes (or close to the same) for many of the same places over and over again -- save for the very fortunate few that have heavy publicity or drum beating prior to their opening. The NYC metro area has the greatest assemblage of top tier private courses in the USA -- however -- a few of them are living off the headlnes of more noted and more respected neighbors. Being "in the hood" has allowed these support courses to draw additional votes / considerations when likely if they were elsewhere the probability for such inclusion would be smaller, if not at all.

Personally, I thing havng a much smaller panel can work wonders if these people really travel as frequently as they would need to in order to stay updated. However, when groups are put together that number in the high hundreds than the net result is nothing more than a watered down consensus formula. I believe that nothing more than 50% of the final result are somewhat accurate -- the percentage being hgher among the really upper echelon of courses and far less so as you drift deeper into the botton of the order.

I see plenty of courses that maintain their position to likely one of the followng reasons ...

1). Few people really travel and they simply mail in the same assessment (or close to it) for the same cast of courses. How Augusta maintains its top five position is a testament to the fanfare tied to The Masters and really little on the new design inclusions that I, along with many other, have demonstrated a complete abandonment of what Augusta National was supposed to represent.

2). Those who come from outside a given state only cherry pick the same courses to see and play. As a result you get very little movement when I can say from my travels that a number of new courses have the wherewithal (see Black Mesa, to name just one example) to compete at the elite level. For people coming to NJ -- if all they played was Baltusrol and Plainfield they would likely never know about the qualities of such places as Essex County CC (updated by Hanse & Bahto) and Montclair GC (#2 + #4 nines) by the likes of Ross and Banks respectively.

3). Too many panelists are enamored with "star" architects. You get the groupie mentality and people start touting futute courses off of nothing more than the "promise" of what is coming down the pike. The reality is that often times the "star" architect has a stellar course or two and lives off the reputation of those particular layouts. I'm not suggesting that architects with lower name recognition are churning out so many hidden gems but this groupie mentality with certain select established architects goes far beyond being even-handed by any reasonable means. A good example is Bandon Trails by C&C. No doubt there are C&C groupies on this site and elsewhere. I liked the course but don't see it as beng one of C&C's best works and certainly not deserving automatic top 100 status as so many are wont to believe.

[JSlonis]

Matt:  Valid points.  I know panelists that will only play new courses and have no interest in "old stuff".  I would rate Mountain Ridge slightly below Hollywood and ahead of Forsgate and Essex County.  On GD New Jersey list, they have it way down at #14 in best of state.  To me its top 100, at least boarderline.  I agree with Baltusrol and have never met some that loves the course.  Never understood how it stays so high.


NEW JERSEY
?‹ 1 Pine Valley G.C.
Pine Valley ?š
?‹ 2 Baltusrol G.C. (Lower)
Springfield ?š
?‹ 3 Somerset Hills C.C.
Bernardsville ?š
?‹ 4 Galloway National G.C.
Galloway ?š
?‹ 5 Plainfield C.C. Plainfield ?š
?‹ 6 The Ridge at Back
Brook Ringoes
?‹ 7 Trump National G.C.
Bedminster
?‹ 8 Baltusrol G.C. (Upper)
Springfield
?‹ 9 Atlantic City C.C.
Northfield
?‹ 10 Ridgewood C.C.
(East/West) Paramus
?‹ 11 Metedeconk National
G.C. (1st/2nd) Jackson
?‹ 12 Hamilton Farm G.C.
Gladstone
?‹ 13 Hidden Creek G.C.
Egg Harbor Township
?‹ 14 Mountain Ridge C.C.
West Caldwell
?‹ 15 Hollywood G.C. Deal
?‹ 16 The Bedens Brook C.
Skillman
?‹ 17 Shadow Isle
Colts Neck
?‹ 18 Royce Brook G.C.
(West) Hillsborough
?‹ 19 Pine Hill G.C.
Pine Hill ?Ÿ
?‹ 20 Neshanic Valley
G. Cse. (Ridge/Lake)
Neshanic Station

The simple fact that a course such as Hamilton Farm is rated higher than Mountain Ridge tells me all I need to know about these ranking lists...I shouldn't bother looking at them.  Hamilton Farm is not even close to the quality of Mountain Ridge.

Matt,

You hold a couple of courses in higher regard than I.  I prefer Mountain Ridge over the likes of Forsgate & Essex CCC, but do agree with you on Somerset Hills.  While I really like it, I think it is ranked higher than it should be.  Maybe it's just me, but I think MR is right there with Plainfield.  While there are some truly great holes at Plainfield, there are a handful of awkward ones that knock it down from being spectacular overall.

[Mike_Cirba]

Yikes...I haven't been following closely, but who the hell's magazine has that listing for New Jersey??

[JSlonis]

Yikes...I haven't been following closely, but who the hell's magazine has that listing for New Jersey??

I believe it is the Golf Digest state ranking.  A little out of whack, huh?

[Mike_Cirba]

Phew...I love "Ridge At Back Brook" as the 6th best course in the state.   How did they miss TPC at Jasna Polana??  

[Matt_Ward]

JSlonis:

What are the "awkward" holes at Plainfield ?

When did you play there last ? If you really believe Mountain Ridge is equal, or even greater, than Plainfield, than you are indeed part of a very small minority.

In regards to Mountan Ridge -- the course is a fine one but Forsgate Banks has the best collection of par-3's -- save for the likes of PV and Plainfield in the Garden State IMHO.

What about the unique back-to-back par-5's at the 8th and 9th holes ?

Ditto the range of par-4's you encounter. I don't doubt the frst two holes at Banks are underwhelming but the recent upgrades to the course are a good bit tied to the original Banks intention - although the long par-3 17th has not been bought back.

In regards to Essex County -- when did you last play there ?

Hanse / Bahto made considerable upgrades to the Banks layout and the front nine is no longer the warm-up nine to what you have always received from the back nine.

Mike C:

The Digest rating is completely out there in the deepest of LEFT FIELDS.

Case in point -- johnny-come-latelys have incluced Neshanic Valley but you don't see the likes of Twisted Dune and Ballyowen. For Digest to include Shadow Isle demonstrates to me that people simply play and rate select courses and fail to go really below the surface.

A state like New Jersey cannot be figured out in a single visit and the ratings Digest and other national magazines have shown that thus far.

[Steve Lapper]

JSlonis:

What are the "awkward" holes at Plainfield ?

When did you play there last ? If you really believe Mountain Ridge is equal, or even greater, than Plainfield, than you are indeed part of a very small minority.

In regards to Mountan Ridge -- the course is a fine one but Forsgate Banks has the best collection of par-3's -- save for the likes of PV and Plainfield in the Garden State IMHO.

What about the unique back-to-back par-5's at the 8th and 9th holes ?

Ditto the range of par-4's you encounter. I don't doubt the frst two holes at Banks are underwhelming but the recent upgrades to the course are a good bit tied to the original Banks intention - although the long par-3 17th has not been bought back.

In regards to Essex County -- when did you last play there ?

Hanse / Bahto made considerable upgrades to the Banks layout and the front nine is no longer the warm-up nine to what you have always received from the back nine.

Mike C:

The Digest rating is completely out there in the deepest of LEFT FIELDS.

Case in point -- johnny-come-latelys have incluced Neshanic Valley but you don't see the likes of Twisted Dune and Ballyowen. For Digest to include Shadow Isle demonstrates to me that people simply play and rate select courses and fail to go really below the surface.

A state like New Jersey cannot be figured out in a single visit and the ratings Digest and other national magazines have shown that thus far.

Matt:

  While I share your fondness for Plainfield  (and have demonstrably said so in past posts), The 18th hole is certainly worthy of being tabbed "awkward" Though its green complex remain quite challenging, the drive and fairway angles might just define "awkward."  

 I don't know when you've last been to Mountain Ridge, but as I've said over the past 3 yrs, Ron Pritchard's work restoration work coupled with Cliff Moore's care have re-polished this gem into 24 carat condition and playability. I do love Forsgate, ECCC, and Montclair, but Mountain Ridge belongs above them on any current state-wide ranking. The GD list is indeed a joke and Jaime's citation of Hamilton Farms placement more than validates its absurdity.

  I also really beg to differ with your re: the 2nd best group of NJ par 3s after PV. The group of 3s at Somerset Hills have often been cited as Tilly's best single site collection .They are quite diverse in distance, shot value and placement and decidedly unique. I'll happily admit to moving closer to you in a reassessment of the totality of Somerset Hills and especially in light of the clubs decision to not embrace some answer/repsonse to modern technology but in no way are their par 3s any part the lesser to Forsgate or Plainfield.

  Sorry pardner, but having played all the aforementioned just this season, no way I can feel otherwise. Btw....I do like the way the new Trump course is growing in...you need to see it!

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

Sorry to break the news to you -- but I have played ALL the courses I mentioned this playing season including Mountain Ridge. This time around you don't have the Sand Hills argument in your favor.

The 18th at Plainfield was not the original closer -- it was placd in that position when the driving range was added years after the course opened.

I'm not a big fan of the hole but it's far from being awkward as you and others may be inclined to believe. Try to hit the approach close to the hole and watch out for the green speed which can quickly provide a three-putt or more.

Planfield is miles beyond Mountain Ridge -- in fact -- I see the course as being the only other Jersey course -- PV included obviously -- that belong with the top 50 courses in the USA. The work by Hanse & Bahto added even more luster to the course. That's not to take anything away from what was done to MR with its restoration / upgrades. MR has the potential to crack the state's top ten -- Plainfield is solidly embedded as the state's #2 course IMHO.

Steve, we shall agree to disagree -- Essex County is a better layout -- ditto #2 + #4 nines at Montclair -- the greens at the latter are among the most vexing of any in the state. I have seen US Open sectionals played at Montclair and no one -- ncluding the likes of Bob Murphy, Mark O'Meara and a host of others -- could never shoot low there.

I have studied the likes of Somerset Hills for years and this is one layout that is vastly overrated because of its tony location and the fact that the USGA HQ is right down the street. Yes, I like what Tillinghast did there but there's plenty of so-so holes at best at SH and it gets plenty of a mileage from the people who play there frequently.

I also think the 12th is one of the most overrated approach over water shots there is. If anything -- the 16th is underrated because of the remarkable green complex. The 8th is a fine hole but not especially so.

However, with all that said the Eden 3rd at Banks at Forsgate is top tier stuff -- ditto the reverse redan at the 7th and the short horseshoe shaped 12th -- finished off with the long par-3 17th -- candidly, if they ever restore the 17th to what Banks orginally wanted the quartet of par-3's would be even better.

I still stand what I said ... on the best par-3 front ...

PV
Plainfield
Forsgate / Banks

Last thought -- I like Trump National and will need to see what shakes out with the new 18 being built.







 

[Steve Lapper]

Matt:

   Hear ya about PCC #18, but the angles off the tee are awkward. Only the wonderful green complex we both mentioned saves it. Wholeheartedly agree with you that Plainfield is much above Mountain Ridge. Never said otherwise. I view the pair as a similar analogy to WFW and Fenway, both are gems, but one has grandeur that the others property doesn't afford. PCCs scale and totality rival MR handily and we both likely agree its the hands-down #2 in the state without rival.

I also agree with you about Somerset's lofty perch. I love playing it and the sporty quirk is certainly fun, but some of the holes could be better. However, the par 3s are stellar and we agree to disagree about #12. I've seen so many well intended shots do all sorts of interesting things so much so that it can't be anything other than charmingly deceptive in my book. How many times have you had to enjoy watching a pro ht a seemingly perfect shot only to have it spin off the green or take a bogey turn off the top of the green? We are in agreement on the 16th, but the 8th is always underrated by most. The green appears smooth from afar, but has so many buried bowling balls and releases that it requires stern thought on how to approach most pins. #2 is an al-world redan and superior to the other template homes at Forsgate

Finally, we agree more than not...heh?

[Mike_Cirba]

Steve/Matt,

If you guys keep arguing nicely like this, you're both going to lose your reputations for feisty combativeness.   Next thing Mucci will admit that he's wrong about something.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()