Critics, Tastes, Rankings--restaurants vs. golf courses

[Rich Goodale]

Getting into the holiday/silly season/golf deprivation spirit......

As many here know, I've alwasy felt that numerical rankings of golf courses (and of anythings, for that matter) are hobgoblins of simple minds, including my own, and have advocated "Michelin" type categorical rankings (3***, 2**, 1*, experienceable, fuggedaboutit) instead.  Just for fun, I looked up a few facts about the Michelin restaurant ratings and found out the following:

In France, 26 restaurants are given 3***, 78 2** and 435 1*.  Another several thousand are rated good enough to be rated (i.e. "experienceable").  I've eaten at one 3*** restaurant and a few more in the 2** and 1* categories, and IMHO even the 1* experiences are equivalent in Doak rating terms 9's or even 10's, and the "experienceable" ones would be "top 100" candidates if only restaurants were golf courses......

In Paris alone there are 10 3*** restauarants and the 1* restaurants include such variety as:

Benoit--a Alain Ducasse bistro
La Tour d'Argent--an old world classic
Ze Kitchen Galerie--a funky fusion place

I can see the value (to the consumer) of grouping these three in a general category of "good for their type" but trying to put them in some sort of specific order?  Give me a break!  Are golf courses any different?  Since Matt is on this thread, let's talk Jersey.  Even though I've never played them or even seen them (same for the restaurants, BTW), I'll speculate that if you substituted Hidden Creek for Benoit, Baltusrol South for La Tour d'Argent and Twisted Dune for Ze Kitchen Galerie you would get a much better idea by putting them in a broad Michelin-style catgegory than trying to rank them specifically.

Also, in terms of golf courses, once you get past the top 30 of so, aren't you really picking nits or relying on personal prejudice from a uiniverse of at least 500 courses?  (Maybe even within the top 30 too?).  As others have said or implied on other recent threads, so much of the ranking of experiences, whether they be of golf courses or restaurants or movies or art, is almost completely personal.  Why do we spend so much time trying to "prove" otherwise?

Let's start at the top to see if any proof can be made.  To those who have played Pine Valley, why exactly is it "better" (or not "better") than say Portmarnock, or Pasatiempo or Pebble or even Painswick (or whatever courses you want to use as comparitors--beginning with the letter "P" or otherwise)?  I for one would like to read the arguments.

Rich

[Sean_A]

Getting into the holiday/silly season/golf deprivation spirit......

As many here know, I've alwasy felt that numerical rankings of golf courses (and of anythings, for that matter) are hobgoblins of simple minds, including my own, and have advocated "Michelin" type categorical rankings (3***, 2**, 1*, experienceable, fuggedaboutit) instead.  Just for fun, I looked up a few facts about the Michelin restaurant ratings and found out the following:

In France, 26 restaurants are given 3***, 78 2** and 435 1*.  Another several thousand are rated good enough to be rated (i.e. "experienceable").  I've eaten at one 3*** restaurant and a few more in the 2** and 1* categories, and IMHO even the 1* experiences are equivalent in Doak rating terms 9's or even 10's, and the "experienceable" ones would be "top 100" candidates if only restaurants were golf courses......

In Paris alone there are 10 3*** restauarants and the 1* restaurants include such variety as:

Benoit--a Alain Ducasse bistro
La Tour d'Argent--an old world classic
Ze Kitchen Galerie--a funky fusion place

I can see the value (to the consumer) of grouping these three in a general category of "good for their type" but trying to put them in some sort of specific order?  Give me a break!  Are golf courses any different?  Since Matt is on this thread, let's talk Jersey.  Even though I've never played them or even seen them (same for the restaurants, BTW), I'll speculate that if you substituted Hidden Creek for Benoit, Baltusrol South for La Tour d'Argent and Twisted Dune for Ze Kitchen Galerie you would get a much better idea by putting them in a broad Michelin-style catgegory than trying to rank them specifically.

Also, in terms of golf courses, once you get past the top 30 of so, aren't you really picking nits or relying on personal prejudice from a uiniverse of at least 500 courses?  (Maybe even within the top 30 too?).  As others have said or implied on other recent threads, so much of the ranking of experiences, whether they be of golf courses or restaurants or movies or art, is almost completely personal.  Why do we spend so much time trying to "prove" otherwise?

Let's start at the top to see if any proof can be made.  To those who have played Pine Valley, why exactly is it "better" (or not "better") than say Portmarnock, or Pasatiempo or Pebble or even Painswick (or whatever courses you want to use as comparitors--beginning with the letter "P" or otherwise)?  I for one would like to read the arguments.

Rich

Rich

Because I never bought into the numerical ranking system nor the Doak System for that matter, it was easy for me to see the logic in the only system that matters - THE RIHCELIN GUIDE.  3 to 1 stars with a lower Recommendation category does the trick.  I now use your system because I can't figure out how to define "better" or "best" so accurately and objectively as the other systems require.  The other caveat I would like to mention is that paying your own way is critical to an honest appraisal.   

Ciao 

[Mike Sweeney]

I like the Doak Scale and the concept of travel distances. I also like the 10 round comparison scale.

Pasatiempo - I have played it twice. I think the back 9 is one of the best 9's in golf. Love every hole. The front has some very good stuff too, but are any holes great on the front? It even gets tight there in the 6, 7, 8 area, and I don't remember the holes well enough. Doak 7.5, if you are in San Fran, you make the trip down, but I don't think you get on a plane just to play Pasa.

Pine Valley - Played just 1 time. Being a Philly guy that likes to take a few shots at my home town, I was sure this place was going to be over rated. It is not. Simply 18, very good to great to one of a kind holes. National and Sand Hills are the only two other courses that can say this that I have played. You absolutely get on a plane to play this course. Doak 10.

Ten rounds - PV 8 and Pasa 2

I really like going to a nice restaurant occasionally, but I am perfectly happy with the dozens of Doak 5's in my neighborhood.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Sean

And now that Barney's on sabbatical, I'll second your rater-bashing thought.  The key to Michelin (restaurants) is the anonymity of the rater.  If you have to flash your rater card before you book or play a course your experience is going to be warped by the response of the ratee, even if you are as scrupulously objective as Matt Ward or the whole cadre of Golf Week acolytes.

rich

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Mike

To what degree do you think that the PV "experience" relative to Pasa was influenced by the mystique and/or prior "book" knowledge and/or the private, "Rocky was my caddie!" effect, or the presentation of the course rather than the "architecture" per se?  I know I have been significantly influenced by one or all of the above on courses I have played only once or even a few times.

Rich

[Sean_A]

I like the Doak Scale and the concept of travel distances. I also like the 10 round comparison scale.

Pasatiempo - I have played it twice. I think the back 9 is one of the best 9's in golf. Love every hole. The front has some very good stuff too, but are any holes great on the front? It even gets tight there in the 6, 7, 8 area, and I don't remember the holes well enough. Doak 7.5, if you are in San Fran, you make the trip down, but I don't think you get on a plane just to play Pasa.

Pine Valley - Played just 1 time. Being a Philly guy that likes to take a few shots at my home town, I was sure this place was going to be over rated. It is not. Simply 18, very good to great to one of a kind holes. National and Sand Hills are the only two other courses that can say this that I have played. You absolutely get on a plane to play this course. Doak 10.

Ten rounds - PV 8 and Pasa 2

I really like going to a nice restaurant occasionally, but I am perfectly happy with the dozens of Doak 5's in my neighborhood.

Mike

I too like the idea of travel distance/time as a "is it worth it" but that is easily applicable to any scale because its completely subjective - which is a large reason why the RIHCELIN GUIDE works well in presenting broad categories of quality without the need for comparing those within category to see which is better.  Essentially, all in a category could be better than each other on any given day.  Sort of like college football!
  

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Thanks, Mike

To what degree do you think that the PV "experience" relative to Pasa was influenced by the mystique and/or prior "book" knowledge and/or the private, "Rocky was my caddie!" effect, or the presentation of the course rather than the "architecture" per se?  I know I have been significantly influenced by one or all of the above on courses I have played only once or even a few times.

Rich

I am hoping to find out on trip #2.   to see if PV loses its appeal. However as a guy that bumps up every seaside course at least 1 or 2 spots, PV does not get that benefit. The clubhouse is very low key (cabins were awesome), and you have to remember that I drove through the South Jersey suburbs on the way to "da Shore" for many years thinking "who would live over here?"

PV is that good, but I will admit to "drinking the juice" at other places.

[Brian Phillips]

Rocky was my caddie....twice!

Rcih,

Pine Valley had better weather each time i played it compared to Portmarnock (hail stones)...so PV gets an extra * in my book.

Seriously though, I like both your rating system and Tom Doak's system. I really like the Peugeot Golf Guide as well although some of the reviews are way off base, most of them are pretty good.

As an example, in the Peugeot Guide, the ratings in Norway are at least 1 or even 2 points higher than they should be in relation to other countries such as Scotland.  We have a RTJ 2 course that is ranked the best in Norway (probably quite rightly so) but it receives 18 points out of 20 just 1 point behind the likes of Ballybunion, Kingsbarns, Muirfield etc...(no course has ever received 20 points).  So in reality it is only one point below receiving maximum points...now that is a joke.  When you have such grave errors in rankings it then that they become meaningless.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I am a fan of comparing the virtues of courses to one another as it makes people articulate the features that make course A ‘better’ than course B. Many people fumble along when trying to do so, so just the fact that rankings stimulate such discourse is healthy and good.

Unfortunately, the absurd amount of attention/importance placed on rankings has now become unhealthy at some clubs. Some of the most illogical and inane comments ever posted within the Discussion Group are from raters from GOLF Digest and Golf Week. The fact that the results of the ballots of such people can ultimately influence a green keeper’s job or what architect gets hired is pitiful.

Panelists demand that architects spend a lot of time on site getting the routing/detail work just right. And yet, what do many panelists then do? Blow in for a quick afternoon round and then off they go. They don’t see the course in different winds, different seasons, different playing conditions or get to experience different hole locations. They make a snap judgment based on one visit. As a course owner, you can only hope that they played well.

I understand this is how the world works but to attach such importance to such an inherently flawed ranking system is simply a mistake.

I have good friend in NYC who thinks all panelists should be anonymous. Thus, clubs would never know when a panelist was there and all free rounds would drop by the wayside. I like this idea quite a bit.

Also, rankings disregard non-18 hole courses (are there forty 18 hole courses in the world more engaging to play than Royal Worlington & Newmarket??) and courses long in character but short in distance like Eastward Ho!, West Sussex, The Addington, Jasper Park, Swinley Forest, St. Enodoc, etc. are ignored. I easily place all these courses among the best I’ve ever seen.

Another shortfall of rankings is that designs that resist stereotyping (Devil's Paintbrush, Tralee, Black Mesa, Tobacco Road) get ignored, which unfortunately then discourages other owners/architects from taking chances going forward.

If the rankings are just going to become a list of 7,300 yard, ‘technology proof’ courses, who cares?? The 1939 World Top 100 ranking that Tom MacWood uncovered featuring such courses as Lawsonia and St. George’s Hill is far more relevant to someone with an interest in great architecture.

I continue to feel more and more disconnected from all the rankings and place less importance in them. We need some kind of a new ranking, something along the lines of the World’s Top 100 Neatest Courses or the Top 100 Courses Everyone Should Play at Least Once in Their Lives. Show me a list with Rosses Point, Apache Stronghold, Essex County Club, Capilano, Waterville, Kirtland outside of Cleveland and The Sacred Nine and that’s a list worth studying/debating.

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Mike

The closest I've come to Pine Valley was a forced march south through the Pine Barrens from Fort Dix in 1969.  If my platoon leader had been Pat Mucci or Tom Paul (yes I know they were Gyrenes, but after nearly 40 years, who cares) rather than a drug-addled Corporal just back from his second tour in Nam, maybe we would have breached the gates at Clementon........

MarkakaJ

I really like the idea of multiple lists, although I would limit each to 30 or so, such as:

The 30 most tastefully understated--Swinley, Gulph Mills, Morfontaine, etc.
The 30 funkiest--North Berwick, Tobacco Road, Painswick, etc.
The 30 stuffiest--Troon, Augusta, Shadow Creek, etc.
The 30 otherwise never put in any "top 30"--Littlestone, Murcar, Winchester, etc.
Etc., Etc., Etc.

Parodi

[Mark Bourgeois]

This is why Tom Doak's gazetteer is so much more valuable than rankings for anyone who uses lists to discover courses. To wit his "best courses to get away from it all" (or something like that).

Also, how bout:
Most fun courses to play in a healthy breeze
Most fun to play in a downpour
Best courses for three-generation groups

Of course, we might as well nail up a list of links, proving yet again the vast superiority of links to all other classes.

So how bout:
Most fun frozen courses to play
Best links to play in glorious weather (could have a problem getting enough qualified responses)

Mark

PS The thoughts in the op cit post were not mine but those of an acquaintance on the Golf mag panel.

[Rich Goodale]

Cheezo, Mark

We were having so such fun and then you threw that "op. cit." in there, and you send me to my dictionary looking up ibid. and loc. cit. and semper.ubi.sub.ubi.........

It's damned hard work on this DG.

R

[Dan Kelly]

... semper.ubi.sub.ubi.........

Sometimes, the old ones are "best" (id est, 3***).

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Interesting take this time on this topic covered countless times before.  I do believe the Richelin system is indeed good enough if one wants to know if a course is great, or worth seeking out - and the Doak scale just refines that concept further.  My position has always been that it's just FUN to try to take it even further, and say WHY one course your scale gives a certain star rating might be better than another at the same star rating; which is in essence what the various other ranking systems attempt to do.  I enjoy the process, the arguments, yes, the nit-picking.  So yes, I ought to be all over this question.  However, if anyone puts all that much VALUE into one course at #28 being clearly BETTER than the course at #45, then he is fooling himself... because no matter what the system, it is so close and can be affected by so many things, it really isn't all that meaningful to say one of those is clearly better than the other.

Bummer is I haven't played Pine Valley.  Can you give us another three-star we can use?

TH

[JC Jones]

I have good friend in NYC who thinks all panelists should be anonymous. Thus, clubs would never know when a panelist was there and all free rounds would drop by the wayside. I like this idea quite a bit.

Mark

How would this work w/ respect to private courses?  How does the panelist get on the course w/o somebody knowing who he is?

Rich

I see where you are going but Im not sure I follow completely.  You ask the question, "How am I supposed to determine which 3* is better than the others?"

Well, the Doak system is basically the same only instead of a scale of 0-3 its a scale of 0-10.  In a group of 3 courses that were all 10s, I dont think the debate would be centered on which was better, but rather, do each deserve to be a 10.  Similarly, among 3 restaurants rated 3*s you wouldnt debate which was better, but rather, did each deserve their rating.

So, I think the Doak scale accomplishes the same thing as the Michelin rating.

JMO

[Rich Goodale]

OK AwsHuckster....

Cypress Point vs. Carnoustie  vs. Cruden Bay vs.  Colympic (Lake).......

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
ANY type of scale all comes down to your reference points/experience level.  If for example, the only course you ever played was Pine Valley, you might think it was just an average golf course.  As you play a few more, your reference level begins to change.  Play a thousand or so and a little (maybe not much   ) clarity of what is good vs. great starts to kick in!
Mark

[Tom Huckaby]

Ah yes, forgot to address that argument about the rating world... anonymity....

It would be impossible to do it completely anonymously, for just the reason JC asks about.

That being said, the system and its results surely would be better if most tried to do the most ratings they could as anonymously and unobtrusively as possible.  I think most do... but I don't know.

But my this too is a topic that has been beated on many times before... and are we just taunting Kavanaugh as he LIVES for subjects like this and can't respond right now?  

And Rich, good one!  I love Carnoustie but I think I can get it "only" to two stars.  Cypress is a three star.  Why is the latter a better course?

a) more fun shots to be played; Carnoustie has some, and more challenge overall for sure, but not as much "fun."  By that I mean shots that challenge both mentally and physically, and stir the soul.  Both has these; Cypress just has more.

b) more scenic beauty.  Sorry Mucci, this does count.

But that's damn near it... they are indeed both great.  I think for these reasons CPC is a little bit greater.

TH

[Sean_A]

I have good friend in NYC who thinks all panelists should be anonymous. Thus, clubs would never know when a panelist was there and all free rounds would drop by the wayside. I like this idea quite a bit.

Mark

How would this work w/ respect to private courses?  How does the panelist get on the course w/o somebody knowing who he is?

Rich

I see where you are going but Im not sure I follow completely.  You ask the question, "How am I supposed to determine which 3* is better than the others?"

Well, the Doak system is basically the same only instead of a scale of 0-3 its a scale of 0-10.  In a group of 3 courses that were all 10s, I dont think the debate would be centered on which was better, but rather, do each deserve to be a 10.  Similarly, among 3 restaurants rated 3*s you wouldnt debate which was better, but rather, did each deserve their rating.

So, I think the Doak scale accomplishes the same thing as the Michelin rating.

JMO

JC

I think the difference with the Rihcelin Guida is that only great courses get a star.  There isn't a debate about its quality.  The only debate is how great and if the "extras" can lift it to a higher level.  I don't get the sense of Doak's Scale of where he really stands on the quality of courses down in the 4-7 range.  Also, I think having so many grades implies a vast difference in the quality between 5-10.  Sometimes I look at those courses and think there is no way that one is that much better.  The Rihcelin Guida just seems tighter in terms of quality control (for lack of a better phrase).

Ciao  

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Fun shots at CPC:

Drive--2nd
Drive--4th
Putt-4th
Drive-5th
Pitch/Putt 5th
Drive 6th
Drive 8th
Drive 9th
2nd shot--10th
2nd shot 12th
Drive 13th
Drive 14th
View on tee 15th
drive 16th
View on tee 17th
Putts 18th

 Carnoustie

Drive 1st
2nd 1st
Putt 1st
Drive 2nd
Second 2nd
Drive 3rd
Second 3rd

etc. etc......

As for anominity, Michelin does it.  Why can't the rating rags?

R

[JC Jones]

JC

I think the difference with the Rihcelin Guida is that only great courses get a star.  There isn't a debate about its quality.  The only debate is how great and if the "extras" can lift it to a higher level.  I don't get the sense of Doak's Scale of where he really stands on the quality of courses down in the 4-7 range.  Also, I think having so many grades implies a vast difference in the quality between 5-10.  Sometimes I look at those courses and think there is no way that one is that much better.  The Rihcelin Guida just seems tighter in terms of quality control (for lack of a better phrase).

Ciao 

I see your point and perhaps the only downside of the Doak scale is having ratings in the 0-5 range.  Either the course makes the scale and gets rated 5-10 or doesnt make the scale.  That might "tighten" it up a little and make it fit more w/ the Richelin Guida.

[Tom Huckaby]

There you have it, Rich - leaving out any further details, that's what I had in mind - and that's enough to say CPC is a three star and Carnoustie a two star. 

As for ratings and anoymity, the only way to do it would be to have the ratings done by a very small panel of very well-connected people.  Even then, at new private clubs it would be very tough, particularly new ones.  Someone has to say it also; the panelists would have the be very financially secure, or all rounds would have to be paid for by the magazines.  Part of idenfitying yourself at a public course is indeed that if you do, you then are likely comped.  The Michelin guide raters don't pay for their own meals, do they?

So yes, it could be done, if the entire system as it stands now was scrapped, and the ratings were put in the hands of such the Ward Panel (might as well say it, this is his dream, stated on here countless times), who were either very rich or compensated.

In the end I just wonder if the positive of anonymity would outweigh the negative of these assessments becoming that of a small bunch of what would have to be very hoity-toity people.... We'd know how THEY felt about golf courses... but man I wonder if I really want the opinions of guys like that - at least IN TOTALITY...

I guess it works for restaurants.  I just wonder if it would work for golf courses.  And yes, very few restarants are private clubs, so the analogy is not perfect.

But again, this has been covered countless times before.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Good thread. I'm happy you've revived these long time issues.

Rating courses rasises a nest of diffucult issues that aren't thought about very much. To touch on one:

The idea of precise mathematical ratings necessarily assumes that there are common denominators - a set of descriptions that are neutral across courses - on which you can make apples to apples comparisons. An idea, of course, which is preposterous. The absurdity jumps off the page. How do you assign a set of number values to features on courses as diverse as NGLA, Firestone, TPC Sawgrass and Garden City?

In the alternative, most rating systems these days are just voting mechanisms. Given that there are - essentially - no criteria for who votes (other than who you happen to know), there is no a priori reason why their voting outcomes ought to be given any weight whatsoever.

I'm not sure the Richelin system works either. Or at least not without some more thought.

The Michelin restaurant stars works because over the years a very limited number of food raters have gained credibility. They have earned our acknowedgement of their expertise. But more important is that they are motivated to pick the right restaurants because Michelin is motivated to get it right. On pain of losing its credibility as a guide, and thus as something you or I might buy.

So there are factors in place that causes Michelin to take great care with their picks. They have a direct economic stake in getting it right. They have a downside if they get it wrong. So they pick carefullly, conservatively and with great deliberation.

I know of no entity that sponsors the rating of golf courses that operates under similar, healthy constraints. And until they do, golf rating will always be suspect. Until they do, golf ratings ought to be seen as a lark that no one should take very seriously.

Which is where I find myself on the issue.

Bob      

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich -

Good thread. I'm happy you've revived these long time issues.

Rating courses rasises a nest of diffucult issues that aren't thought about very much. To touch on one:

The idea of precise mathematical ratings necessarily assumes that there are common denominators - a set of descriptions that are neutral across courses - on which you can make apples to apples comparisons. An idea, of course, which is preposterous. The absurdity jumps off the page. How do you assign a set of number values to features on courses as diverse as NGLA, Firestone, TPC Sawgrass and Garden City?

In the alternative, most rating systems these days are just voting mechanisms. Given that there are - essentially - no criteria for who votes (other than who you happen to know), there is no a priori reason why their voting outcomes ought to be given any weight whatsoever.

I'm not sure the Richelin system works either. Or at least not without some more thought.

The Michelin restaurant stars works because over the years a very limited number of food raters have gained credibility. They have earned our acknowedgement of their expertise. But more important is that they are motivated to pick the right restaurants because Michelin is motivated to get it right. On pain of losing its credibility as a guide, and thus as something you or I might buy.

So there are factors in place that causes Michelin to take great care with their picks. They have a direct economic stake in getting it right. They have a downside if they get it wrong. So they pick carefullly, conservatively and with great deliberation.

I know of no entity that sponsors the rating of golf courses that operates under similar, healthy constraints. And until they do, golf rating will always be suspect. Until they do, golf ratings ought to be seen as a lark that no one should take very seriously.

Which is where I find myself on the issue.

Bob      

Exceedingly well-said, Bob.  100% concurrence with all of it.

Particularly the last paragraph... the drag is how seriously these golf course ratings do get taken.  If they could be treated like the lark they really are, we'd all be a lot better off.

TH

[Kirk Gill]

In the end I just wonder if the positive of anonymity would outweigh the negative of these assessments becoming that of a small bunch of what would have to be very hoity-toity people.... We'd know how THEY felt about golf courses... but man I wonder if I really want the opinions of guys like that - at least IN TOTALITY...

I can't say I know much about how golf rating is done (there HAVE been countless threads on the issue, but I guess I just wasn't paying attention), but my understanding would be that those raters have to have the wherewithal to travel a lot, and play a lot of golf, no? Isn't that travel at their own expense? On some level, aren't the CURRENT rating systems being performed by a relatively small group of fairly hoity toity people?