[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


The question is, since I included me in my statement, would the list lose credibility if I had input in compiling the numbers? Welcome to the club. And btw, you wouldn't want to hire me to build a road for you in Utah. I don't know a damn thing about the soil conditions or what grade of asphalt to use in your climate. Sometimes you just need to hire the right person for the job and not take the first volunteer.

[Kalen Braley]

Not at all John,

If you'd like to jump in and help, i'm sure Tim would love the assistance.

P.S.  I don't see any road building in my future, but my driveway needs to be redone probably sooner than later.  Got any experience with concrete? 

[John Kavanaugh]

I would be happy to act as a sergeant at arms and determine who is allow to participate. Of course that will require me seeing their votes first to see if it fits my agenda.


My point is why not have everyone publish their own personal list and discuss instead of creating this so called GCA list? We have already established the fact that just because you participate on the site your votes will not count unless they fit in a very specific box.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

You really should reach out to Tim via IM for more details.  Nothing has been determined yet, and your last sentence is certainly not accurate.

Good Luck!

[John Kavanaugh]

- There were absolutely cases of attempted manipulation through giving absurdly low scores to certain top courses.

Kalen,


It has already been established that certain top courses shall be loved unconditionally or your vote will be dismissed. For example, I believe with all my heart that Harbour Town is a more interesting design than Ballyneal yet would not put Harbour Town in my top 100. That would force me, is so inclined, to give Ballyneal a score that would be seen as trolling and get tossed while leaving the HT score for consideration.

[Garland Bayley]

...
- There were absolutely cases of attempted manipulation through giving absurdly low scores to certain top courses.
...

So your proof of manipulation is that some people think less of a course than the prevalent group think?

What does the rating for the Castle Course come out to? Doak gave it a zero. Apparently he is involved in manipulation.

[Garland Bayley]

...The disconnect I am seeing is how two people could see the same course and one think its only (4) modestly interesting with only a few distinctive holes and barely above an average course...and the next guy (10) that its basically perfect and even skipping one hole would be missing out and belongs among the elite courses of the world. ...

It is easy to see a range of 4 to 10. Golfers experience the game far differently from one another. People value things far differently than one another.

Besides everyone knows your choice for the best course is the one you most recently played. Ditch the rose colored glasses and get real.

You throw out scores from members of this website, then you are not producing a GCA rating. You are producing Kalen's modification to the GCA rating.

[Ian_L]

...
- There were absolutely cases of attempted manipulation through giving absurdly low scores to certain top courses.
...

So your proof of manipulation is that some people think less of a course than the prevalent group think?

What does the rating for the Castle Course come out to? Doak gave it a zero. Apparently he is involved in manipulation.

Garland,


I went back and took a look at the data from the last poll. I take it back - I am not 100% convinced that voters were intending to manipulate the results by making extreme votes. I remembered there being more very low scores for the top courses (e.g. an otherwise "normal" looking voter with Cypress Point rated at a 2), and I only see a couple isolated instances in the data. There are a few that look odd to me but they could simply be attributable to non-standard preferences. Only the voter will ever know.


A mitigating factor is that we instructed voters last time around to provide a rating of 5-10 (which I did not remember), so there was less leeway for extremely low votes to influence the results.


My guess is that we will have the opportunity to see a poll in raw form as well as a stab or two at a more "curated" ranking using statistical methods.

[Jerry Kluger]

Can I suggest that any ranking have 2 categories:  1. world rankings 2. US rankings.  Many of us have played quite a few courses in the US and perhaps UK and Ireland as well but not much beyond that.  Makes it hard to say how the courses we have seen stack up against other courses around the world.  I would be curious to see if any US courses ranking change when they are on the world list because they are up against a much larger group of courses and perhaps those raters who have seen courses throughout the world have a different view concerning US courses.

[Tim Gallant]

Update: We are working through comments, and putting together the best way forward. Hopefully a new thread started for a new rankings in the coming week or two!

[Ian Galbraith]

Dare I volunteer? I am happy to compile the list! Leave it with me for the weekend and I will try to reach out to Ran, Tom D, Ian L, Kalen, and anyone else who might want to help, including a few smart fellas I know (paging Ian G!).


I will try to create a new thread and what the process will be early next week.

Tim, since you work in marketing you know flattery works every time  - let me know if I can help.

Ian

[Paul Rudovsky]

All--


For what it is worth, I believe the production of a list needs to start with a definition of greatness/goodness/averageness/etc.  Are we talking "Championship Test (but Fair)" or "fun"  etc .  To what degree should aesthetics be included (views etc).  To what degree should conditioning be included?  To what degree should history be included in the assessment?  Is this addressed to catch level players, 1-5 handicap, 6-10, etc etc or all players at any level?
Without defining answers to the questions (and others), the result will be like vegetable soup or Bouillabaisse.


Best
Paul

[Pete_Pittock]

Larger type for the list in the original thread.


Can we rank courses that we have walked/toured but not played.  I have played The Country Club, but not specifically the changeable composite course - could I rate that?

[Tim Gallant]

All--


For what it is worth, I believe the production of a list needs to start with a definition of greatness/goodness/averageness/etc.  Are we talking "Championship Test (but Fair)" or "fun"  etc .  To what degree should aesthetics be included (views etc).  To what degree should conditioning be included?  To what degree should history be included in the assessment?  Is this addressed to catch level players, 1-5 handicap, 6-10, etc etc or all players at any level?
Without defining answers to the questions (and others), the result will be like vegetable soup or Bouillabaisse.


Best
Paul

Paul,


I hear what you're saying, but slightly disagree. If I ask you what you think are the Top 10 golf courses in the world are without any parameters, it's likely to be different from my list. Where the two differ is where great debate and conversation can happen. If I set the parameter, for example, on what are the Top 100 most fun golf courses in the world, we're likely to have a very similar lists.

Understanding why you think something is great, is more valuable to me than telling me that Prestwick is the 4th most fun golf course in the world.

[Sean_A]

+1

It seems right and proper to leave the thinking to the rater. Plus, I defy anyone to come up with really good criteria for ranking which is easily communicated and most agree with. We all see courses differently and place emphasis on different aspects of design or conditioning.

I have always thought favourites lists are more interesting than best lists because of the diversity of courses listed.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Update: We are working through comments, and putting together the best way forward. Hopefully a new thread started for a new rankings in the coming week or two!

Tim,


Any update? I completely understand if not—it is a big undertaking.


Thanks,


Ira

[Tim Gallant]

Update: We are working through comments, and putting together the best way forward. Hopefully a new thread started for a new rankings in the coming week or two!

Tim,


Any update? I completely understand if not—it is a big undertaking.


Thanks,


Ira

Ira,


Apologies for the delay! Something cropped up which may hinder my ability to get this across the line. If anyone else is keen to pick this up, I can send across where we've gotten to so far!

[Colin Christman]

As a long-time lurker, this is one of my all-time favorite threads. I revive it only to see if there's interest in trying to recreate the project. There have been quite a couple of interesting new courses and restorative projects since the survey's first iteration.

[Jeff Schley]

Update: We are working through comments, and putting together the best way forward. Hopefully a new thread started for a new rankings in the coming week or two!

Tim,


Any update? I completely understand if not—it is a big undertaking.


Thanks,


Ira

Ira,


Apologies for the delay! Something cropped up which may hinder my ability to get this across the line. If anyone else is keen to pick this up, I can send across where we've gotten to so far!

Ira and Tim did you guys ever connect on this?  Would love to see it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()