Golf Digest on NYC newsstands with Top 100

[Mark Saltzman]

A couple of things. I played and rated Sahalee in the last rating period and I am stunned that it rose that much. I thought my rating alone would drive it out of the Top 100. GD does a thing with "outlier" ratings that if a panelist rates a course too far off up or down from the majority that that rating will not count. I wonder how many outliers Sahalee has?

Each course needs 45 panelist visits so I am sure RCCC did not get that many. As for Friars Head, they finally received 45 visits, but it took 5 years. Who knows when RCCC will get 45, but if I had to drop everything and play any course in America, that would be it. As for Kingsley, I am stumped. I loved it, but I have talked to a few panelists that did not. They did not like the fall offs on #2 and #9 among other things. Personally, I thought they were pretty interesting. How it is not top 3 in Michigan is beyond me let alone #16 or whatever it currently is.

Jim,

I'd love to know more about the 'outlier' process. GD requires 45 visits for any course to be eligible for the top 100. This alone virtually guarantees that no single vote will have a meaningful impact on any course's overall rating. Either you trust your raters or you don't. Just because someone feels a course is far better/worse than the masses doesn't make him wrong. Who knows, maybe it is the type of course that 1 in 10 people in general will love/hate and this should be reflected in the rankings.

Furthermore, I'd really like to know what constitutes an outlier. 1 point, 3 points, 5 points from the average?  Does this suggest that if a panelist really doesn't like a course (take Sahallee, though I am in no way expressing a view on it's ranking), then should he rate it a 5 (for example) instead of a 3, so that he is sure that his vote will be counted and not be  subject to the outlier problem?

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

There is little doubt that the 400 course experiment by Golfweek was a dismal failure.

btw.  I like the outlier system.  I believe is it referred to in house as the Perez Rule.  You can not allow one guy with a grudge ruin the work of other good people.  

[Mark Saltzman]

Their is little doubt that the 400 course experiment by Golfweek was a dismal failure.

btw.  I like the outlier system.  I believe is it referred to in house as the Perez Rule.  You can not allow one guy with a grudge ruin the work of other good people. 

"perez Rule"? I bet theres some sort of funny story behind that one.

John,

I understand the need to guard against the guy with the grudge, but what about 5 ratings that differ greatly from the average? Are they outliers or just a different opinion?  And 1 guy could hardly move theaverage if there really is only one outlier.

Mark

[Brian Potash]

Is there any chance that the list has not yet come out and no one has seen the magazine yet?  I live in NYC and I could not find it yesterday.  Just throwing it out there.   

[John Kavanaugh]

Is there any chance that the list has not yet come out and no one has seen the magazine yet?  I live in NYC and I could not find it yesterday.  Just throwing it out there.   

The actual list is immaterial, the arguments never change.

[Lou_Duran]

There is little doubt that the 400 course experiment by Golfweek was a dismal failure.

btw.  I like the outlier system.  I believe is it referred to in house as the Perez Rule.  You can not allow one guy with a grudge ruin the work of other good people.  

I believe it is called winsorization.  The editor of the Dallas Morning News' "Texas Annual"- first of three sections coming out this Sunday- applies a version of it in compiling its top 100.  It doesn't stop the criticism largely borne out of people having different preferences, but it does mitigate some of the problems with outliers.

[Jim Franklin]

It is 2 standard deviations from the average so the number is a moving target. So if you want your vote to count negatively or positively you may want to watch how you vote. I do not concern myself with that as I vote how I see fit. If I have an outlier then so be it. I have heard some crazy stories about some ratings so the outliers may need to stay.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

You missed my point big time.

No course escapes attention today --- we live in a viral world.

The key places can be visited by far less numbers than the GD herd of cattle suggests.

I am not hear to sanciton Golf Mag's listings either -- having more and more raters doesn't produce the really well defined outcomes.

When a mag doesn't list a Rock Creek or a Kingsley and elevates Sahalee and a host of others then something is most certainly wrong.

I'd much rather have Whitten do his own listing. Be that much more clear and to the point.

[Lou_Duran]

I'd much rather have Whitten do his own listing. Be that much more clear and to the point.

I too would enjoy seeing the heads of the panels publish their personal ratings.  I think that these guys are very knowledgeable, well-travelled, and are perhaps less impressed by some of the fluff which has little to do with how a course plays but nonetheless impacts the ratings.  The downside is that putting out such a list would influence some panelists in future ballots, but I think that some of that already crops into the ratings. 

[Anton]

As with all of the ratings, it is all just opinions.  Golf Digest is just the self proclaimed "Leader of Course Rankings".  Kind of like the Rolling Stones labeling themselves the World's Greatest Rock + Roll Band or Elvis naming himself the King.  Personally.......Golf Digest is a bit too corporate driven for me.  I prefer natural courses that lay in harmony with the land.  Not being built on top of the land like a Fazio design or a Trump course.  Golf Digest raters have a thing for the big dollar designs and resorts by Dye, Nicklaus, + Fazio to name a few.  Places like Kingsley, Sagebrush, Friars Head, etc. are my kind of courses but probably not going to break thru highly on the Top 100 in Golf Digest.  But each set of ratings we get out in the publications seem to have their own style that they favor and that is fine with me.  I like what I like and others like what they like.  Thats what makes for interesting conversation.   

[Sean Leary]

Sean:

You missed my point big time.

No course escapes attention today --- we live in a viral world.

The key places can be visited by far less numbers than the GD herd of cattle suggests.

I am not hear to sanciton Golf Mag's listings either -- having more and more raters doesn't produce the really well defined outcomes.

When a mag doesn't list a Rock Creek or a Kingsley and elevates Sahalee and a host of others then something is most certainly wrong.

I'd much rather have Whitten do his own listing. Be that much more clear and to the point.

First of all, are you sure RC got enough votes?

Second, Don't you think that based upon the sheer number of Top 100ish level courses now is what creates the "problems" in the rankings? You can only have 100. Years ago there was less to choose from and less controversy. There is no perfect way to do a ranking. Just isn't. I think they get most of it right, but again its just my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think many of the courses rated/included are a product of regionalism.

Years ago, Pumpkin Ridge was rated highly and I made the remark that it wouldn't make the top 25 in the NY Met area.

Unfortunately, there's no way to filter provincial assessments.

In an ideal world, raters would be prohibited from rating a course within 250+ miles of their home, but, that's rather impractical.

I would like to see what would happen to the ratings IF, raters from the same state or region had their votes removed from the calculation.

[John Kavanaugh]

What is really a kick is that Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member. Works out great for Wolf Run where around a third of their votes are from raters or their guests. 

[JMEvensky]

I think many of the courses rated/included are a product of regionalism.

Years ago, Pumpkin Ridge was rated highly and I made the remark that it wouldn't make the top 25 in the NY Met area.

Unfortunately, there's no way to filter provincial assessments.

In an ideal world, raters would be prohibited from rating a course within 250+ miles of their home, but, that's rather impractical.

I would like to see what would happen to the ratings IF, raters from the same state or region had their votes removed from the calculation.

Wouldn't it work better if raters could stay ONLY within 250 miles?

That way,the "homer" effect would be equal across the board.

I think I'd give more credence to an all-NY group of raters' opinions for the Met area than their opinions on  a handful of NorCal courses,for example.

[Jim Franklin]

As with all of the ratings, it is all just opinions.  Golf Digest is just the self proclaimed "Leader of Course Rankings".  Kind of like the Rolling Stones labeling themselves the World's Greatest Rock + Roll Band or Elvis naming himself the King.  Personally.......Golf Digest is a bit too corporate driven for me.  I prefer natural courses that lay in harmony with the land.  Not being built on top of the land like a Fazio design or a Trump course.  Golf Digest raters have a thing for the big dollar designs and resorts by Dye, Nicklaus, + Fazio to name a few.  Places like Kingsley, Sagebrush, Friars Head, etc. are my kind of courses but probably not going to break thru highly on the Top 100 in Golf Digest.  But each set of ratings we get out in the publications seem to have their own style that they favor and that is fine with me.  I like what I like and others like what they like.  Thats what makes for interesting conversation.   

Thanks for prejudging all Golf Digest raters into one category. Friars Head and Kingsley are in my personal top 20 and I have played 94 of GD's current top 100.

[Jim Franklin]

I think many of the courses rated/included are a product of regionalism.

Years ago, Pumpkin Ridge was rated highly and I made the remark that it wouldn't make the top 25 in the NY Met area.

Unfortunately, there's no way to filter provincial assessments.

In an ideal world, raters would be prohibited from rating a course within 250+ miles of their home, but, that's rather impractical.

I would like to see what would happen to the ratings IF, raters from the same state or region had their votes removed from the calculation.

Wouldn't it work better if raters could stay ONLY within 250 miles?

That way,the "homer" effect would be equal across the board.

I think I'd give more credence to an all-NY group of raters' opinions for the Met area than their opinions on  a handful of NorCal courses,for example.

I like Patrick's version better.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Alotian at number 14...well I just lost any  of the little respect I had for that magazine...they truly believe that it is the 14th best course in the nation..somewhat confusing
A "nice" golf course certainly but just another Fazio nice course..certainly not Fazio's best even...what a surprise!

[C. Squier]

What is really a kick is that Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member. Works out great for Wolf Run where around a third of their votes are from raters or their guests. 

Yes, it has been fantastic for them.  Dropping from #15 to their current #67 in 4 years.  Just a few more years and all those members/guests will have them out of the top 100. 

[Anton]

Of course its #14.....its a Fazio course. 

[John Kavanaugh]

What is really a kick is that Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member. Works out great for Wolf Run where around a third of their votes are from raters or their guests. 

Yes, it has been fantastic for them.  Dropping from #15 to their current #67 in 4 years.  Just a few more years and all those members/guests will have them out of the top 100. 

Most of the drop is for letting women in, it will never be the same. Back in the day Wolf was the Kingsley of not getting the "gest" of it.

[Sean Leary]

Of course its #14.....its a Fazio course. 

Your point being? Fazio is a huge factor on all of the mag's lists.

[John Kavanaugh]

The Alotian has made the choice to allow Digest while turning away Golfweek raters. It has thrown the world out of balance in predictable directions. It is not the only course that has taken this route.

[Garland Bayley]

1 ANGC
2 Pine Valley
3 Shinney
4 Oakmont
5 Cypress Point
6 Pebble Beach
7 Merion
8 Winged Foot
9 Sand Hills
10 NGLA
11 Fishers Island
12 Crystal Downs
13 Seminole
14 Alotian
15 Pac Dunes
16 The Country Club
17 Chicago
18 Whistling Straits
19 Muirfield Village
20 Wade Hampton

[Garland Bayley]

...

The Alotian features 15 miles of cart paths and I believe the Head Pro told me that noone has ever walked the course...how can this be a celebration of Augusta National and the spiriti of golf?

Bottom line, I have played 25 Tom Fazio courses that are significantly better than the Alotian and in my mind it is vastly overrated along with Black Rock, Canyata, Rich Harvest Links and the Prince course at Princeville as vapid cartball venues that are not deserving of another visit.  ...

Bill,

Please accept my application for membership in your fan club.

[Jim Colton]

Admit it, Bill. You made that long post primarily to rub it in that you're going to be playing Augusta for the 7th, 8th and 9th time.  Spread the wealth!

A few years ago Golf Digest changed its conditioning definition to try to encourage firm and fast playing conditions and less water usage. I wonder if it's really had the intended effect, considering that "Augusta of the..." courses with pristine conditions and posh amenities are the ones that GD panelists still tend to like, on average.