News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #200 on: July 25, 2011, 07:34:35 PM »
Jim

Cheers for taking the time to collate the results.

4 out of the Top10 from Aus/NZ !! Glad to see the second Golden Age didnt pass us by  ;)

Thankfully some architects travelled 'down under' to show their skills and the project sponsors recognised their talent to contract so.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #201 on: July 25, 2011, 07:35:09 PM »

John,

  Here's the top 10 using just the GCA population:

1. Sand Hills
2. Pacific Dunes
3. Barnbougle Dunes
4. Ballyneal
5. Friar's Head
6. Ellerston
7. Cape Kidnappers
8. Rock Creek
9. Old Macdonald
10. Lost Farm

Nanea snuck in at 25th at the expense of Boston Golf Club, which dropped from 23rd to 26th.

Elerston has 3 ** votes.

Folks had the opportunity to post their ballots publicly if they wanted to.

Nuzzo probably knows the 8 folks who voted for Wolf Point off the top of his head.

The modeling was done through logistic regression, so unless you know the probit function, the formula won't mean much to you. But the concept is the greater the difference between the scores, the greater probability that one course is better than the other. If somebody else wants to take a different approach (either simpler or more complex) with the numbers, by all means go ahead and collect your own data. You can even use my drag-and-drop if you want to.

What is that, 6 for Doak?  That is no surprise.

Though, I'm surprised as many people have seen Barnbougle and/or Lost Farm (especially considering Lost Farm has been open for what, a year at most?).  
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #202 on: July 25, 2011, 07:50:23 PM »
jc:

Quote
What is that, 6 for Doak?  That is no surprise.

Call me Nostradamus!

From page one of the thread:

Quote
Nine Renaissance Golf Design courses in the list. I'll guess that the top 10 features six of them.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #203 on: July 25, 2011, 08:13:10 PM »
"like"
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #204 on: July 25, 2011, 08:28:58 PM »
jc:

Quote
What is that, 6 for Doak?  That is no surprise.

Call me Nostradamus!

From page one of the thread:

Quote
Nine Renaissance Golf Design courses in the list. I'll guess that the top 10 features six of them.

You were spot on from the start. 
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Anthony Fowler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #205 on: July 25, 2011, 09:23:55 PM »
Jim, Tom, and everyone else:

You've heard me make this point several times in the past.  Having people give cardinal ratings to courses and then averaging those ratings is absolutely the wrong way to generate a ranking.  Nobody thinks Ellerston belongs in the top 10, but they can't articulate why (except that not enough people have played it).  Just look at the one person who publicly rated Ellerston (not to criticize that person): He gave 3 stars to 3 courses, which all ended up in the top 10.  He have 2 stars to Ellerston, another top 10 course, and another course outside the top 10.  Out of the other courses that he rated, none of them made the top 15.  This rater didn't rate Ellerston ahead of a single other top-15 course.  That's not to say anything negative about the rater, but the system is clearly flawed if this vote can launch Ellerston into the the top 10.

The right was to rank these courses, as I've argued here before, is through head-to-head matchups.  Every time a person rates a course, it's as if they're casting a head-to-head vote between that course and all the other courses they've rated.  If any single course would have beaten all other courses in a head-to-head vote, then that course should be number 1.  After removing that course from the game, then you determine number 2 in the same way, etc.

The advantages of this system are many:
For one, if those who happen to have played Ellerston are particularly generous raters, then the traditional system will over-rate Ellerston, while the head-to-head system would not.  In this sense, the head-to-head system accounts for the fact that some raters are more generous than others.

Also, under this system, raters have no incentive to misrepresent their true preferences.  For example, under this system, Jim could have given Ballyneal 3 stars and given 0 stars to Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and Barnbougle Dunes, falsely inflating Ballyneal’s position.  However, under the head-to-head system, this strategy would have done no good.  This strategy would only make it more likely that other courses beat SH, PD, and BD without increasing the chances that Ballyneal would beat those courses (assuming that Jim really likes Ballyneal best!).  In my own case, I’ve played 5 of the top 10 and I prefer Kingsley Club to all of them.  I might have given falsely low ratings to those 5 courses and launched Kinglsey into the top 10, but I didn’t.

The only disadvantage of the head-to-head system is that it will not necessarily produce a clear ranking.  It’s possible that Sand Hills beats Pacific Dunes, and Pacific beats Barnbougle, and Barnbougle beats Sand Hills.  However, in that case, we could easily just go back to Jim’s system of averaging the cardinal ratings (or we could just all it a tie). 

I am confident that abnormalities like Ellerston ranked #6 would not be present under this improved ranking system.  Obviously, it’s a problem for any system when only 3 people have played a course, but the head-to-head system provides a much better way to deal with this issue.

Jim, I would be happy to look at the data and report back on the head-to-head ranking.

Anthony

Jim Colton

Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #206 on: July 25, 2011, 09:37:59 PM »
 Anthony,

  I didn't make it through your post, but I can tell you that the ratings are based on head-to-head match-ups, and not the simply averaging the scores. I agree this is the best way to do it, and you can produce a ranking using this information (or at least a best estimate of a ranking  with some confidence interval around that estimate). Even with the head-to-head match-ups, Ellerston's best estimate score is the 6th highest best estimate, but because of the low number of ballots, it has a relatively wide confidence interval.

  Jim

« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 10:22:50 PM by Jim Colton »

Anthony Fowler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #207 on: July 25, 2011, 10:10:41 PM »
Hi Jim,

Thanks for explaining.  I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your rankings.  I assume you're doing some regression based (or MLE) analysis where each observation is a rater and a pair of courses and you're estimating some independent effect (fixed-effect?) for each course.  That's a reasonable way to do it, but you can run into some problems as well.  Your estimate for Ellerston is not going to be consistent when you have such a small number of observations and it's going to be hard to estimate the standard errors since observations are not independent.  Can you explain further what you did?

Also, can you provide some substantive meaning to the Y-axis in your graph?

Anthony

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #208 on: July 25, 2011, 10:12:23 PM »
Jim:

I understand the logic but Ellerson may be negatively impacted simply by less people seeing it, although those that have rate it highly.  That doesn't make the votes received any less rational.  I would imagine Rock Creek and other limited access courses suffered the same fate.  

Can you post the * averages and chart the full field as well?

Jim Colton

Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #209 on: July 25, 2011, 10:44:06 PM »
Anthony,

  I think the model is systematically trying to do exactly what you tried to do in your one Ellerston example - try to make sense of the all the head-to-head data and come up with a best estimate for Ellerston (and everything else at the same time). I'm not sure why we're getting hung up on Ellerston - it's clear that its ranking is only based on 3 votes therefore has a very wide range, which I believe is clearly spelled out in the graph. You can choose to dismiss, discount or even exclude it altogether if you don't think the 3 votes are enough to be representative. In its defense, I will say that all 3 voters for Ellerston are well-traveled and it does stack up pretty well. Even if you take 2 standard deviations off of all the courses, it ranks 9th. Aside from the one voter you referenced, another has played 40 courses on the ballot and has it 10th, ahead of Kidnappers and Rock Creek. The third voter has it as a ** along with Ballyneal, Kidnappers and Old Macdonald. Still, it's not enough to get a clear picture, but the 6-10 range doesn't seem completely out of the question. Maybe we should just write them and try to get a tee time, all in the name of mathematical precision.

  Chris, I'm not going to post the full results or the full graph, because the stated goal was to come up with the top 10 list and the nomination process was restricted because of that. Really we should've just stopped at 20-25. If we were really going for a top 50, then the ballot probably could've included 30-40 more courses, many of which would've likely finished ahead of the courses in the bottom 25%. As far as Rock Creek goes, it had 27 votes, which is more than the median of 20, so I don't think its numbers are adversely impacted other than missing  7 *** votes from Shivas's friends.

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #210 on: July 25, 2011, 10:48:25 PM »
Greg Tallman wrote;

"With all due respect I doubt this list proves anything beyond what was already known, that being the fact that most on this site prefer a course of a certain style an by certain designers. While I might agree more with this type of a list I would further suggest that it is no more accurate than any other given the like mindedness of most who particpated.

Interesting that Diamante scored so low among those who like that type of golf course and setting. I imagine Paul Cowley and his cohorts will be much more pleased when GOLF comes out with their list in the coming weeks."

Greg...this ranking (#35 GCA Best Course Post 1995) achieved my low expectations considering how few of the raters had seen our course. Hopefully GOLF had a few more out there! Gracias Amigo.

Paul,
I played Diamante in January and my conclusion is that it has some great holes, many good holes and a couple of stinkers.  You may figure out which are the later, but for me, they would be 12 and 13.  They are so very out of character with the rest of the course and clearly an attempt to get more golf course lots.  I get that, but it took the course down a notch or two in my opinion.That play for real estate is understandable but it takes the overall course down a couple of notches.  I gave the course 1 star in this system which translates into a very good course, but not one of the top ten post modern.  In review, I don't see that I mis-rated it.  A top ten would not have two holes which clearly fall far short of the rest.  I really enjoyed 14-17 as well as many other holes.

My other comment would be to the sales presentation following the round.  It did not change my rating, but after paying over $400 per person to play plus caddy, we were given the hard sell, and I do mean hard, as we ate lunch waiting for our ride to the airport.  This type of pressure would be expected if our group was comped or significantly discounted, but when you pay high resort fees, this does not go over well.  Just wanted to give you some feedback.
 
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #211 on: July 25, 2011, 10:50:21 PM »
J.C.

There is a good reason for excluding Ellerston from the list - The club requests that it not be included in any ranking lists. 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #212 on: July 25, 2011, 11:03:51 PM »
I warned everyone not to participate. Your votes are now part of some secret database beyond your control. We are not even allowed to know the results of averaging the votes. I do not get the secrecy.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #213 on: July 25, 2011, 11:05:11 PM »
Greg Tallman wrote;

"With all due respect I doubt this list proves anything beyond what was already known, that being the fact that most on this site prefer a course of a certain style an by certain designers. While I might agree more with this type of a list I would further suggest that it is no more accurate than any other given the like mindedness of most who particpated.

Interesting that Diamante scored so low among those who like that type of golf course and setting. I imagine Paul Cowley and his cohorts will be much more pleased when GOLF comes out with their list in the coming weeks."

Greg...this ranking (#35 GCA Best Course Post 1995) achieved my low expectations considering how few of the raters had seen our course. Hopefully GOLF had a few more out there! Gracias Amigo.

Paul,
I played Diamante in January and my conclusion is that it has some great holes, many good holes and a couple of stinkers.  You may figure out which are the later, but for me, they would be 12 and 13.  They are so very out of character with the rest of the course and clearly an attempt to get more golf course lots.  I get that, but it took the course down a notch or two in my opinion.That play for real estate is understandable but it takes the overall course down a couple of notches.  I gave the course 1 star in this system which translates into a very good course, but not one of the top ten post modern.  In review, I don't see that I mis-rated it.  A top ten would not have two holes which clearly fall far short of the rest.  I really enjoyed 14-17 as well as many other holes.

My other comment would be to the sales presentation following the round.  It did not change my rating, but after paying over $400 per person to play plus caddy, we were given the hard sell, and I do mean hard, as we ate lunch waiting for our ride to the airport.  This type of pressure would be expected if our group was comped or significantly discounted, but when you pay high resort fees, this does not go over well.  Just wanted to give you some feedback.
 
Jim, Are you sure you paid $400 plus caddy to play golf?

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #214 on: July 25, 2011, 11:11:19 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #215 on: July 25, 2011, 11:17:48 PM »
Greg Tallman wrote;

"With all due respect I doubt this list proves anything beyond what was already known, that being the fact that most on this site prefer a course of a certain style an by certain designers. While I might agree more with this type of a list I would further suggest that it is no more accurate than any other given the like mindedness of most who particpated.

Interesting that Diamante scored so low among those who like that type of golf course and setting. I imagine Paul Cowley and his cohorts will be much more pleased when GOLF comes out with their list in the coming weeks."

Greg...this ranking (#35 GCA Best Course Post 1995) achieved my low expectations considering how few of the raters had seen our course. Hopefully GOLF had a few more out there! Gracias Amigo.

Paul,
I played Diamante in January and my conclusion is that it has some great holes, many good holes and a couple of stinkers.  You may figure out which are the later, but for me, they would be 12 and 13.  They are so very out of character with the rest of the course and clearly an attempt to get more golf course lots.  I get that, but it took the course down a notch or two in my opinion.That play for real estate is understandable but it takes the overall course down a couple of notches.  I gave the course 1 star in this system which translates into a very good course, but not one of the top ten post modern.  In review, I don't see that I mis-rated it.  A top ten would not have two holes which clearly fall far short of the rest.  I really enjoyed 14-17 as well as many other holes.

My other comment would be to the sales presentation following the round.  It did not change my rating, but after paying over $400 per person to play plus caddy, we were given the hard sell, and I do mean hard, as we ate lunch waiting for our ride to the airport.  This type of pressure would be expected if our group was comped or significantly discounted, but when you pay high resort fees, this does not go over well.  Just wanted to give you some feedback.
 
Jim, Are you sure you paid $400 plus caddy to play golf?

I will have to go back and check my credit card, but it I remember paying over 4000 pesos or there about.  May have been a bit less, but if it was, it would have been $390.  Was I taken?  Ok, maybe you shouldn't answer that.  I will have to ask my travel partners and see what they remember, but I'm pretty sure that was it. 
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #216 on: July 25, 2011, 11:36:13 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam


This thread highlights the good and bad of the website.

Jim:

After visiting Ballyneal again this weekend, the extent of your efforts to help Ben Cox is even more clear to me.  You have EARNED much more good will than you have been afforded on this thread.  Your work on this thread deserves thanks as well. Your point about listing more courses is quite valid.  If we were ranking the Top 50 an entirely different list of nominees may have been generated.  In fact, I was asked to second a nomination but declined stating that I felt the course would not merit Top 10 status.  But I certainly would have nominated it if we were trying to identify the Top 50.

Bart

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #217 on: July 25, 2011, 11:45:56 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam or Bart,

Please name one thing remotely positive about this thread.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #218 on: July 25, 2011, 11:46:43 PM »
Pretty sure should have been $306 and I fully understand the feelings toward the sales presentation following the round. You are not the only person to identify 12 and 13 as out character but i would bet if you asked Paul he would say it was born more out of their desire to fit the 11th hole as you see it today into the routing and the only way to do that was to go down out of the dune and come back after playing the 11th which is obviously a great hole.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 11:48:44 PM by Greg Tallman »

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #219 on: July 25, 2011, 11:48:19 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam or Bart,

Please name one thing remotely positive about this thread.

We found out you are a professional engineer.
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #220 on: July 25, 2011, 11:49:48 PM »
;D

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #221 on: July 25, 2011, 11:52:53 PM »
Pretty sure should have been $306 and I fully understand the feelings toward the sales presentation following the round. You are not the only person to identify 12 and 13 as out character but i would bet if you asked Paul he would say it was born more out of their desire to fit the 11th hole as you see it today into the routing and the only way to do that was to go down out of the dune and come back after playing the 11th which is obviously a great hole.

Agreed that 11 is a great hole.  Tough decisions had to be made I guess, but 12 and 13 bring the entire effort down as I mentioned.  Really, the cost was much closer to 400.  Checked with my travel partners and they checked their credit cards.  Showed $392 based on the exchange.  
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #222 on: July 25, 2011, 11:53:45 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam or Bart,

Please name one thing remotely positive about this thread.

We found out you are a professional engineer.

Well, I am not above bragging which is why I understand why people enjoy having the chance to list the great courses they have played. I'm not sure, because I missed the movie, but isn't bragging one of the seven deadly sins?  It never leads to anything good.

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #223 on: July 25, 2011, 11:56:52 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam or Bart,

Please name one thing remotely positive about this thread.

I have learned about a course called Ellerston that previously had received little attention on this site.  Whether it warrants Top Ten or not, we have raised awareness that the course likely has architectural merit worth noting.  What more could you want from a course ranking list?

Bart

Jim Colton

Re: Top Ten Post-modern - voting ends Sunday
« Reply #224 on: July 25, 2011, 11:59:47 PM »
This thread is a great one, the same a golf hole is great. It identifies people's character.

Well Done Jim.

I fear you might be expected to live up to the tasks and deeds of the last 3 months.

Play it as you find it.

Adam


This thread highlights the good and bad of the website.

Jim:

After visiting Ballyneal again this weekend, the extent of your efforts to help Ben Cox is even more clear to me.  You have EARNED much more good will than you have been afforded on this thread.  Your work on this thread deserves thanks as well. Your point about listing more courses is quite valid.  If we were ranking the Top 50 an entirely different list of nominees may have been generated.  In fact, I was asked to second a nomination but declined stating that I felt the course would not merit Top 10 status.  But I certainly would have nominated it if we were trying to identify the Top 50.

Bart

Bart,

 Thanks for the kind words. However, I don't view this thread as related to the Ben Cox fundraiser at all, nor do I expect any leeway or latitude because of it. . I simply offered to help Tom compile the ballots and post the results, which was bound to be more trouble than it'
 was worth. I do think the results are a pretty fair representation of the collective opinion of the 116 voters, though another 10 votes on Ellerston and Wolf Creek would've gone a long way.  If you polled 100 digest or golfweek Raters, you'd probably get a different set of results. I openly welcome anybody else taking a different stab at this and sharing the results.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back