[Joe Byrnes]

Joe,
Arguably that is right - except that the list done by the panel that included architects is way more accurate that the one that didn't.

Hi Mike,

Wouldn't it create further validity if the architects couldn't rate their own courses? Would the list be any different?

I agree that the list with architects opinions is a better list but think it's validity could be improved.

What do you think?

JB

[Mark_F]

Wouldn't it create further validity if the architects couldn't rate their own courses? Would the list be any different?

I agree that the list with architects opinions is a better list but think it's validity could be improved.

The problem, Joe, is where do you stop?

Panelists not voting for courses where they are or used to be a member?
Panelists not voting for a course where their friends are members?
Panelists not voting for courses where they were guests of a member?
Panelists not voting for courses they haven't played in different conditions and seasons?

They should just publish individual ranking lists and let people see what bias there may exist for themselves.

[Scott Warren]

I'm with Mark, if you're going to block architects because they built the courses, you need to address the many other ways that self-interest can affect the list.

Sean, I agree in theory, but the simple fact is that some courses aren't as good as other courses and a list that places the latter above the former should be called for what it is.

[Mike_Clayton]

Golf Australia had always published our individual lists - until this year when there were both more raters and 50 more courses.
Everyone could see our bias and it seemed like it evened out pretty well. And, I think the architects were very fair with how they ranked their own courses as well as others work.

[Brian Stewart]

I have no idea if the list is fully correct or not but having played Royal Melbourne(Composite!! ), Metropolitan, NSW and The Lakes last week I found them all to be excellent.  I am not sure if I would rank them in the same order either but I would just be picking at very fine points to make changes.

[Sean_A]

I'm with Mark, if you're going to block architects because they built the courses, you need to address the many other ways that self-interest can affect the list.

Sean, I agree in theory, but the simple fact is that some courses aren't as good as other courses and a list that places the latter above the former should be called for what it is.

Scott

I don't disagree that some courses are better than others.  For instance, I know St Enodoc is better than Silloth - tee hee.  The crux of the matter is if there is anybody on the planet with such godlike qualities that the layman could consider their opinion as good as truth.  As I say, no matter how you slice and dice it, we are comparing opinions.  Find the opinions you trust most (to either agree or disagree with oneself) and use them for guide.  All the rest of it is just for show. 

Ciao 

[Anthony Butler]

I'm with Mark, if you're going to block architects because they built the courses, you need to address the many other ways that self-interest can affect the list.

Sean, I agree in theory, but the simple fact is that some courses aren't as good as other courses and a list that places the latter above the former should be called for what it is.

Scott

I don't disagree that some courses are better than others.  For instance, I know St Enodoc is better than Silloth - tee hee.  The crux of the matter is if there is anybody on the planet with such godlike qualities that the layman could consider their opinion as good as truth.  As I say, no matter how you slice and dice it, we are comparing opinions.  Find the opinions you trust most (to either agree or disagree with oneself) and use them for guide.  All the rest of it is just for show. 

Ciao 

In reality, the order of courses in the Sandbelt is somewhat 'settled' knowledge... unless something major happens there, it will be RMW, KH etc. until most of us shuffle off this mortal coil.

The true dynamics and real interest in the Australian list is in how well, for instance, NSWGC bounces back from redoing their greens... and whether that's enough to re-establish NSW as a Top 3 course. Recent reports suggest better than the naysayers here on GCA. Also how much of a bounce does Bonnie Doon get when all 18 holes are back in play... their fortunes being somewhat tied to NSWGC since they both ended up going with Mackenzie Bent for their greens.

From a personal perspective, it's easy to understand how you can rank the Sandbelt courses from 1-10. Where NSWGC, BD, Lost Farm and Moonah National fit into this is where choices become very personal and hard to standardize.

[Mike_Clayton]

Anthony,
I am not sure why the grass choice for the greens at Bonnie Doon has anything to do with where it may get ranked.
Surely it will be ranked on the quality of the holes. I saw the greens last week and the surfaces are fine - but it's the greens themselves that will be a big part of the success of the project.
Nor will it make a scrap of difference to where NSW is rated. If they have significantly changed the contours then that may make a difference.

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,
I am not sure why the grass choice for the greens at Bonnie Doon has anything to do with where it may get ranked.
Surely it will be ranked on the quality of the holes. I saw the greens last week and the surfaces are fine - but it's the greens themselves that will be a big part of the success of the project.
Nor will it make a scrap of difference to where NSW is rated. If they have significantly changed the contours then that may make a difference.

So the consistency and quality of the playing surfaces don't make any difference to the rating....?

How then can you explain NSWGCs rise up the rankings (in Australia, but mostly globally) between 1992-2009 without any routing changes or re-contouring of the playing surfaces? 

I think you made the right decision at Bonnie Doon, Mike, but I think you're might be underestimating the impact of good playing surfaces on the strategy of the holes and overall golfing experience.   

[Joe Byrnes]

Wouldn't it create further validity if the architects couldn't rate their own courses? Would the list be any different?

I agree that the list with architects opinions is a better list but think it's validity could be improved.

The problem, Joe, is where do you stop?

Panelists not voting for courses where they are or used to be a member?
Panelists not voting for a course where their friends are members?
Panelists not voting for courses where they were guests of a member?
Panelists not voting for courses they haven't played in different conditions and seasons?

They should just publish individual ranking lists and let people see what bias there may exist for themselves.

The issue with that is that none of those people have a vested interest in seeing thier course ranked higher than it should be. Royal Melbourne members did not leave in droves when Kingston Heath was ranked higher than it for that one year and I'm sure that guests of members were still very happy for the invite.

I think you have missed my point. The architects are the only raters that have a conflict of interest, whether that conflict is real or perceived is a moot point.

JB

[Mike_Clayton]

Anthony,

The greens have always been fine when ever I have played there. I don't think improved putting surfaces makes a scrap of difference in the rankings.
I played the tour school there in 1981 and the course was in horrific condition and they were advertising for members in the local paper.
I assume it rose in the rankings because they got it onto better condition - and more importantly people saw it in increased numbers.
That and it was a brilliant course - and the 2nd was miles better that it is now!

[Tom_Doak]

Joe Byrnes:

I'm not a panelist for Golf Australia [or any ranking in Australia], but I can tell you the main reason some of the rankings use architects is because the architects are among the most well-traveled golfers of any of their panelists.  Moreover, most architects are realistic about the ranking of their own courses, and if they're not, the other architects are only too happy to remind them ... my experience with adding up the list for GOLF Magazine (USA) was that it was the architects who kept the new courses down a bit lower in the rankings.

There are tons of conflicts of interest on any of these lists, too.  For example:  is there anyone involved with the ownership and operation of Moonah Links voting?

[Joe Byrnes]

Joe Byrnes:

I'm not a panelist for Golf Australia [or any ranking in Australia], but I can tell you the main reason some of the rankings use architects is because the architects are among the most well-traveled golfers of any of their panelists.  Moreover, most architects are realistic about the ranking of their own courses, and if they're not, the other architects are only too happy to remind them ... my experience with adding up the list for GOLF Magazine (USA) was that it was the architects who kept the new courses down a bit lower in the rankings.

There are tons of conflicts of interest on any of these lists, too.  For example:  is there anyone involved with the ownership and operation of Moonah Links voting?

Tom,

I agree wholeheartedly that architects have an integral part to play in the rankings. As you said, they are generally the most well-travelled AND knowledgable about the subject, no arguments there. As I said previously, I think the list with architects as judges is much more accurate than the one without. My point is; would the rankings have changed at all if architects were not allowed to include thier own designs?

My thoughts would be probably not, and if it did it would only ever matter in the bottom-half of the list which no one really worries about, so why bother giving anyone the ammunition of a perceived, and I said perceived , conflict of interest which may impinge on the validity of the ranking?

A lot of hypotheticals I know!

Would love yours and Mike's opinions on this.

JB

[Mike_Clayton]

Joe,
Without architects on the panel (GD) you get some courses with no right to it being ranked above St Andrews Beach.
Very few golfers in Australia would see more courses than i do in a two year period.I rank courses we have designed and redesigned and think I do it pretty fairly.Of course there are courses we have done that I probably rank higher than others but I am happy to mound a defence of my position.
Until this year they printed our individual lists for all to see and you just look stupid if you elevate courses way above their station.
Bob Harrison and Neil Crafter too did it well - easily well enough to prove they should be on any panel.

[Neil_Crafter]

Clayts - agree with what you say. I have stopped doing any rating as I felt I had not seen enough courses in recent years to be able to rate them properly.

Interestingly enough there was an article in The Advertiser here in Adelaide yesterday about the local courses, with an emphasis on the fall of Kooyonga, and to a lesser extent Royal Adelaide. Kooyonga's manager said that they were surprised how low their course had fallen and that it would go back up next time! Not sure how.

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

Kooyonga is interesting.It's a really good piece of land and a terrific routing. The criticism of the up and back nature of 10-13 misses the fact they are all really good holes.
They have tried a lot of different architects over the years however - and there is an inevitability that it will feel a little odd in places.
I am not sure what you think but it always struck me that 16 - once they had to address the boundary problem - would have been better as a long four with the green forward. That would have allowed the tee at 17 to go back and make for a tremendous tees shot.
I could easily live with no par 5 after the 9th - Merion does just fine with just 2 and 4 - but I assume that would be a deal breaker for a committee.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I agree wholeheartedly that architects have an integral part to play in the rankings. As you said, they are generally the most well-travelled AND knowledgable about the subject, no arguments there. As I said previously, I think the list with architects as judges is much more accurate than the one without. My point is; would the rankings have changed at all if architects were not allowed to include thier own designs?

My thoughts would be probably not, and if it did it would only ever matter in the bottom-half of the list which no one really worries about, so why bother giving anyone the ammunition of a perceived, and I said perceived , conflict of interest which may impinge on the validity of the ranking?

A lot of hypotheticals I know!

Would love yours and Mike's opinions on this.

JB

Joe:

GOLF Magazine [USA] has many architects on their panel -- probably too many -- but as you suggest, doesn't let us vote on our own courses.  [They haven't extended the same standard to courses where we consult, for some reason, a fact which some architects abuse more than others.]  I think that's the sensible way to do it ... or better still, let them place their own courses on the list so everyone can see what they think, but don't count those votes.

However, competing magazines' rankings ignore the imposed restriction and always say in the articles accompanying their own rankings that "we don't allow architects to vote because of the obvious conflict of interest," implying that the GOLF Magazine rankings are not above-board.  That's a pet peeve of mine, because both Ron Whitten and Brad Klein [and their bosses] know better.

P.S.  I noticed you skipped my question about Moonah Links and the AGU.

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom,

I am not sure what the answer is to the Moonah Links question. It's not really member based so I suspect there were more National members on the panel than Moonah Links connected people.  i think most of the GD panel are golf club members.
Golf Australia (formerly AGU) and not involved down there any longer.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
Lots of strange decisions at Kooyonga in recent years and the course is a mish-mash and suffers because of that. Not sure Martin Hawtree's work will arrest the slide - may well be contributing to it. 16 is barely sustainable as a par 5 with the green so close to the fence and the proximity of 17 tees. Pulling the green back to short of the gulch and then having a ball buster carry on 17 seems a far better idea. I haven't set foot on the course in about 3 years or so so should take a stroll around again to take a look, but I have been checking out the recent work on NearMap aerials. 10-13 was where your round either was made or broken - a pretty tough stretch especially in the wind. As new courses come into the rankings like Lost Farm, courses like Kooyonga automatically go down at least one spot. Or more :-(

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

I think the established courses forget that point. They were amongst the top 10 or 15 for a long time but in the last decade and a half there have been some really good new courses built as well as a lot of good work on established clubs.
Karrinyup is an example of one club who addressed the 'Kooyonga' situation (one course many architects) by rebuilding the significant features of the course all at once and it showed another way forward. It seems like Kooyonga has been work in progress since Gary Player's 62s in 1965.
Obviously Glenelg is another as well as Grange West.
If Kingston Heath had remained exactly as it was in 1980 it would still be a top ten course but my guess is that it would be closer to ten than one.
There are also others however that would have been closer to five or ten than thirty or forty if they had stayed as they were in 1980.

[Neil_Crafter]

I don't think there is any surprise that Glenelg and Grange West have improved their rankings while Kooyonga and RA have slid. At Glenelg we are preparing a Course Enhancement Plan to continue the improvements, mostly low key stuff and landscaping improvements, although there are a couple of significant scale alterations being proposed. This should help to see a continued improvement in the course.

Any news from RA on future directions re implementing your master plan?

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

We were there a couple of weeks ago talking about 17. I think it's a 'watch this space' moment!

[Neil_Crafter]

Understand. I'll keep watching this space then :-)

[Ben Jarvis]

I'm heading over to Adelaide in a couple of weeks to play at RA and Kooyonga and am looking forward to seeing both courses for the second time. The last time being in 2009 while #17 at RA was being constructed.

I too will be watching this space!

[James Bennett]

Neil,

Kooyonga is interesting.It's a really good piece of land and a terrific routing. ...

I am not sure what you think but it always struck me that 16 - once they had to address the boundary problem - would have been better as a long four with the green forward. That would have allowed the tee at 17 to go back and make for a tremendous tees shot.

Mike (and Neil)

the disappointing development over the last 35 years has been the growth in trees abutting 17 tee and 16 fairway - necessary for protection but just killing any strategic nature of the hole.

My preference was for 16 green to have been rebuilt in the left corner, which would have allowed for the fairway to be realigned, 17 tee and alignment to be sorted, and perhaps even prevented a change to 18.  It is a congested corner.

Of course, a ball that doesn't go quite as far would immediately make Kooyonga the challenge that the powers-that-be have aspired to since Gary Player and Jack Nicklause had their low rounds in the 1960's.  16 teeshot is remarkeable these days for the better player - straight over the bunkers on the left, even into the breeze!  Not that that has affected my own battle with the hole - I am happy to have a three shotter, even down wind!

Kooyonga seems to be a place that tries so hard, but just doesn't improve as a result of their efforts.  15-16-17-18 is a string of holes with significant changes over the last 30 years, and I prefer the way each one of them was 30 years ago!

Ben Jarvis - enjoy your visit, plenty on in Adelaide in Mad March.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()