[Mac Plumart]

My point really though is you could have everyone rate just "memorability," drop everything else, and the results probably wouldn't change much.

My gut feeling is that this is what is occuring, whether consciously or unconsciously.  Perhaps we could support this or debunk it with math and comprehension of human behavioral characterisitics.

If possible, it would be cool as heck to see NGLA's scores before it rose from obscurity and compare that to its current scores.  Unsure if that metrics are the same, simliar, or totally different and/or if the process was even mathematical back then.

[Mark Bourgeois]

If possible, it would be cool as heck to see NGLA's scores before it rose from obscurity and compare that to its current scores.  Unsure if that metrics are the same, simliar, or totally different and/or if the process was even mathematical back then.

Like this?

National Golf Links of America, Southampton, N.Y.
C.B. Macdonald, 1909.
Remodeled by Perry Maxwell, 1939.
Remodeled by Robert Trent Jones, 1948 & 1969.
Ranked for 30 years.
America's 200 Toughest Courses (1967-1968)
OFF 1969-1984
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1985-1986) - Sixth 10 - No. 56
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1987-1988) - Sixth 10 - No. 56
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1989-1990) - Fourth10 - No. 33
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1991-1992) - Fourth10 - No. 34
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1993-1994) - Third 10 - No. 22
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1995-1996) - Second10 - No. 19
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1997-1998) - Second 10 - No. 14
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (1999-2000) - Second 10 - No. 17
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2001-2002) - Second 10 - No. 16
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2003-2004) - Second 10 - No. 19
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2005-2006) - First 10 - No. 10
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2007-2008) - Second 10 - No. 13
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2009-2010) - Second 10 - No. 15
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses (2011-2012) - First 10 - No. 10

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster#ixzz2GeXd70BZ

[Mac Plumart]

Yes, but the actual scores of the variables.  Like Jim was working with.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, but the actual scores of the variables.  Like Jim was working with.

Mac:

The first time Digest put out the raw numbers from its poll even to the panelists was sometime in the late 1990's.  One of the panelists sent a copy to me.  Before then the ratings were secret.

Before 1985 there were no numbers at all, and that's one reason National was off the list ... consigned there by a handful of experts on their national rating board.  When it came back on in 1985, I'm not sure if they were really tabulating all the categories the same way they do today ... they just started ranking the courses in order that year because GOLF Magazine had just beat them to it, and it attracted a lot of attention.  In fact, I doubt there is any way their '85 list was numbers-based because they would not have had the time to come up with the system and gotten all their panelists to vote that way.  My guess is the first time they really used all the numbers was in '89, when National started its amazing comeback.

[Tom_Doak]

One possible and surprising conclusion is the criteria have far less impact than one would think. Raters decide what they like then score accordingly.

For me that is just not always true.  I really dislike Bulle Rock in MD.  It just is no fun and I've seen most of the holes before. I don't ever want to go back.  Twice was more than enough. Yet, when I sat down to score it, it did rather well.  I was disappointed.  Rating golf courses is subjective to be sure.  Nonetheless, having to rate the course according to certain criteria helps objectivize it a bit.

Tommy:

So did you go back and change your numbers?

Or did this exercise somehow convince you that you were wrong about Bulle Rock and it was better than you thought because it more conformed to the GOLF DIGEST definition?

[Tommy Williamsen]

One possible and surprising conclusion is the criteria have far less impact than one would think. Raters decide what they like then score accordingly.

For me that is just not always true.  I really dislike Bulle Rock in MD.  It just is no fun and I've seen most of the holes before. I don't ever want to go back.  Twice was more than enough. Yet, when I sat down to score it, it did rather well.  I was disappointed.  Rating golf courses is subjective to be sure.  Nonetheless, having to rate the course according to certain criteria helps objectivize it a bit.

Tommy:

So did you go back and change your numbers?

Or did this exercise somehow convince you that you were wrong about Bulle Rock and it was better than you thought because it more conformed to the GOLF DIGEST definition?

Nope, I toughed it out and left the numbers as they were.  Neither did it convince me to like it.  It did, however, cause me to rethink its merits.  I guess a course can be good even if I don't like it.  It just depends how you define good.

[Mac Plumart]

  I guess a course can be good even if I don't like it.  It just depends how you define good.

As Mark B. would say, "Boom goes the dynamite!"

[Mark Steffey]

Mac...

Heteroskedasticity in what way? Seems to me the issues potentially are autocorrelation (the criteria overlap considerably in what they're measuring) and, per the current discussion, specification error (the criteria don't capture what raters really are rating). I guess regardless of error we might end up in the same place because one fix for heteroskedasticity is to substitute the independent variables used...

memorability perhaps?

"how well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?"

the mean of the 100 given is 7.98594 with a 3sd range of 9.255-6.717
the min score is 7.37, which is expected.

however:
angc comes in at 9.54
pvgc at 9.33

prima facia these strike me as outliers

or maybe 'memorability' is "OH MY GOD I'M PLAYING ANGC!!!!"   

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tommy:

Let's test it out.  Go ahead and list your top 10 strategic courses from the GD top 100, and let's see if they score higher in Shot Values than the 10 courses that also scored highest in Resistance to Scoring.

Ok, I'll bite.  I don't have to look far. Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Merion, Sand Hills, NGLA, Crystal Downs, San Francisco Golf Club, The Ocean Course, Baltusrol Upper, and I'll pick Ballyneal.  I've played 77 of the top 100. Except for the Ocean Course most of the courses are not overly long.  That's probably because at 65 I my tee shots land sooner and sooner.  Regardless, all those courses require well thought out strategy and good execution.

Tommy, it might be interesting (and illustrative of your point of view) to hear your thoughts on the holes or shots at SF Club (just to pick a course from above) that require well thought-out strategy.

Bump...am interested in your thoughts on this.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I looked through my evals on the courses you highlighted. Not surprisingly, the courses that I pointed out as being strategic are ones where I was always above the average for shot values, and of the courses you pointed out as being high correlations with high RS numbers, I was below the SV average on all but Whistling Straits, which I would argue is pretty strategic even though its hard.

Pine Valley and Shinnecock are high in both categories, but I think deservedly so.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the "backing into scores" concept either, at least not globally. This is perhaps an odd example since Pac Dunes is top 20 and Rock Creek doesn't make the list, but for me RCCC scores 2 points better on the Digest scale even though I think they are basically even on my "favorites" list (PD ahead by 0.5) and both in my top 11.  You can guess the two categories that create the separation. Pine Valley gets the same boost over Cypress Point using the GD scale even though I don't see much differentiation there. There's a spot lower on my scale where there is a 13 point difference between what I consider similar quality courses--although the lower one is not a candidate course for GD but does very well on the "FUN" scale for me.

[Alex Lagowitz]

I'd be very interested to see the scores of "memorability" for the Raynor/CBM etc. template courses..

Seeing that all the holes (or most of them) are designed around a specific style, it would seem that these holes would be inherently more memorable, especially to the well-educated, well-traveled golfer
For instance, say the Eden hole at course A was not a very good hole, but still recognizable as an Eden par 3 by the bunkering style and green.
This hole may not be good, nor enchance Shot values etc., however, it would be memorable as it represents the Eden template that is seen as many courses across US and of course St. Andrews.

Thoughts?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy, it might be interesting (and illustrative of your point of view) to hear your thoughts on the holes or shots at SF Club (just to pick a course from above) that require well thought-out strategy.

Bump...am interested in your thoughts on this.

Kevin,

I will just talk about a few of the holes.  All in all SFGC requires thought off the tee.  Many of the par fours are relatively short. From the tees I played it is about 6400 yards.  Driver is ok on those holes but a shorter club may be a safer bet.  It all depends how straight I am that day which option I will take.

The terrain takes you from hilltop to valley.  Slope must be taken into consideration.  The first time I played, I brought the then owner of my home course with me.  The bunkering at SFGC was the inspiration for my club at home: Four Streams by Steve Smyers.  After the front nine he agreed. 

Many of the holes are relatively straight or just gently turning with bunkers determining the line off the tee.  Fifteen is a good example. The best line is the right side of the fairway but a huge bunker guards the right side.  So driver beware.  Number ten is another good example.  The best line is right because the hole turns a tad left, but bunkers down the right catch a poorly executed shot. I love number ten.


The first hole is a downhill beauty that even I can reach, if I dare hit it off, what I remember is a downhill lie. I’d rather be in the left bunker than down the hill on the right.

Number two has a pretty tight landing area off the tee and a baby draw is best.  Probably the least strategic hole because of the tee shot that is demanded.  Not many options off the tee. The second shot can either fly to the green or if need be hit a low runner that bends right.

I think my least favorite hole might be the most famous: the so-call duel hole seventh.  It is pretty but a tough green to hit for such a downhill shot, although the green is brilliant.  In fact the greens are absolutely stunning.  Consequently, the sloping fast greens demand a well thought out and executed shot.  The placement of the pins determines the kind of shot hit.  Some pins will take a ball through the air others won’t.

I wouldn’t call the course very difficult but if your irons are not precise and you cant hit a good bunker shot, it could be a long day.

Hope this is what you were looking for. 

[Howard Riefs]

The Top 100 via Golfdigest.com:

Rankings:                   http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-02/americas-100-greatest-golf-courses-ranking?printable=true

Numbers breakdown:  http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-02/100-greatest-by-the-numbers#bythenumbers

[Sven Nilsen]

Wish you could cut and paste the numbers breakdown into Excel. 

Fess up, who's already broken it down into a ranking for each category.

[Kevin Lynch]

Numbers breakdown:  http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-02/100-greatest-by-the-numbers#bythenumbers

I think this list provides proof that these rankings are somewhat self-fulfilling on a category basis.  People know that these courses are "great" going in and make the individual scores support that overall number.


"6. Conditioning
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?"

The highest ranking in this category is Augusta National.

But why? 

Did the raters read the "firm, fast & rolling", process it internally, and conclude it meant "green?"

Am I honestly to believe that this course is the firmest, fastest and most rolling of fairways in all the land?

Unless I am losing my mind, I don't recall another major tournament where players talk about "mud balls" as much as the Masters.  And this is when the course is presented at its "peak."  Does every other course in the land get a "pass" if the rater shows up a few days after a rainstorm?  Augusta invariably gets high ratings for being "memorable" because it's on TV every year, but raters can forget the mud balls.

I've played Ballyhack the day after 2 inches of rain, and never cleaned my ball once.  Haven't been to Bandon yet, but is a lush, green inland course like Augusta really firmer & faster than a coastal resort?  I'm to believe Augusta is really the highest rated in this category if you solely judge that characteristic independently of all other factors? 

If you want Augusta to be the highest rated, there are plenty of categories where it will outshine others and earn its place.  But when it ranks as the supposed best in so many individual categories, you strongly suspect the individual categories are being fudged.
 

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting points, Kevin.

Anyone who's played Augusta National care to comment on the fairway firmness regarding the time(s) they've played there?  And\or receptiveness of the greens?

[Kevin Lynch]

Interesting points, Kevin.

Anyone who's played Augusta National care to comment on the fairway firmness regarding the time(s) they've played there?  And\or receptiveness of the greens?

Regardless of how people comment, I guess I'm just questioning the statistical probability that one course could really be the highest in 3 of 7 supposedly "independently"-considered" characteristics.  The fact that Pine Valley is #1 in 3 of 7 categories, and Augusta is #1 in 3 of the other 4 categories indicates that there is an interdependence among the ratings between categories. 

Think of the best hockey player ever (Wayne Gretzky).  Was he really the fastest, the smartest, the toughest, AND the strongest?  No, he may not have been the absolute best in every category, but his overall package was better than anyone else.  I suspect that Pine Valley & Augusta probably have the best "packages," but raters are "padding" some of the categories based on their overall impression.

[Mac Plumart]

I agree with your points, Kevin.  I believe that, consciously or subconsciously, certain things creep into these ratings and affect them and direct the overall grade to a specific point.

[Chris Johnston]

Interesting points, Kevin.

Anyone who's played Augusta National care to comment on the fairway firmness regarding the time(s) they've played there?  And\or receptiveness of the greens?

Mac

I've played Augusta only in the fall.  Fairways were soggy (no roll at all) and the greens were soft.  Nothing firm anywhere and a lot of downhill lies unlike the event.  Plugged lies in fairways left a ton of very long shots into those greens.  #10 was the hardest hole ever with a downhill 5 wood into that green.  #11 was a bear as well from the longer tees.  No reaching the Par 5's either.  On the flip side, you could fire at most pins.

I think the course is designed for the tournament when things are very dry and very fast. Not as much fun without F&F. Completely different imo.

[Sven Nilsen]

Here is the ranking if based solely on Resistance to Scoring:

8.83   Pine Valley
8.81   Oakmont
8.71   Winged Foot West
8.66   ANGC
8.54   Shinnecock
8.49   Bethpage
8.46   Ocean Course
8.42   Merion
8.34   Oak Hill
8.32   Whistling Straits
8.3   Oakland Hills
8.27   Olympic Club
8.24   Medinah
8.23   Butler National
8.2   Pebble Beach
8.2   Spyglass Hill
8.16   Crystal Downs
8.16   Pikewood
8.15   Muirfield Village
8.15   Victoria Natl.
8.13   Baltusrol Lower
8.12   Sawgrass
8.09   Hazeltine
8.08   Pinehurst
8.07   Southern Hills
8.06   Seminole
8.05   Riviera
8.02   Sand Hills
8.01   Honors
7.99   French Lick (Dye)
7.96   Castle Pines
7.96   Prairie Dunes
7.95   Inverness
7.92   TCC
7.9   Friar's Head
7.9   Pete Dye G.C.
7.89   LA North
7.88   Pac Dunes
7.87   Alotian
7.87   Golf Club
7.87   Olympia Fields
7.86   Aronimink
7.86   Sebonoack
7.82   Wade Hampton
7.81   Congressional
7.79   Scioto
7.78   Chicago
7.78   Dallas National
7.75   Blackwolf Run
7.75   Peachtree
7.75   Rich Harvest
7.73   Canyata
7.73   Cypress
7.73   Gozzer Ranch
7.73   Valhalla
7.72   Eagle Point
7.71   Baltusrol Upper
7.7   Crooked Stick
7.7   NGLA
7.7   Plainfield
7.68   Fishers Island
7.68   Harbour Town
7.66   Hudson National
7.66   Quaker Ridge
7.66   Winged Foot East
7.65   Whispering Pines
7.63   Arcadia Bluffs
7.62   Old MacDonald
7.61   Kapalua
7.61   Sahalee
7.6   Bandon Dunes
7.58   Calusa Pines
7.58   San Francisco
7.57   Bandon Trails
7.57   Kinloch
7.56   Laurel Valley
7.56   Old Sandwich
7.56   Shoal Creek
7.55   Black Rock
7.55   Diamond Creek
7.55   Flint Hills
7.55   Shadow Creek
7.54   Boston
7.53   Milwaukee
7.53   Preserve
7.51   Forest Highlands
7.51   Mountaintop
7.49   Cherry Hills
7.48   Mayacama
7.46   Double Eagle
7.42   Grandfather
7.41   Interlachen
7.4   Estancia
7.4   Garden City
7.39   Ballyneal
7.34   Kittansett
7.25   Monterrey Penn.
7.15   La Quinta (Quarry)
7.13   Somerset Hills
6.98   Maidstone

[Mark Steffey]

i would have a hard time figuring out how a course that is "firm and fast", yet has "receptive greens" to have a high degree of 'resistance to scoring' to a scratch player.

[jeffwarne]

i would have a hard time figuring out how a course that is "firm and fast", yet has "receptive greens" to have a high degree of 'resistance to scoring' to a scratch player.

Of course you mean "firm yet receptive"
which is of course a ridiculous criteria
would the opposite be soft, yet unreceptive?

Are there any magazines that DON'T tell their raters what to look for?

[Ben Sims]

Are there any magazines that DON'T tell their raters what to look for?

Jeff,

Pretty astute observation.  I don't understand how the process is so "strong" when raters are being told what to look for.

[Ronald Montesano]

Remind me again why we make such a big deal out of this?

ADDENDUM: Especially when we get this (retch):

Old Mike Keiser had a course. Name of Bandon Dunes. Hugged the cliffs of Oregon gorse. It made golfers swoon. So he added one more, then a third next door. Here a lodge, there a hut, even built a pitch & putt. Now it's America's top resort. Name of Bandon Dunes. But Old Mike Keiser wanted more. Down at Bandon Dunes. An ode to an architect he adored. Cut from heather and broom. So Old Macdonald came to be. In spite of a bad economy. Here it's big, there it's bold, everywhere it looks real old. Old Macdonald is part of the lore. Now at Bandon Dunes. Old Macdonald is a new must-play. When at Bandon Dunes. A fourth 18 reviving his name. Carrying all his tunes. A Road Hole here, a Cape Hole there. Bottle Hole, Biarritz, ocean winds that'll give you fits. Short and Eden. Fit the scenes. Especially with enormous greens. Old Macdonald is no reach. Second Most Fun Course behind Pebble Beach.


ADDENDUM:  And this!!
"To strip Sahalee of its trees would be to shave Samson of his locks."

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-02/americas-100-greatest-golf-courses-ranking#ixzz2GykgV4qg

[Jim Colton]

Wish you could cut and paste the numbers breakdown into Excel. 

Fess up, who's already broken it down into a ranking for each category.

Sven,

  This spreadsheet has the category scores for each course: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9I2sGAMtMU9Y0R6NDhwZTJMSnc

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()