Ratings: Where Lies The Greatest Gap?

[Mac Plumart]

And I'd agree you need to promote to make the Top 100 golf course lists.  At least a little.  I have to believe that is why Peachtree comes out too low and Myopia is WAY low (I suspect).

Promote? What do you mean?

Oops...just saw this.

Promote...it can be advertising, like public and resort courses do.  Or it could simply allowing raters on their course.  Or something different.  Do you think the Augusta gets some promotion from their Masters Tournament?  I do.  

Do you disagree?

[Jud_T]

Where Lies The Greatest Gap?

Looks like it starts at #14 on GD...


Sean,

What's the minimum grouping you're comfortable with?  5?  Would Brora be in the first rank if value for $$'s was eliminated?

[Jeb Bearer]

Jeb, I agree with your points.

But I think Kram, is saying Shinnecock is over-rated.  Kram?

My bad, I just skimmed the last few posts here. As to Shinnecock, I haven't played it and don't know a lot about it, so I can't really comment.

I still think there is more to greatness than tough but fair, though. Tough but fair is 30 yard fairways, bunkers on both sides, greenside bunkers front left and right. A good, solid, straight shot is rewarded, a miss-hit is punished, but how many courses might meet that description yet not be truly great? I feel like the "great" label is thrown around a bit too much in this context, and should carry more meaning. There should be something in a great course to "stir the soul" as Darwin would say.

[Ronald Montesano]

Typeth Mike Young: "Every town in America with more than 100,000 people has a women that could win the Miss America pageant."

Is that a requirement~You must live in a town with more than 100K inhabitants of the human racial variety?

[Sean Leary]

Having been a panelist for many years I've noticed that there are a top 7, top 25 and then everything else.  If a course is ranked 99th or 55th, it doesn't surprise me or mean anything.  The voting is so tight, a point or two can mean the course is up or down 20 or 30 spots.

Totally agree. Depending on the number of raters, I would think that a rater or two could move someone on or off the list.

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald:

The best predictor for being in the top ten is ... being in the top ten.  It has barely changed since I started reading golf magazines 40 years ago, with the one notable exception of Harbour Town, then brand-new and overrated, falling slowly away.  The rest of the courses that were in the top ten then are still close at hand; they fall out and come back on a predictable cycle that helps to perpetuate the belief that something might actually change significantly.

Part of the reason for this is just the math of the rankings.  10's in the Golf Digest system, or the Golfweek system, or the Doak scale, are pretty much reserved for the top 15 or 20 courses ... there is a bigger group of 9's, and a much much bigger group of 8's.  So, the top ten courses have significant scoring differentials over the rest, and in the bottom half of the lists courses are separated by razor-thin margins.  That is not necessarily because the top 10 or 20 courses are clearly better.  It's because everyone knows what the top ten are supposed to be and is afraid not to vote for them in the top 20, so they can't fall very far.

[Ronald Montesano]

Thank you, Tom_

I believe Shadow Creek had a similar dalliance with someone's top ten, did it not?

Google has let me down for the first time. I know that this roster exists for individual courses~http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

Does a list of each year's list exist anywhere on the web?

[Mark Bourgeois]

For the record, in my spelling-deficient, tyop-infested household my Nintendo handle is "mrak." But Kram's okay, too.

Mac...Shinnecock is not overrated. Or underrated. GD can't over / under rate its own list, silly.

Jud: greatness did NOT supersede tough-but-fairness, more accurately tough-but-fairness absorbed greatness. Shot values and resistance to scoring statistically have been shown to measure virtually the same thing. When GD went from America's Toughest to America's Greatest it mostly just formalized how everyone defined greatness. It wasn't really much of a leap: the results bear that out.

As far as how Shinnecock improved itself, all I know is what I see on TV. So I don't know. But what I do know is the course jumped in the rankings to a coveted top 5 / 6 spot, therefore it must have improved itself. A course cannot make itself worse and rise in the rankings. To rise in the rankings it must score better. QED it improved itself.

I am speculating it improved itself for the 1986 US Open because of the before/after rankings of the course. That's how Pebble got to #1 a few years ago: it improved itself in conditioning. The ranking speaks for itself.

[Tom_Doak]

I am speculating it improved itself for the 1986 US Open because of the before/after rankings of the course. That's how Pebble got to #1 a few years ago: it improved itself in conditioning. The ranking speaks for itself.

Mark:

The improvement was simply that Shinnecock showed it could host a U.S. Open.  That was a quantum leap for many raters.

If Prairie Dunes or Crystal Downs or Pacific Dunes hosted a U.S. Open and it came off swimmingly, they'd move up to the top 6 or 8, too.  The ability to host a tournament is seen as Important by a significant sub-set of raters.  That's why Cypress Point and National are on shakier ground than the others [and precisely why they were further down the rankings 25 years ago].

[Mike_Young]

Typeth Mike Young: "Every town in America with more than 100,000 people has a women that could win the Miss America pageant."

Is that a requirement~You must live in a town with more than 100K inhabitants of the human racial variety?

No...but we could request such a requirement...

[Sean_A]

Where Lies The Greatest Gap?

Looks like it starts at #14 on GD...


Sean,

What's the minimum grouping you're comfortable with?  5?  Would Brora be in the first rank if value for $$'s was eliminated?

Jud

If we are talking about only good and better courses than I have no problem with two groups; the best and the rest.  I chose three with a 4th for catchalls when people ask where is such and such course because I find that easy for myself to justify.  I could use twice as many groups (or something like the Doak scale), but I think I would need to know the courses in question practically like the back of my hand.  With only a cursory knowledge of many of the courses in question its tough (arrogant?) to be so definitive.  Jeepers, every time I replay a course (until I am quite confident I know it very well) I take another critical look at how I feel and think about it.  Often times my thoughts don't change, many times I am less enamoured with the course, but sometimes I am more impressed.  Its this last group which interests me most and usually guarantees I continue to return.       

I think part of my point is not getting across.  While I can readily admit there are loads of courses better than Brora, it is good enough for any golfer to be happy playing the game.  So to me, trying to draw distinctions based on subjective criteria meant to measure quality is a pointless endeavour.  Its virtually the same as lying to oneself.  I tried all the rigmoral of ranking courses and it didn't work for me. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Sean,

I agree that a favorites list is more meaningful.  Personally I couldn't give a crap about tournament history or presenting a great challenge for the big hitting scratchers.  And I think it makes a lot of sense to have a value/$$ scale for one's personal utility function.  It would actually be a really good addition to the rags IMO, and probably a better influence than this GD list...

[Ronald Montesano]

And who would be the independent authority to establish just such a favorites list?

I could imagine a professional architects' list with one caveat: cannot include your own courses or those of an immediate family member.

No matter the source, aficionados would find a way to heap discredit on her/him/them. Most golfing figures have probably NOT thought solely about the architecture of the course; how rampant would the blending of aesthetics, clubhouse, perquisites be with the architectural evaluation? We must be careful what we wish for.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree that a favorites list is more meaningful.  Personally I couldn't give a crap about tournament history or presenting a great challenge for the big hitting scratchers.  And I think it makes a lot of sense to have a value/$$ scale for one's personal utility function.  It would actually be a really good addition to the rags IMO, and probably a better influence than this GD list...

Jud

I am slightly different from you in that I like the history of clubs.  I am also impressed if a club is able to hold majors and other important events and still remain a fun course for the likes of me to play - thats a tough duel function to pull off well.  However, golf is still a game and I don't want to pay an extra £50 for a history lesson if I already have the t-shirt.  This is a great shame because who doesn't want play TOC a lot?  The kicker there is one doesn't even get the history lesson as we can't enter the sacred ground!

Ronald

How does anybody gain an audience in a field?  The independent authority is golfers.  I would happily digest a yearly list a favourite courses from selected individuals.  I will agree with some choices and not with others.  Its not so different from the rankings of the supposedly best courses. 

At the end of the day, some golfers like these lists because they attach some meaning to them.  I find the lists a bit fantastical to have much meaning.  I prefer to remain rooted in a more utilitarian approach.  One that suits my needs and that is why, in a completely selfish manner, I would rather hear about favourites and why rather than seeing the same courses listed every year by every mag.  I am amazed that people still buy these lists.

Ciao  

[Mark Bourgeois]

I am speculating it improved itself for the 1986 US Open because of the before/after rankings of the course. That's how Pebble got to #1 a few years ago: it improved itself in conditioning. The ranking speaks for itself.

Mark:

The improvement was simply that Shinnecock showed it could host a U.S. Open.  That was a quantum leap for many raters.

If Prairie Dunes or Crystal Downs or Pacific Dunes hosted a U.S. Open and it came off swimmingly, they'd move up to the top 6 or 8, too.  The ability to host a tournament is seen as Important by a significant sub-set of raters.  That's why Cypress Point and National are on shakier ground than the others [and precisely why they were further down the rankings 25 years ago].

No. You are wrong. Ability to host an Open is not in the criteria.

Some people might think, "Oh, 'memorability': having a US Open will help me remember the holes a lot better." Wrong: memorability is specifically defined as design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) that provide individuality to each hole.

Other people might think, " 'Resistance to Scoring': surely a US Open makes things harder." Wrong: the proper measurement is for scratch golfers playing the back tees. Not +8s playing special tees. Now, it is true: a US Open course as prepared is hard / harder for everyone. But that's because the course is changed for everyone (including the prototypical 0 handicap rater). It is also true a US Open course is better conditioned -- but the criteria capture that as a first-order effect: conditioning. It's not some magic pixie dust sprinkled on the course by floggers.

I'll go a step further: hosting a US Open may hurt a course's ranking because, in making the course tougher but still fair for +8s the course may be made tougher but less fair for scratch golfers. So it's not a given the US Open will even help. Hosting a US Open can help the stewards of the course understand, appreciate and ultimately improve the course through things like improving toughness without sacrificing fairness, improving conditioning and maybe even improving the shot values. But any program of improvement can do that.

The US Open, as a fact / criterion unto itself, has zero input into rater assessments. It's simply not on the form. Any rater who somehow changes his scoring simply because the course hosted a US Open is in direct violation of the criteria. Because all raters are thoroughly educated on application of the criteria and evaluate properly, that does not happen.

And Cypress Point and National are not on shakier ground because they haven't held US Opens. They're on shakier ground because their architecture is not strong enough to host a US Open: both score more than a point lower on RS than Oakmont, Pine Valley, and ANGC.

As I&B continue to improve, their greatness will continue to diminish unless they decide to improve their course to keep up with the modern golfer.

[Jud_T]

Ron,

Sean's point about repeat play is a good one.  I know that I probably need to play a course about a half-dozen times to really be able to see if it stands the test of time and speak authoritatively about it.  With a handful of exceptions, sending raters to exclusive clubs, gratis no less, for a slam-bam-thank-you mam one night stand is probably of little use to anyone other than those selling overpriced golf balls to overweening hacks.

[Mike_Young]

I think you might see a particular TV station that specializes in golf come out with a concept like hotels or airlines very soon.  For instance if you are a Marriott Rewards member you can get points for stays at ritz Carlton all the way down to a Fairfield Inn.  Each has a different number of stars.  I think we will see such a system for member golf courses sometime in the near future.  Imagine going to a town and particular golf course who was a member of a "GolfTV golf course member"  .  you could look on the site and choose a 5 star course or a four star course or a three star course.  You could accumulate some points and use them later at another member course etc.  That's where we are going.  The present Tee sheets just don't work.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

The improvement was simply that Shinnecock showed it could host a U.S. Open.  That was a quantum leap for many raters.

If Prairie Dunes or Crystal Downs or Pacific Dunes hosted a U.S. Open and it came off swimmingly, they'd move up to the top 6 or 8, too.  The ability to host a tournament is seen as Important by a significant sub-set of raters.  That's why Cypress Point and National are on shakier ground than the others [and precisely why they were further down the rankings 25 years ago].

No. You are wrong. Ability to host an Open is not in the criteria.

Surely you jest?

Once Shinnecock successfully hosted the U.S. Open it started scoring one point higher in every category across the board ... because it was now FAMOUS because it had now PROVEN ITSELF.

This happens all the time for tournament courses.  After the Open returns, they move back up the list, unless the event is a disaster or somebody like Webb Simpson or Scott Simpson wins it.  The Shinnecock Open in '86 had Raymond Floyd [Mr. Tee to Green] beating out Norman et al.  That moved Shinnecock way up the scale.  Whereas, if Floyd had eaten some bad oysters the night before, Shinnecock might be ranked lower today.

[Ronald Montesano]

Even if he had eaten bad oysters, Maria (RIP) would have whipped his ass to the title.

Let's take this summer as a case study~Merion is currently rated #6, just behind cross-state rival Oakmont. I could see a positive/special US Open event boosting Merion up the ladder past the Pittsburgh club, but could it gain enough steam to then pass (coincidentally) Shinny?

mrak/kram, what the heck is I&B?

[Mark Bourgeois]

No, I am not joking until 1 January 2014.

My golf-related new year's resolution is to embrace GD's rankings / criteria exactly as they want us to: as the authoritative, definitve measure of greatness, furthermore with an excellent, infallible panel of raters who, if they disagree, do so merely on the interpretation of the criteria. (I am reserving for myself myself one exception: TOC.)

Can you show me where in the 1985 or 1987 criteria I can find "FAME"?  I appreciate it may not be fair to assess courses at a past time using current criteria.

Lastly, a point of order: at Shinny it could only have been lobster and the game would have continued. It is not etiquette to default if one is alive.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Even if he had eaten bad oysters, Maria (RIP) would have whipped his ass to the title.

Let's take this summer as a case study~Merion is currently rated #6, just behind cross-state rival Oakmont. I could see a positive/special US Open event boosting Merion up the ladder past the Pittsburgh club, but could it gain enough steam to then pass (coincidentally) Shinny?

mrak/kram, what the heck is I&B?

Jud, see rules 4 and 5 in your Rules of Golf handbook.

If Merion rises it will be because they have taken positive steps to improve the course. For example, they have softened the greens to make them fair. They'll still be tough, just now they are also fair to the modern golfer. Also, they are narrowing the fairways to improve shot values.

[Jeb Bearer]

Also, they are narrowing the fairways to improve shot values.

By narrowing fairways, they don't "improve" shot values, they mandate shots. The narrower the fairway, the less options, and the less fun for the average golfer. Additionally, wider fairways, as long as they are well thought out, can make it more difficult for the pros by creating doubt. The next shot should still be more difficult if they hit the wrong part of the fairway, thus placing a premium on accuracy and shot values, but narrowing the fairways makes the game too one-dimensional. There's no drama if everyone is forced to play the course the same way.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeb,

Here is the question defining shot values: how well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

Narrowing fairways increases risk, amplifies rewards and equally tests length, accuracy and finesse. Of course, there is always the risk of too much of a good thing, so we need to be careful not to narrow too much. But narrow definitely is superior to wide Width: lowers risks and rewards and reduces the test of length, accuracy, and finesse. With width you just bomb it down there and who cares if you're not in Position A, B, or even C: you can recover. Actually, there's nothing to "recover" from. Meh.

[Ronald Montesano]

JB.
There's drama when they cannot play the course the same way. That typed, I think that narrowing the fairways is wretched.

MB,
Oh, you mean C and B. I get it now.

[Joel_Stewart]

Ronald:

The best predictor for being in the top ten is ... being in the top ten.  It has barely changed since I started reading golf magazines 40 years ago, with the one notable exception of Harbour Town, then brand-new and overrated, falling slowly away.

It's really the top 7 or 8.   There have been numerous changes in courses in the 8-10 range, Olympic, Pinehurst, Oak Hill and various others have been in those spots and have fallen.