[jeffwarne]

Just imagine if a magazine could have 100 raters meet at an airport in a major city,  Blindfold each rater and send them in groups of four to various courses where they would be led to first tee and placed in an unmarked golf car or given a caddy in an unmarked suit.  Play the course with an unmarked scorecard and submit comments before being allowed to see the clubhouse or the surrounds.  Rankings would change drastically...

Depends,
did they fly first class or coach?
Was airfare comped?
 

[Carl Nichols]

Just imagine if a magazine could have 100 raters meet at an airport in a major city,  Blindfold each rater and send them in groups of four to various courses where they would be led to first tee and placed in an unmarked golf car or given a caddy in an unmarked suit.  Play the course with an unmarked scorecard and submit comments before being allowed to see the clubhouse or the surrounds.  Rankings would change drastically...

I highly doubt that.

Oh...I think they would...

Please give specific examples of cities and/or courses where you think this would be the case.

[I'm assuming the raters couldn't figure out what courses they were on.]  I think Congressional Blue wouldn't be top 100 on any list.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

Well good point.  In fact, that's just the way it is for rankings.  If they justified a complex, multi year system, someone would have probably done it by now.  In a way, most mags do it anyway, by averaging old scores with new ones no?

Also, if it helps ease any raters mind, just think about who you might be rating the course for....probably some guy who is going to get to play the course in question one time on a trip.  So, in that way, maybe first impression judgments are better suited anyway.

[John Kavanaugh]

Civilians judge lest they be judged.  For many of forgotten nerds it is their last best chance for revenge.

[Mike_Young]

Just imagine if a magazine could have 100 raters meet at an airport in a major city,  Blindfold each rater and send them in groups of four to various courses where they would be led to first tee and placed in an unmarked golf car or given a caddy in an unmarked suit.  Play the course with an unmarked scorecard and submit comments before being allowed to see the clubhouse or the surrounds.  Rankings would change drastically...

I highly doubt that.

Oh...I think they would...

Please give specific examples of cities and/or courses where you think this would be the case.

Pat,
No particular city or course comes to mind but if the rater doesn't know the architect, doesn't know which course or where it is located and is not influenced when he comes up the drive or into the proshop there will be significant courses that change in the ratings.  At the end of the day money talks when ti comes to most ratings....a resort spending millions with GD will demand a better rating than one not spending any or much less...and it will obtain it....and so many raters are easily influenced by architect, name of course and location that if these were eliminated in the process there would naturally be some significant changes.

[Mark Bourgeois]

In 1975 a man named Chuck Ross submitted, without revealing the true author and in manuscript form, Jerzy Kosinski's "The Steps," which won the National Book Award in 1969 and sold 400,000 copies, to four major publishing houses. All four, including Random House, which published the novel, rejected it.

Five years later he submitted the book again, this time to 14 publishers. All 14 rejected it. One even said Ross's writing style called to mind Kosinski's - but fell short!

[Dan Kelly]

Dan, in many ways all of us make judgments about many things.  "Boy, that's the best meal I've had in weeks.  The steak was just great." It is another way of saying, "This steak was better than yesterday's." "I think Lincoln was the best movie I saw this year.  I know I liked it better than Les Miz."  "I think my favorite course is Royal County Down."  It's no big deal. That's why have better and best: to compare. Otherwise we would only need good.

Tommy,

You are probably right. It is no big deal, at least to me. I have no vested interest in any of this.

I wonder, though. If I asked you to rank the 10 best steaks in your city, my guess is you would find that a ridiculous request. My guess is you would tell me where to get a good steak and let me decide for myself which steaks are better and which is best.

I wish that is what golf course raters would do. I think that would be better for golf and golfers than these silly lists like the one Pat Craig posted on Golf Digest's 20 best courses in Minnesota, in order!

Dan

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:

I've been criticized many times for judging courses in The Confidential Guide based on a single visit, and I have always agreed that a single visit yields a varying level of judgment depending on such factors as the weather, one's golf game, one's emotional state, and other factors.  However, since no one gets paid to visit courses full time and make these judgments, I had to fall back on my own, imperfect though they may be.  If I'd only judged the courses I played three or more times, the book would be much slimmer, and there are lots of great courses that would have had to be omitted.

So, how do I make judgments so quickly?  A lot of it is context -- I'll try to think what other courses it reminds me of, and then compare it to various other courses that I've already rated, trying to slot it appropriately.  In the case of your home club, I compared it to other Raynor courses I knew.  I think that context is useful for courses designed by well-known architects; most readers will have some familiarity with their work already and whether they like it or not, so I try to place the course within the architect's body of work.  If you didn't like a Raynor course I gave a 6, you probably wouldn't like the ones I gave a 3 ... but you could very well like all of his work.

Honestly, I don't remember your course very well from my visit of +/- 20 years ago, and as we've discussed, it would be dishonest of me to start changing my ratings of courses without having seen them again, so some of my mistakes from the first Guide will go on to the new edition, while others will be acknowledged and corrected.  That's one reason I put the year I last saw the course right alongside my rating of it, for additional context.

Tom,

I hope you understand that, as I said above, I am not second-guessing your rating of my home course. I am completely unqualified to do so, having not been there when you were. I am sure it was an honest rating, and I appreciate your description of how you would have made it.

I also appreciate that you cannot honestly change your ratings and descriptions now of courses you have not seen since the Confidential Guide was published, and I understand that the new CG will forthrightly announce that it has been more than two decades since some of the ratings were made.

I would argue, however, that is fundamentally unfair to publish opinions based on observations made more than two decades ago. So, yes, I would argue for a slimmer volume, based entirely on recent observations.

Thanks.

Dan

[Dan Kelly]

You learn more with repeat plays but you also develop a relationship with the place.

I am less confident in my evaluation of Oak Ridge than I am of other courses.  

Jason,

I think you should be much more confident of your Oak Ridge judgment, *because* of your "relationship" with it.

It is the golfer's relationship to the course, developed over the course of many plays, that reveals the course's architectural qualities, or the lack thereof. At least that is what I think.

Dan

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

Deep down, didn't you judge that you loved your wife on first sight or first date?  Sometimes, gut feel is more important than any by the numbers analysis.  And, golf course ranking is much less important than picking a life mate.

I will grant you that statistics say that we make the wrong life choice about 50% of the time using this method, but it is less painful to change a golf course ranking later on than getting a divorce, no?

Or, since you haven't taken on any responsibilities to a magazine or web site to rank golf courses (that I know of) just go play the durn course and have fun, no?

Jeff,

That is exactly what I do. I play the durn courses and enjoy them. But then I come here....

Dan

PS: my life-mate gut hunches, as it happens, have been precisely 50 percent right. Luckily, I have been 100 percent right in the past 27 years....

[Dan Kelly]

As a newspaper guy and, at one time or another, a paid critic of music, movies, television, books, restaurants and theater, I learned to become comfortable with snap judgements. I had no choice. I wasn't going to read the book twice or watch the show twice.

Obviously, golf courses are different in a very significant way, because you play a slightly different course every time you play the same course, no matter how many times you play it. But I'm still comfortable with my first impression. I also know it would change if I played the course more often, for better or for worse.

Usually for the better. There is a home course factor at work here that is undeniable. When I joined Stillwater Country Club 8 years ago, I'd played the course perhaps a dozen times, and I liked it very much, but I would not have put it in my list of my 10 favorite courses in the Twin Cities. Now I could not in all good conscience keep it out, because I've played it hundreds of times, know it intimately and understand almost all of its attributes.

I didn't call my list the 10 Best courses on the other thread; I called it my 10 favorites, even though the thread asked for the 10 Best. I tend to agree with you that any one person's ranking of best courses is presumputous, but I would still be willing to offer that list, too. It just wouldn't be able to withstand a Pat Mucci cross-examination.

I noted and appreciated your list of "favorites," rather than "bests."

Your line about knowing a course intimately and understanding its attributes, for good (eg, Stillwater) or Otherwise (eg, Mississippi Dunes) is Exactly what I am talking about' and exactly what I think most rankers are incapable of having.

Of course, it is no big deal....

[John Kirk]

And the caravan has all my friends
It will stay with me until the end.

-- Van Morrison

If it makes you dream about it, and makes you think about how you should play it, then it's great.  Turn it up.

[John Kirk]

Without the debate what is better?  Most all of us are looking for a higher truth about the game.  

[Sean_A]

Dan,

Deep down, didn't you judge that you loved your wife on first sight or first date?  Sometimes, gut feel is more important than any by the numbers analysis.  And, golf course ranking is much less important than picking a life mate.

I will grant you that statistics say that we make the wrong life choice about 50% of the time using this method, but it is less painful to change a golf course ranking later on than getting a divorce, no?

Or, since you haven't taken on any responsibilities to a magazine or web site to rank golf courses (that I know of) just go play the durn course and have fun, no?

Jeff,

That is exactly what I do. I play the durn courses and enjoy them. But then I come here....

Dan

PS: my life-mate gut hunches, as it happens, have been precisely 50 percent right. Luckily, I have been 100 percent right in the past 27 years....

Dan

But, you do make a judgement if you will pay to play a course again or perhaps even judge whether you p;ay a course again regardless of cost - no?  Okay, much of this decision may depend on the size of your wallet, but somewhere in there is a judgement about the quality of the course and/or how much you liked it - no?

Ciao

[Steve Kline]

From Jeff Brauer:

Dan,

Deep down, didn't you judge that you loved your wife on first sight or first date?  Sometimes, gut feel is more important than any by the numbers analysis.  And, golf course ranking is much less important than picking a life mate.

I will grant you that statistics say that we make the wrong life choice about 50% of the time using this method, but it is less painful to change a golf course ranking later on than getting a divorce, no?

Or, since you haven't taken on any responsibilities to a magazine or web site to rank golf courses (that I know of) just go play the durn course and have fun, no?

Me:

One could make the argument that choice wasn't wrong bu the willingness, desire, and ability to understand the life mate and nurture said life mate was poor. To put it in GCA's favorite topic, lack of tree managmenet plan may be why it failed not the poor choice. I have no idea how that furthers this discussion but I thought it was interesting.

[Jim Franklin]

Just imagine if a magazine could have 100 raters meet at an airport in a major city,  Blindfold each rater and send them in groups of four to various courses where they would be led to first tee and placed in an unmarked golf car or given a caddy in an unmarked suit.  Play the course with an unmarked scorecard and submit comments before being allowed to see the clubhouse or the surrounds.  Rankings would change drastically...

I highly doubt that.

I agree with Pat. I don't think they would change much.

[Mike_Young]

Just imagine if a magazine could have 100 raters meet at an airport in a major city,  Blindfold each rater and send them in groups of four to various courses where they would be led to first tee and placed in an unmarked golf car or given a caddy in an unmarked suit.  Play the course with an unmarked scorecard and submit comments before being allowed to see the clubhouse or the surrounds.  Rankings would change drastically...

I highly doubt that.

I agree with Pat. I don't think they would change much.

Maybe not but it would be a good test.  For instance was Shadow Creek that good or was it because it was where it was and yet shouldn't be there?  IMHO take away the fact it shouldn't have been there and there are many others right there with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It might be possible that my cutesy comparison of comparing golf course to life mate was a bit inappropriate, given the different circumstances.  One is supposed to be for life, the other changeable at your discretion.

But, depending on your clubs initiation fees, and your states divorce law, is it possible in some cases for your leaving the club to be more expensive than the divorce?

For most of us, albeit probably a lower percentage here than in the general population, picking a wife is more important to our lives.  However, what's the old saying? Never criticize a man's wife or his golf club?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan

But, you do make a judgement if you will pay to play a course again or perhaps even judge whether you p;ay a course again regardless of cost - no?  Okay, much of this decision may depend on the size of your wallet, but somewhere in there is a judgement about the quality of the course and/or how much you liked it - no?

Ciao

Sean --

Yes, of course.

I don't see how I can have failed to convey that my objection is not to rating courses, but to *RANKING* the great number of excellent courses that are worth returning to -- like, for example, all of the courses listed in the "10 Best Courses in My City" thread ... where, just to judge by the Twin Cities lists, we seem to have greater appreciation of our home courses, which we know best, than others have. (I think it's true and merited appreciation, not evidence of some "homer" bias.)

I'd be content with a four-tier rating system for other people's courses, such as you suggest:

1. Don't bother.
2. Play.
3. Play whenever you get the opportunity.
4. Play at any price (w/in reason!).

I still don't think I'd be qualified to say, in most cases, whether a course deserved a 2 or a 3, until I'd played it numerous times -- but it's possible I'm just a slow learner.

Dan

[Brent Hutto]

I wonder, though. If I asked you to rank the 10 best steaks in your city, my guess is you would find that a ridiculous request. My guess is you would tell me where to get a good steak and let me decide for myself which steaks are better and which is best.

I wish that is what golf course raters would do. I think that would be better for golf and golfers than these silly lists like the one Pat Craig posted on Golf Digest's 20 best courses in Minnesota, in order!

Exactly. I can often say with confidence that I think one course is better than another. But that's a categorical distinction, not one with infinitely subdivisible quantitative ratings attached.

[Thomas Dai]

I'd be content with a four-tier rating system for other people's courses, such as you suggest:
1. Don't bother.
2. Play.
3. Play whenever you get the opportunity.
4. Play at any price (w/in reason!).

This nice-n-simple approach is along the lines of the one I keep in my head on courses. Sometimes you can get too complicated. Also, through experience you get to apply it to other folks recommendations or visit reports.

In addition, oftentimes you don't know how good something is unless you experience poor as well. Some years ago I was a member at a Walker Cup venue course and, daft as it may seem, after a while I used to look forward to playing the occasional dog-track as it brought me back down to earth and reminded me of how excellent my home course was and how fortunate I was to be a member there.

All the best.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

If you asked me the 10 best steaks in my town, I'd give you a list in order from 1-10.  Then I'd tell you you're an idiot for eating steak in a town with such phenomenal ethnic cuisine.  It wouldn't be a definitive list, but a list of my preferences.  I'm still not clear why you are willing to make broad groupings but not finer ones.  It's simply a matter of where you draw the line.  You and I may both disagree with Pat's list, but it's his list.  After several more plays, he is free to modify his list as he sees fit.  Nowhere is it written in stone and handed down from the god of golf rankings.  Surely if you had a choice of whether to play Hazeltine or White Bear tomorrow you'd be able to make a decision between the two.  What I think you may be reacting to is something from another thread; i.e. that people take rankings much too seriously.  Based on your criteria, there are exactly 2 courses I've played more than 55 times in my life.  And I can tell you definitively that one is better than the other.  The good news is once the new Confidential Guides come out we won't have to bother ranking courses for ourselves...  Personally, I'm more interested in what someone's favorite courses are than what is "best" and am less certain about the distinction between the two in my own mind as time goes on...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Exactly. I can often say with confidence that I think one course is better than another. But that's a categorical distinction, not one with infinitely subdivisible quantitative ratings attached.

Interesting subtle distinction, but can we tell what course is better, or merely which course we like better?

Of course, between Pine Valley and a nine hole muni, we can make broad distinctions.  But between, say Pine Valley and Pebble Beach for the "No. 1 Course in the USA"?  Or among the top 20 in MN, from an earlier post?

Fame, how we played, who we played with, weather, maintenance, recent experience, etc. all affect our rankings/ratings, etc.  That said, we all agree that rankings are pretty subjective, as well, other than they average a lot of supposedly (although this group would even argue that, most likely based on % of agreeing ratings, not actual knowledge base of the other rater) knowledgeable raters.

In the end, I conclude it wasn't even worth me typing the above opinion regarding rankings......

[Dan Kelly]

You and I may both disagree with Pat's list, but it's his list.  After several more plays, he is free to modify his list as he sees fit.  Nowhere is it written in stone and handed down from the god of golf rankings.... The good news is once the new Confidential Guides come out we won't have to bother ranking courses for ourselves...  Personally, I'm more interested in what someone's favorite courses are than what is "best" and am less certain about the distinction of the two in my own mind as time goes on...

Jud --

1. Just to clarify: It's not Pat's list of the 20 "best" courses in Minnesota; it's Golf Digest's. (Pat merely posted it, for discussion's sake.)

2. There are multiple gods of golf rankings, aren't there?

3. If people were ranking "favorites" instead of "bests" (as Rick Shefchik explicitly did in the "10 best courses in your city thread"), I would have no objection whatsoever. But the lists of rankings are never advertised as "favorites," are they? (Rhetorical question.) "Favorites" would concede the subjectivity that "Bests" pretends to banish.

Dan

P.S. What are your 10 favorite "ethnic" places in Chicagoland? (Just joking -- unless you'd care to tell me!)

[Jud_T]

P.S. What are your 10 favorite "ethnic" places in Chicago? (Just joking -- unless you'd care to tell me!)

Off the top of my head (in no particular order  ):

Great Lake Pizza (NLE?)
Mirai Sushi
Tac Quick
Lao Shanghai
Frontera Grill/Topolobompo/Xoco
Shanghai Terrace
Urban Belly/Belly Q
Arun
Arami
Takashi

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()