Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?

[Mark Chaplin]

What was the green fee for the raters Judge Mollica?

Mark I can assure you our Michelin inspector and the Visit England inspector do not identify themselves until they check out.

[David_Elvins]

Dave, I feel like on many Norman courses, I am always deciding how much to bite off (as there is little choice to do otherwise or layup), so much emphasis on driving distance and accuracy, it wears thin after a while.

I have not found this much myself.  Ellerston, National Moonah, Pelican Waters and the Glades are all quite wide off the tee, IMO.  

However n my experience, there is more incentive for the good player to drive to the edges of the fairway at Pelican Waters and The Glades than at the higher rated National Moonah and Ellerston.  

[Sean_A]

What was the green fee for the raters Judge Mollica?

Mark I can assure you our Michelin inspector and the Visit England inspector do not identify themselves until they check out.

Chappers

I can't believe there are people who still believe influence can't be had if a rater is known before arrival and comped.  In any case, the mere suggestion of intentional favourable treatment is enough to cast doubt on a rating process.  I guess golfers are a special breed  .  As you say, Michelin is well known for visiting unannounced.  If that basic principle of rating broke down, Michellin wouldn't be regarded as the king of restaurant guides. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Chappers

I can't believe there are people who still believe influence can't be had if a rater is known before arrival and comped.  In any case, the mere suggestion of intentional favourable treatment is enough to cast doubt on a rating process.  I guess golfers are a special breed  .  As you say, Michelin is well known for visiting unannounced.  If that basic principle of rating broke down, Michellin wouldn't be regarded as the king of restaurant guides. 

Ciao

Sean,

At the heart of their ratings, Michelin are rating a consumable product and a service.

Conversely, a golf course rater is predominantly rating an inanimate object.

Whilst a restaurant can 'make an effort' for a reviewer, a golf course cannot change it's architecture to accommodate a rater's visit.  

"We have raters today, lets quickly remove the terrible dogleg from the second hole and add more internal contour to all the greens."  I don't think so.  

[James Bennett]

Mark,

... If a rater has been a member at 4 of the top 10 courses, is this more likely to affect voting than a controlled experience at ellerston?

Impossible. Noone is that lucky.

Matthew

I know of one person who is a member at four of the top dozen courses, and a huge fan/regular visitor at Barnbougle, but isn't a rater.  He is lucky though.

James B

[Mark_F]

Mark I can assure you our Michelin inspector and the Visit England inspector do not identify themselves until they check out.

Mark,

Yes, I realise that.  Sorry, I was being facetious, and it didn't come across properly.  As Sean intimates below, the entire process breaks down if you know beforehand.

At the heart of their ratings, Michelin are rating a consumable product and a service.

I've never seen anyone consume a tablecloth, cutlery, crockery and glassware before, but then maybe I don't frequent the places you do.

Conversely, a golf course rater is predominantly rating an inanimate object.

Whilst a restaurant can 'make an effort' for a reviewer, a golf course cannot change it's architecture to accommodate a rater's visit.  

Conditioning is 20% of the criteria however, as is visual appeal, which is no doubt enhanced by the impeccable nature of Ellerston.  

Design is 60% of the criteria, and by your own admission below risk and reward doesn't appear to be a factor in many holes since it is primarily about execution. The course is also not fair for all players, and appears to also lack a good balance of long and short par fours. It would also appear to not fulfill the criteria of offering a "wide selection of shots", at least on the tee shots.  

[Matthew Mollica]

Does anyone here think they are incapable of assessing the merits of a course in the absence of paying a green fee? Or is it merely the appearance of the possibility of bias which affects the those considering someone else's ratings?

MM

[JMEvensky]

OK,which one of you guys is Julius?

[Mark_F]

Does anyone here think they are incapable of assessing the merits of a course in the absence of paying a green fee? Or is it merely the appearance of the possibility of bias which affects the those considering someone else's ratings?

MM,

Of course it is possible to fairly assess a course whether you are paying for the round or it's a freebie.  You particularly, and I will fight anyone who dares suggest otherwise.

OK,which one of you guys is Julius?

Who's Julius?

[Tom_Doak]

... it is an interesting dilemma for many of the clubs in the top 25-30 - every time a reno'd course or new one comes in they drop a spot, then another... as they slide, pressure mounts from many areas on this 'slide' what are they to do - if it involves spending more money on presentation, then I think the system needs review.

If a course was #13 2 years and have not changed and maintained standards, but have dropped to #15, what should they do? The course hasn't 'become worse', perplexing for many I would think.

Brett, hopefully green committees have a clear vision for their own course, survey the membership for contentment levels, and are not swayed unduly by rankings, or the arrival of newer and better courses. If a club is doing the best with what they have in terms of managing their own course, the rest surely takes care of itself ? I think Commonwealth shows this. They have adopted a measured, considered and patient approach to subtly yet continually improving their course with attention to presentation, tree clearing, and some minor course works.

MM

Brett's question is a good one.  I hear "concerns" often at the clubs where we consult [not to mention Crystal Downs], if their course has slipped in the rankings even a little bit.  Most memberships are oblivious as to how the rankings game works, and are easy fodder for someone who comes along and proposes to help.  [I meant architects there, but I have also heard recently of a couple of people selling their services as rankings "consultants" and charging a fee for making suggestions about the course, club, how to handle raters, etc.  All of which is very creepy.]

To disagree with Matthew, perhaps Commonwealth has not over-reacted to the magazine rankings, but it was precisely their fear of being downgraded as a "championship" course 20 years ago that set them off on their efforts to destroy the opening hole, add a pond in front of the 7th, and make other changes that spoiled the charm of the place.  In general, this is exactly the mistake that many clubs make -- instead of seeing the strengths of their course and improving on those, they obsess about the "weaknesses" and proceed to make changes that undermine the general character of the place.

[David_Elvins]

Design is 60% of the criteria, and by your own admission below risk and reward doesn't appear to be a factor in many holes since it is primarily about execution. The course is also not fair for all players, and appears to also lack a good balance of long and short par fours. It would also appear to not fulfill the criteria of offering a "wide selection of shots", at least on the tee shots.  

I would agree with all of that, except I think the course offers a wide selection of shots, despite a lot of approaches requiring an aerial shot. 

[James Bennett]

I took a cut of the Golf Australia list, and grouped it by era when the course was first built.

I chose 4 eras.

Pre WW2 (to 1944)
Post WW2 (to 1974)
late 20th century (to 1999)
21st century (to today)[/li][/list]


I had to make a few decisions along the way, eg is Royal Queensland a 1920 or a 2007 course (I chose 2007, as the routing has been totally amended, with holes generally played in the opposite direction today), is The Australian an old course, or a 1977 Jack Nicklaus (again, I chose 1977 as the changes were so significant). I chose the original course dates for the Peninsula and Grange courses, as they follow the original routing in the main.

Anyway, the pre WW2 era has 31 entries, with an average rating of 39,
the post WW2 era to 1974 has 13 entries with an average rating of 56,
The late 20th century era has 21 entries with an average rating of 62, and
the 21st century era has 35 entries with an average rating of 51.

1900-1944
1. Royal Melbourne West (1) 1931
4. Kingston Heath (2) 1925
5. NSW (5) 1928
7. RM East (6) 1932
9. Victoria ( 1927
11. Royal Adelaide (10) 1926
12. Lake Karrinyup (14) 1928
13. Metropolitan (9) 1906
14. Woodlands (12) 1913
16. Commonwealth (19) 1921
17. Newcastle (16) 1937
21. Barwon Heads (20) 1921
26. Kooyonga (23) 1924
27. Royal Sydney (21) 1921
28. Glenelg (29) 1927
32. Portsea (32) 1926
37. Yarra Yarra (37) 1928
38. Bonnie Doon (n/a) 1937
40. Elanora (39) 1929
49. Concord (45) 1916
51. Huntingdale (40) 1941
60. Mt.Lawley (65) 1928
61. Avondale (68) 1927
62. Long Island (57) 1938
75. St.Michael's (78) 1938
76. Cottesloe (71) 1931
79. Western Australian (74) 1927
81. Royal Perth (87) 1908
84. Sorrento (81) 1929
89. Riversdale (84) 1930
99. Brisbane (n/a) 1904

1945-1974
15. The Lakes (13) 1970
18. Peninsula North (17) 1969
25. Peninsula South (28) 1967
31. Grange West (30) 1956
39. Grange East (n/a) 1967
50. Spring Valley (44) 1948
53. Port Fairy (54) 1963
69. Cranbourne (69) 1954
70. Royal Canberra (42) 1945
83. Tasmania (86) 1972
87. Horsham (89) 1949
88. Curlewis (n/a) 1947
100. Sun City (n/a) 1974

1975-1999
19. National Old (18) 1987
20. Links Kennedy Bay (15) 1998
24. The Dunes (25) 1997
29. The Australian (31) 1977
34. Joondalup (33) 1985
47. Terrey Hills (50) 1994
48. Links Hope Island (48) 1993
52. The Grand (51) 1997
55. Bonville (64) 1992
58. The Vines Lakes (47) 1989
59. Meadow Springs (62) 1993
68. Sanctuary Cove Pines (59) 1989
72. Sanctuary Cove Palms (63) 1988
78. Coolum (67) 1988
80. Lakelands (83) 1997
91. Capricorn (76) 1992
92. Twin Waters (80) 1991
93. Indooroopilly West (n/a) 1985
94. Narooma (82) 1980
95. Arundel Hills (n/a) 1992
96. Murray Downs (94) 1990

2000-2013
2. Barnbougle Dunes (3) 2004
3. Lost Farm (4) 2010
6. Ellerston (n/a) 2001
8. National Moonah (7) 2000
10. St.Andrews Beach (11) 2005
22. Royal Queensland (26) 2007
23. 13th Beach Beach (22) 2001
30. Moonah Links Legends (24) 2003
33. The Cut (34) 2004
35. Stonecutters Ridge (n/a) 2012
36. Brookwater (36) 2002
41. National Ocean (35) 2000
42. Magenta Shores (27) 2006
43. The Vintage (46) 2003
44. Hamilton Island (38) 2009
45. The Glades (43) 2000
46. RACV Healesville (53) 2009
54. Pelican Waters (55) 2000
56. 13 Beach Creek (49) 2004
57. The Heritage St.John (61) 2000
63. Settlers Run (56) 2007
64. Moonah Links Open (41) 2001
65. Amstel Ranfurlie (60) 2002
66. Pacific Harbour (58) 2006
67. Sanctuary Lakes (52) 2000
71. Pacific Dunes (72) 2005
73. Kalgoorlie (79) 2010
74. The Heritage Henley (85) 2006
77. Links Lady Bay (66) 2000
82. Eynesbury (77) 2008
85. Manly (n/a) 2012
86. Sandhurst Champions (70) 2008
90. Yering Meadows (95) 2009
97. Twin Creeks (75) 2006
98. Kooindah Waters (88) 2006

I find it a little easier to compare courses from similar eras.

James B

[Mike_Clayton]

James,

Portsea was first 9 and then 12 holes - it only became 18 in the 60s.
It's also a stretch to put Peninsula North in pre 74. Since then 13 and 14 were added on land acquired in the 80s, the original 3rd and 4th holes became the 3rd, the par 3 12th (played after the current 10th down onto the now 11th tee) was eliminated and 17 was a horror story long par 4.
Then, around 2000-2002 the whole course was redone.
The only claim what is there now has on the pre-74 date is a large part of Morpeth's routing remains.
 
Royal Canberra didn't move to it's current site until the early 1960s. The old course is under the lake.
Bonnie Doon was 1937 - but when it's finished it will be 2015 - about:)
 
Shane Gurnett will know better than me - Port Fairy only moved out to its current site in (maybe it was '63) and became a full 18 in the 80s -  I think.

[James Bennett]

Mike

It isn't an exact science is it, those pesky ratings.

Golf Australia cites Royal Canberra as having signficant input (?new course) in 1962 per John Harris.  Perhaps that is it.  Still in the same 'era' though.

Re Pt Fairy, GA quotes Kevin Hartley's involvement in 1989 (member built in 1963).

Re Bonnie Doon (work in progress), Peninsula North and Portsea.  Whatever year I use will be wrong, and it will also be right.

James B

ps I am glad I didn't try and do a list with the principal GCA identified - that would be very difficult and full of debate.

[Mark Chaplin]

Matthew the not playing a green fee immediately identifies yourself to the management, if any publication was serious about the process reviewers would pay and claim back expenses. Would any of the amateur reviewers get involved if they had to shell out $360 to play RM?

If you told me ten reviewers were at Deal on a given day the greens would be double hand cut and ironed in the morning, best flags out, bins emptied, bunkers raked, artisans divotting the night before, etc, etc. We'd fight for every conditioning point.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark, not sure if it answers your question re the Ellerston ranking, but several of us took three days off paid work, flew interstate, paid for rental cars, green fees elsewhere, hotels, so we went without income, and incurred cost seeing several courses during that week. One of which was Ellerston. Practically, it would be unlikely the course super and general manager of the property would ever be unaware of a visitor to the property or a person on the course. So I'm not sure how a rater would visit the course incognito.

Speaking for several Golf Australia magazine raters, many have travelled the nation extensively and paid full rack rate green fees out of their own pocket, and all the travel expenses that go with that, so as to do the job as best as they can. Not to score free golf. Getting comped doesn't often happen in Australia. The system is so far removed from what seems to happen in the USA it isn't funny.

MM

[James Bennett]

Mark would understand that Matthew - he rated 2 years ago (and did a good job I believe).  Ellerston wasn't rated that year.

[Matthew Mollica]

James, I was replying to Chappers' post immediately above mine, not Mark F...

[Scott Warren]

Most memberships are oblivious as to how the rankings game works, and are easy fodder for someone who comes along and proposes to help.  [I meant architects there, but I have also heard recently of a couple of people selling their services as rankings "consultants" and charging a fee for making suggestions about the course, club, how to handle raters, etc.  All of which is very creepy.]

Tom,

I fail to see how a consultant being engaged by a golf club to help it improve its course is significantly different to a golf club engaging a consultant to help it improve other areas of its operations.

Fact is that earning a spot in a rankings list (or getting closer to #1 if they're already on the list) will attract members, visitors and corporate/society bookings (which in Australia and Britain significantly subsidise membership fees) while also enabling a club to charge a few bob extra for outside access.

In highly-competitive markets, it can make a considerable difference to a club.

It seems odd for you to dismiss their work as "creepy", when golf course architects who consult on older courses fulfill much the same role.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I fail to see how a consultant being engaged by a golf club to help it improve its course is significantly different to a golf club engaging a consultant to help it improve other areas of its operations.

Fact is that earning a spot in a rankings list (or getting closer to #1 if they're already on the list) will attract members, visitors and corporate/society bookings (which in Australia and Britain significantly subsidise membership fees) while also enabling a club to charge a few bob extra for outside access.

In highly-competitive markets, it can make a considerable difference to a club.

It seems odd for you to dismiss their work as "creepy", when golf course architects who consult on older courses fulfill much the same role.

I would find it equally creepy if an architect were to represent the purpose of his work at a club was to improve their ranking.

The various rankings are so different (and so hard to gauge) that the most likely way of improving a ranking would be for the consultant to sell his own vote, and then to try and use his influence on the votes of others.  

Do you not find that creepy?

[Mark_F]

I fail to see how a consultant being engaged by a golf club to help it improve its course is significantly different to a golf club engaging a consultant to help it improve other areas of its operations.

So how would a rankings consultant tell NSW to improve their position Scott - get rid of Greg Norman?

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

I fail to see how a consultant being engaged by a golf club to help it improve its course is significantly different to a golf club engaging a consultant to help it improve other areas of its operations.

Fact is that earning a spot in a rankings list (or getting closer to #1 if they're already on the list) will attract members, visitors and corporate/society bookings (which in Australia and Britain significantly subsidise membership fees) while also enabling a club to charge a few bob extra for outside access.

In highly-competitive markets, it can make a considerable difference to a club.

It seems odd for you to dismiss their work as "creepy", when golf course architects who consult on older courses fulfill much the same role.

I would find it equally creepy if an architect were to represent the purpose of his work at a club was to improve their ranking.

The various rankings are so different (and so hard to gauge) that the most likely way of improving a ranking would be for the consultant to sell his own vote, and then to try and use his influence on the votes of others.  

Do you not find that creepy?

If a club doesn't have someone who understands how to maximise its assets for rater visits and they can contract the services of someone who can help them make the most of the ratings process, I can't fault that.

It also doesn't hurt to have a good relationship with a magazine's chiefs.

There are far creeepier ways to earn a dollar. I should know, I used to work at the Daily Mail!

A boost in ratings is a huge win for a lot of golf clubs -- for any publics and probably any private that isn't a perennial top 20 occupant, a boost in ranking can bring significant tangible windfall. In competitive markets, it could be the difference between thriving and struggling.

As to architects promoting doing course alterations solely to boost ranking, I don't think that would be wise, but I am confident that it is also rare and that ranking is discussed in concert with all the other factors and potential benefits that course alterations bring.

Mark F,

In my mind, NSWGC's issue is not so much the architect it has selected to do the work, but its choice of holes to have renovated.

NSWGC has some obvious holes and areas of holes that could do with some work, but instead it altered 4 & 18, neither of which needed any significant change, and altered the wrong half of 3.

The 2nd has a horrific green ill-suited to the hole length and location and the 6th is a poor hole sitting on all-world land.

The drive on 3 is absurd, but remains untouched, and while I thought the old green was better to look at, the new one is far more playable and is overall an improvement.

And the native areas are out of control, and the waste bunkers too overgrown, IMO.

Despite its significant shortcomings, NSWGC is rightly within the 10 best courses in the country -- but whenever I'm out there I can't help but think a few times during the round and afterwards what it could be with the right work carried out.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Despite its significant shortcomings, NSWGC is rightly within the 10 best courses in the country -- but whenever I'm out there I can't help but think a few times during the round and afterwards what it could be with the right work carried out.

Scott,
This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at earlier in this thread. So NSWGC have had a crack at improving the golf course, and no matter what the reasons for this from the club committees, an underlying goal will be to improve its ranking. So, the changes they have made IYO have not improved it, so they wasted their cash? ..and so they have also wasted the opportunity - which for me is the key (as most clubs cannot afford to continually tinker and change, not should they), which leaves NSWGC languishing because you have mentioned above 'what could have been' if they chose to change what you feel they should. Many golfers may well think this as they play rounds at their respective clubs, some get to have a say as part of relevant committees, as get to have a greater say as raters for the golf mags. BUT, it does not change the fact that without continual changes which are hopefully well received and genuine improvement type changes, then the course will always continue a slide out of top 5 or top 10 or top 20, top 50, etc. BECAUSE there will always be a new kid on the block, or an old one with a new reno, I am sure Bonnie D has aspirations once all works are complete. There is potentially two new courses on King Island that will potentially drop many other courses back a notch or two. The courses that have resident architects engaged do so to attempt to protect their position and protect the course from changes by committee - a wise move, yes? The issue with any consultant or architect, is it still their opinion, but unlike a club bringing in a consultancy chef to provide menu direction or ideas - these can often be trend of fashion based, which we know do not suit golf hole upgrades or restorations...frilly bunkers anyone?

So, for me, a club member, and a golfer in a district with many golf courses, the money required to do this is not bottomless, and now even less so, hence my feeling that this system is flawed - the 1 to 100. I know the ranking and lists has been discussed ad nauseam here, but like it is impossible to name the best ever painting, sculpture, restaurants, song, album, movie or sporting event, because they all mean different things to the different lovers of the sport, music, art, etc.

For me, the much healthier approach, from the POV of the clubs and courses survival here in Australia (there of course needs some culling of the truly poor, and these will find their natural end) is either that of Tom Doak's CG system or that of David & Margaret on the Movie Show or Darius Oliver's Golf Club Atlas. These approaches allow for multiple "bests", all of great quality, design, layout to be listed as equal for the punter trying to figure where to spend their hard earned.

The other key element that I think is missing from all this, and has raised its head in the Ellerston discussion, is that of the experience. I for one find it very difficult, and in fact do not enjoy trying to separate 'the experience', as it just adds to the assessment as a whole. It is like the ones that cannot provide a good to great experience, don't think this should be included as it isn't fair, should there be Special Distinctions? 5 stars to the 5(?) best courses, and so on, but potential for say a Lost Farm to perhaps only have 4 stars or 2 flags or 8.5/10 - but gets a @ for a special place - because if the mags are genuine about providing a true indication to punters about where they should go - then this should be provided. I assume somewhere else this is being done. I know the the Good Food Guides here in Aust award lifetime achievement and those sorts of things for the restaurants or chefs that have continually been at the top of their game and "deserve" a visit.

I cannot help enjoy a film better at the Kino in Collins St, than at the nearest Hoyts/Village/Reading Multiplex cinema. The same applies to art in a gallery, a live gig, or the memories of the place you first heard that song....and golf courses, only because, we are talking about helping punters "choose"where to spend their cash - so each rating or ranking should come with a warning label, ...that most of the[our magazine's] raters are able to separate the experience from the actual golf course routing and holes, but you as the punter will not...so make sure you get the house special, and sit out on the patio as the sun goes down and wonder why you didn't go there earlier.

I for one, think the assessment of RMGC is tainted because of the cars and hoons near some of the tees, it doesn't enjoy the tranquility associated with some of the others in the top 10 for example, neither does the close proximity of the Moorabbin airport do any favours to some of it's neighbours, the Pacific ocean view as you peak the 5th at NSW adds notches and well... Barnbougle is just the epitome of special experience in Australia IMHO.

sorry to go on...

[Mark Chaplin]

Where a consultant can be very useful is the overall visitor experience such as ensuring the course is properly signed, standards are high , "secret shopping" on staff performance, etc.

[Sean_A]

Chappers

I can't believe there are people who still believe influence can't be had if a rater is known before arrival and comped.  In any case, the mere suggestion of intentional favourable treatment is enough to cast doubt on a rating process.  I guess golfers are a special breed  .  As you say, Michelin is well known for visiting unannounced.  If that basic principle of rating broke down, Michellin wouldn't be regarded as the king of restaurant guides. 

Ciao

Sean,

At the heart of their ratings, Michelin are rating a consumable product and a service.

Conversely, a golf course rater is predominantly rating an inanimate object.

Whilst a restaurant can 'make an effort' for a reviewer, a golf course cannot change it's architecture to accommodate a rater's visit.  

"We have raters today, lets quickly remove the terrible dogleg from the second hole and add more internal contour to all the greens."  I don't think so.  

David

Suffice it to say, I disagree with you.  Golfers treat courses like consumable products, especially in terms of belt notching for the purposes of rankings - if that distinction even matters.  There is no way a guy can come to intimately know the many dozens of courses he ranks.  What a rater can do is offer a snapshot of what he say one day.  If we are really lucky, that ranker can offer many snapshots over a period of many years for many courses.  In the big scheme of things, these folks are far and few between.  I suggest that in the main, we are getting the views of the golfer who treats courses as consumable product - been there, done that.  Hence, Chappers concept of buttering up to raters is a very real issue when we talk about announced visits.  I am not saying it happens all the time or even most of the time, but I am saying everybody likes to be treated well, play for free and enjoy great conditions.  I certainly think that all three of these aspects can definitely influence raters in a positive manner in terms of rankings. Remember, that crazy rankings systems drill down to ridiculously in depth numbers which can make a big difference if a course is ranked 50th or 100th.  That difference could very well come down one decent size party of raters during one visit or a decent number of raters over one summer.  Thats what I mean by a snapshot.  I fail to see how it can be argued that unannounced raters paying their way isn't a superior system for gauging the true merits of a course to announced raters on a comp.  Honestly, I find it incredible that anybody could suggest the two concepts are remotely equal.  

Matthew

If you are paying full whack to rate courses, what is your issue with my PoV?

Ciao