[Lou_Duran]

Not been to Dismal Red yet, but in a head to head with Streamsong Blue I have DN losing 5 & 4

Yeah, that's about as objective as having Terry Lavin do an Obama vs. G. W. Bush head-to-head.
    

Terry gave Obama a 9.5 in 2009, but I wonder what his 2014 ranking would be.   

Rationalize, blame the sh-- on Bush, and leave a hanging chad on 9.75.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

That would have been my thought as well.

[George Pazin]

Of course it makes no sense to compare a single score to the aggregate average score used in GolfWeek's list, especially when DRR already has a score and a ranking on GolfWeek's list for 2014.

No sense? Philosophically, ranking golf courses may make no sense, but comparing Brad's single ranking to an aggregate makes perfect sense, as long as one remembers the specifics.

You cannot equate a cumulative average score to an individual rating.  There are guidelines for individual rankings and if a rater truly believes a course belongs in the top 5 modern in the country, she would give it a rating higher than 9.  The average score will be lower than the individual score for the very top rated courses because it is inevitable that opinions will vary.

There are guidelines for individual rankings.  

I didn't say they were equal, equivalent, or anything like that. I simply said it makes sense to compare an individual rating to an aggregate rating philosophically.

Bump

Funniest post on the thread, nicely done.

[Terry Lavin]

Not been to Dismal Red yet, but in a head to head with Streamsong Blue I have DN losing 5 & 4

Yeah, that's about as objective as having Terry Lavin do an Obama vs. G. W. Bush head-to-head.

One uses his head, the other uses the bible. 

[Lou_Duran]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

Such profundity from a man tumbling numbers in academia!  Do you allow the adjective "objective" to be used in the interpretation of your data?  After all, it is mostly the prism through which the researcher evaluates the information which makes the conclusions credible and of use.

Would "reasoned opinion" or "mostly unbiased evaluation" be better substitutes?

MWP,

If I am not mistaken, you are not a big Fazio fan (wasn't it you who publicly berated a highly-rated Fazio course, causing a bit of heartburn with your rating brothers?).  Had you had DN sneaking by DR-R I would have fallen off my chair.   

[Lou_Duran]

Not been to Dismal Red yet, but in a head to head with Streamsong Blue I have DN losing 5 & 4

Yeah, that's about as objective as having Terry Lavin do an Obama vs. G. W. Bush head-to-head.

One uses his head, the other uses the bible. 

I am curious, are you referring to the one witnesses in your court swear on?  Or have you dispensed with that anachronism in Chicago, favoring the more suitable bibles of Alinsky and Ayers?  If your friend is indeed using his head, please tell him to stop it and go play more golf.     

[DMoriarty]

George, I don't see how it makes sense, philosophically or otherwise.  People are comparing a single rating (and one that is far removed from the average rating for Dismal River) against averages for other courses.  

Here is an analogy.  Rory McIlroy's scoring average is 68.960 this year.  Justin Hicks scoring average is 70.78.  But last week Justin Hicks shot a 68 in the first round of the Barclays tournament.  Do you really think it would make sense to compare the single score of 68 with Rory's average score for the season?   Or to congratulate Hicks on being as good as or better than Rory because one of his scores is comparable to Rory's average?  I don't.  

But maybe I misunderstand what you mean.  Care to explain?

__________________________________________________

Michael,  

I don't think you get how this "objective" thing works around here:
1.  If you like the result, then the rater is esteemed ("Dr. Klein" even) and the rating fair and objective.
2.  If you don't like the result, well then the rater(s) don't know a good thing when they see it.

Lou likes Dallas National, so your match play result must not be objective.

For another example, see the contrast between Tom Doak on the Brad Klein/GolfWeek ratings at Dismal Red, as compared to his thoughts on Brad Klein/GolfWeek ratings about Streamsong Blue . . .

Tom Doak on the Klein's 9.0 rating of Dismal Red:  
"Perhaps eventually a few more GOLFWEEK panelists will visit the course who actually know a good thing when they see it.
I would be happy to take Brad's review over theirs any time he provides one, though."

Tom Doak on Klein's 7.3 rating of  Streamsong Blue:
"Frankly, I don't think Brad (or anyone in charge of any panel) should tell the panelists what number he would assign to a new course, before they've seen it themselves.
But, I'm not surprised his final score is lower than the average score he gave.  He obviously peeked at where an 8.0 would put the course in the top 100 classic list, and decided he'd better not pronounce it that good that fast."

On the one hand, Klein is top notch, and much more important than the rest of the raters.  On the other, he not only ought to keep quiet, but he is apparently manipulating the system to keep Tom's course down.

I do agree one of Lou's observations; "And when the boss gives it a 9, what panelist who serves solely at his pleasure is going to give it a 6?" Tom Doak agrees with this, too, at least with reference Streamsong Blue.  But something tells me he won't mind as much if the Golfweek panelists follow Brad's lead when it comes to Dismal River.  

In fact, now that both Tom Doak and Brad Klein have informed the GolfWeek raters that their ratings are wrong, I wonder how many golfweek raters will fall into line?  It will be interesting to see how the score moves.  Does anyone know how many golfweek scores were used to calculate the 7.42 rating?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

Such profundity from a man tumbling numbers in academia!  Do you allow the adjective "objective" to be used in the interpretation of your data?  After all, it is mostly the prism through which the researcher evaluates the information which makes the conclusions credible and of use.

Would "reasoned opinion" or "mostly unbiased evaluation" be better substitutes?

I didnt berate, just commented that a new cousre o fFazio design wasnt suited to be ranked in the top 20 in the nation, but to the highly esteemed members tghis appeared as a berating

MWP,

If I am not mistaken, you are not a big Fazio fan (wasn't it you who publicly berated a highly-rated Fazio course, causing a bit of heartburn with your rating brothers?).  Had you had DN sneaking by DR-R I would have fallen off my chair.   

I didnt berate, just commented that a new cousre o fFazio design wasnt suited to be ranked in the top 20 in the nation, but to the highly esteemed members tghis appeared as a berating

[Lou_Duran]

Lou likes Dallas National, so your match play result must not be objective.

I do like Dallas National.  I think it is the best course in Texas and that GW and GD have it in the right zip code in their ratings.

You are wrong in the second part of your assertion.  I have a good understanding of ratings and raters, know some of the principals, and have no issues with the many differences in opinions.  There are some strong preferences for certain people and styles, and there is also considerable animus toward some designers.  As I noted earlier, I may have used a better word than "objective", perhaps "unbiased", though that one too has problems.

I like to think that when I look at a course, the label is secondary.  I am not wed to a particular style or worship at the altar of one school.  My mind is not made up on the DR-R course and, as I said, I am surprised that it was rated before it even officially opened.  My comment regarding MWP was not made in a vacuum- he has expressed his opinions on Fazio in the past- and it was meant to be humorous (the reference to Terry Lavin, our president's good friend).      

[RJ_Daley]

Boy, was I ever disappointed when the POTUS didn't show up at The Bev outting hosted by Terry.  He'd have probably had a better time than he is having on Martha's V., and been with folks that also have their golf addictions in proper perspective.   

[Brent Hutto]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

Such profundity from a man tumbling numbers in academia!  Do you allow the adjective "objective" to be used in the interpretation of your data?  After all, it is mostly the prism through which the researcher evaluates the information which makes the conclusions credible and of use.

Would "reasoned opinion" or "mostly unbiased evaluation" be better substitutes?

In my field the term of art would be "perception", "opinion" or simply "rating" depending on the context. For this I think "rating" would be clearest.

We don't apply the term "objective" to anything in which reference to some gold standard or criterion is impossible. For instance, if I had a stopwatch I could give an "objective" observation saying that I took four hours, ten minutes to complete a round of golf. But if I were ask to report on how easy a walk the course presented there's no stopwatch that measures "easy". So it would be my perception of ease of walking, which is subjective.

[Brent Hutto]

...

[Andrew Lewis]

Boy, was I ever disappointed when the POTUS didn't show up at The Bev outting hosted by Terry.  He'd have probably had a better time than he is having on Martha's V., and been with folks that also have their golf addictions in proper perspective.   

Two comments:

1) Although the Judge was Certainly the alpha host, said  outing was co-hosted by yours truly, thank you very much.

2) The likely reason POTUS didn't show was the embarrassment of how I used to block his shots playing pickup hoops at my alma mater...he was a law school prof, and I a lowly undergrad.

Just sayin...

[Mark Bourgeois]

When does the Dismal v Kingsley match play thread start? Excuse me, the Kingsley v Dismal thread.

[Dan Herrmann]

Ok - let's assume that an objective rating isn't valid.  Subjectively, I really loved DR Red and think it's a course that I'd love to play again and again.  Great sense of place, wonderful use of dunes, great journey through the property, and a feeling like the course was uncovered instead of constructed.

[John Kirk]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

I give this comment a rating of    ★★

[JC Jones]

When does the Dismal v Kingsley match play thread start? Excuse me, the Kingsley v Dismal thread.

Well, you see, this is only the second time you've made this post in this thread.  You have to ask at least 3 times.  Or, perhaps in the words of Scott Warren, it's time to give this tired schtick some pine.

[Adam Clayman]

2) The likely reason POTUS didn't show was the embarrassment of how I used to block his shots playing pickup hoops at my alma mater...he was a law school prof, and I a lowly undergrad.

Just sayin...

You mean the Prez sucks at golf and roundball?

I knew he wasn't half black. He's half white.

[Chip Gaskins]

i liked the Nicklaus more than the Doak.  numerous rounds on both.

[John Kirk]

One person making up a numerical rating and assigning it to a golf course is an activity to which the word "objective" does not conceivably apply.

OK, I'll make a serious comment.  I disagree, and believe that rating golf courses is primarily an objective and calculable exercise.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

    1.
    (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Course ratings are based largely on tangible course characteristics.  That the most renowned course analysts tend to agree on what the best courses are gives some indication that it is not a subjective exercise.

Assuming the course grader is experienced, I think it's mostly objective, and then the finer gradings are left to personal sentiment.

[William_G]

LOL John

[Tom_Doak]

i liked the Nicklaus more than the Doak.  numerous rounds on both.

Chip:

Why?

Tom

[Tom_Doak]

For another example, see the contrast between Tom Doak on the Brad Klein/GolfWeek ratings at Dismal Red, as compared to his thoughts on Brad Klein/GolfWeek ratings about Streamsong Blue . . .

Tom Doak on the Klein's 9.0 rating of Dismal Red:  
"Perhaps eventually a few more GOLFWEEK panelists will visit the course who actually know a good thing when they see it.
I would be happy to take Brad's review over theirs any time he provides one, though."

Tom Doak on Klein's 7.3 rating of  Streamsong Blue:
"Frankly, I don't think Brad (or anyone in charge of any panel) should tell the panelists what number he would assign to a new course, before they've seen it themselves.
But, I'm not surprised his final score is lower than the average score he gave.  He obviously peeked at where an 8.0 would put the course in the top 100 classic list, and decided he'd better not pronounce it that good that fast."

On the one hand, Klein is top notch, and much more important than the rest of the raters.  On the other, he not only ought to keep quiet, but he is apparently manipulating the system to keep Tom's course down.

I do agree one of Lou's observations; "And when the boss gives it a 9, what panelist who serves solely at his pleasure is going to give it a 6?" Tom Doak agrees with this, too, at least with reference Streamsong Blue.  But something tells me he won't mind as much if the Golfweek panelists follow Brad's lead when it comes to Dismal River.  

Touche, David.

My only quibble would be that Brad's rating for Streamsong came out before any of his panelists had been there, whereas his opinion of Dismal came out after it had already been placed on the GOLFWEEK ranking.  So, he may be trying to tell them to change their rating, but he isn't telling them in advance what it ought to be [or, which course at Dismal to prefer], as he did at Streamsong.

Obviously, I agree with one rating more than the other. 

[Eric Smith]

i liked the Nicklaus more than the Doak.  numerous rounds on both.

Bold, Dr. Gaskins. Bold.

[Sam Morrow]

I hope the pork chop got a 10.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()