What Changes Would You Make to the Top 100 Rankings Criteria?

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

I don't really rate courses (for myself) based on what is best.  I rate based on how much I would like to return or as a snapshot recommendation for others to use.  Hence, you will not see anything about shot values blah blah blah in my system.  I will say that I am not terribly concerned with quality because nearly all the courses featured are good to great and self evidently so.  So there isn't a point in trying to decide which courses are best unless its for a bit of fun or in the hope that some new light may be shed on a subject. Other than the course itself, I do, however, evaluate things such as price, clubhouse, history and setting; issues which matter in terms of deciding to visit or return to a particular course.  I would say the split of course/beauty and non-course stuff is about 60-40.

So it is very possible for a course to be not as good as another course, but I rate it higher because of non-course stuff (usually great value) or even because of a few holes which really stand out.  For instance, I don't believe in the slightest that Worlington is as good as Rye, but I do think Worlington's charm, great value etc combined with a very good course make it a 1* just as is Rye.  In other words, Worlington is plenty good and distinctive enough even if it lacks the wow factor.  The lesser quality of the course compared to other great courses doesn't reduce its appeal. 

As another for instance, there will be some courses which are good yet not terribly distinctive and/or poor value or simply not as good as reputation suggests...so my rating my not be as high as the quality of the course may suggest.  I would say a place like The Grove fits this description.  I wouldn't recommend the course based on the full whack, given the alternative choices available. 

If a course earns less than 1* I usually don't bother with the 1 digit rating, I let the readers decide for themselves.  However, I do have a map (similar to yours) which tracks the exact GB&I ratings which I do update when I revisit courses.

As you can see, simply because a course doesn't earn a star number, doesn't mean it isn't very good and a worthwhile visit. 

3* Don't miss for any reason
2* Plan a significant trip around this course
1* Worth an overnight detour
R Worth A Significant Day Trip (no more driving than it takes to play and have drinks)
r A Good Fall Back on Course/Trip Filler
NR Not recommended

North Berwick, TOC, Merion and Sandwich are my 3*
Kington, St Enodoc, Old Town, Lahinch, Ganton, WHO, Prestwick, Deal & Sunny Old are my 2*
There are bunch of 1*.

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

sounds like a good system, but you are in fact using categories. In your posting you mention clubhouse, history, distance to get there, price, charm, setting. These are your categories. They may not contain "shot values" or "flow" like mine, but just like mine they determine the total number.

You may not adhere strictly to those categories. Perhaps you are weighting them differently from day to day. Perhaps you are changing them up occasionally. You may not explicitly publish them. But they are there.

Both our total numbers reflect how much we would like to return. But both our systems do not take all categories into account that influence our decision whether to return. Two examples are weather and wife's birthday. Two factors that neither of us includes, probably because we both think that the golf course itself has no influence on them. That is also the reason why I exclude price (unless extraordinarily high or low). It all depends on what you consider to be the "total experience" - does it include a great restaurant on site? What about one nearby? Or a great hotel for staying overnight?

cheers,

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

I don't have categories in the same way you do and none for the course.  I don't have any system for averaging or totaling categories to come up with a final number.  I don't even do that for the Golfweek Ratings I do...simply because a final analysis can't truly be broken down by category because the importance of any single criteria is different for each and every course because each and every course has its own identity.

I am very suspicious of people that try to mathematically justify their rankings because as you have admitted, if a course ranking doesn't feel right you simply massage the numbers until it does feel right.  In other words, you can justify through your subjective mathematics that a turd is a 10.  I don't have to worry if course X is better or worse than course Y because that is not what I am assessing. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

I've applied all my scientific skills in devising a non subjective scale. This is MY 8 point rating.

1
Never again:   The Vale, both courses
2
Depends who’s inviting
3
As long as the company’s ok or it fits into a tight time schedule.
4
Note to self. Well worth playing
5
Find a reason to play here again
6
Must suggest this as a venue
7
Already planning a way to get back
8
All time favourite, play many times often at the expense of all of the above.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

everyone has a system and everyone has categories. Your system may be variable and your categories unspoken, but I assume that things go on in your mind when you rank courses and that you bring these thought processes to bear on the number you come up with. So you're not formalising these thought processes as much as I do and perhaps arrive at a result that is more satisfactory to you, whereas I sometimes have to live with a course ranking coming out different from what I initially guessed.

But I can be challenged and you actually do that when you talk about my categories and that they aren't very useful to you. Vice versa I have a hard time challenging you. Maybe you think that is a good thing

All notwithstanding, I do have a lot of faith in playing a course you recommend, so you must be doing something right despite your slippery un-system

Ulrich

[Jeff Bergeron]

If Sean posts it up, I'd like to play it.

[Jud_T]

Ulrich,


If I ask Sean to put together a trip to England that includes his favorite fun, sporty courses with great turf and reasonable prices that don't beat up the average golfer he can do that easily.  Whether these courses are "better" than the Open Rota courses in the area is irrelevant.  I suppose you can as well, but you'll only use your quirk ranking and then have to think about your feelings and experiences a bit to best address my needs.  The point is that once one satisfies their need to access-whore and belt-notch their way around (some here seemingly never do!), is sufficiently well-travelled and well-read, one ought to know what type of courses to seek out for their game and interests.  An all-encompassing numerically based Best-of list does little to help in this regard...

[Sean_A]

Ulrich...cheers.

If there are predetermined categories to judge a course then one is constantly measuring a design to preconceived notions.  We are all guilty of this.  Sure I have stuff I am looking for in a design, but I also want the design to inform me...meaning that its not a good thing to rely a lot on what I am looking for in a course....its just as good to simply see what is in the ground.  This is what I mean by different categories being important for different courses.  To some degree we should look at designs and try to figure how well they were pulled off rather than rating the concept.  This is hard to do when certain types of holes are not liked.   

Besides, by offering levels of recommendation there shouldn't be any need for someone to challenge me.  I am not making a definitive statement as to quality or relative rankings.  I am simply suggesting that some courses are worth seeing over other courses.  The rating system is layed out based on travel time/inconvenience.  I think people realize how subjective this kind of thing can be so I don't try to snow anybody with numerical values which act as a measure of quality.  All that said, I understand your approach even if I don't buy into it. I would really have to know courses quite well before I would be comfortable trying to make definitive statements about quality.  Despite returning to courses several times over many years, I simply don't know that many courses that well.  I would be constantly changing my rankings...so much so that it would seem wishy washy rather than informed 

Anyway...to round out the discussion, I still say I would want good people on the panel so I wouldn't feel the need to herd them around categories.  Let the raters decide what is important...and trust to their judgement. If this can't be done, get new raters.

Berg...cheers. 

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

suppose I wouldn't publish my categories and just put out a total number. My actual numbers go from 1-9 roughly, so let's say I condense those down to three numbers (7-9 maps to a 3, 4-6 maps to 2, 1-3 maps to 1). Then I would have a system that looked awfully similar to yours. Would my system be any better then? Of course not. But you would never know, because I didn't publish the incriminating information that I use a lot of categories and numbers

Ulrich

[cary lichtenstein]

When I rated courses, one of my mistakes was seeing it in the eyes of a 4 handicap who hit the ball from right to left. I was never intimated by water that required carries, I was overly impressed by eye candy topography, elevated tees, dramatic greens. When I played Augusta National I was not thrilled. I had been there for 7 tournaments, but with all the people gone, it looks like any other finely manicured golf course.


Pine Valley on the other hand, was breathtaking. I loved Pebble Beach, Highland Link, Yale, disappointed with Seminole, and more subtle courses

[Sean_A]

Sean,

suppose I wouldn't publish my categories and just put out a total number. My actual numbers go from 1-9 roughly, so let's say I condense those down to three numbers (7-9 maps to a 3, 4-6 maps to 2, 1-3 maps to 1). Then I would have a system that looked awfully similar to yours. Would my system be any better then? Of course not. But you would never know, because I didn't publish the incriminating information that I use a lot of categories and numbers    

Ulrich

Ulrich

I guess its my fault for not explaining myself well, but I am confident that I don't use categories in anything like the same manner you do....so much is this the case that I even hesittae to use the word category.  No worries though.

I suspect my 3* is really equivalent to your 9

2* to 8

1* to 7

Once we get below 7 things go pear shaped between our systems and don't really compare well at all.


I strongly suspect that you are rather far more lenient than I would be with your 5-6 range in trying to objectively rate the courses.  I would be more apt to say its dime a dozen stuff; in most cases play if a deal is to be had    I would say a third of the courses I have played in GB&I are not ones I would generally recommend.


Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Ulrich,


I just went through your ranking list and couldn't find a review of the Old Course.  Really, if so, you opining on golf architecture would be like an art student critiquing the drawings of a child without ever seeing a Basquiat. Are you serious?

[Peter Pallotta]

When I rated courses, one of my mistakes was seeing it in the eyes of a 4 handicap who hit the ball from right to left. I was never intimated by water that required carries, I was overly impressed by eye candy topography, elevated tees, dramatic greens. When I played Augusta National I was not thrilled. I had been there for 7 tournaments, but with all the people gone, it looks like any other finely manicured golf course.

Pine Valley on the other hand, was breathtaking. I loved Pebble Beach, Highland Link, Yale, disappointed with Seminole, and more subtle courses

I like this post very much. I think it is valuable and important.

[Jim Hoak]

I can think of a number of factors that subtly, unconsciously may affect someone's opinion of a course--weather, wind, how you play, condition, aeration holes, with whom you play, friendliness of the staff, cost, food, beauty of the clubhouse, etc.  I know the objective is to leave these things out, but is it really possible?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

I'm definitely way more lenient than you are (or Tom Doak is). Tom once said something to the effect that he is trying to split hairs between great and greater.

I'm working on the assumption that 99% of all golfers will almost never have a chance to chose between great and greater. Their choice will on most days be between ok and pretty good or between average and below average. And to me it is a privilege to be able to play golf at all, so I usually find a way to enjoy myself even on very questionable layouts or five hour rounds.

So to you I may appear overly benevolent (or uncritical), but I'm still a lot sterner than mainstream golfers. I try to stand half-way between the elitists and the morons

It's probably the only sensible stance for someone living in Germany. If I lived in Scotland or if I could afford to travel around the world at length, then my rankings would surely be different. I can't change what I've been exposed to. I could deny it though, some people do

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I'm definitely way more lenient than you are (or Tom Doak is). Tom once said something to the effect that he is trying to split hairs between great and greater.

I'm working on the assumption that 99% of all golfers will almost never have a chance to chose between great and greater. Their choice will on most days be between ok and pretty good or between average and below average. And to me it is a privilege to be able to play golf at all, so I usually find a way to enjoy myself even on very questionable layouts or five hour rounds.

Ulrich


That explains the difference.  I am trying to recommend courses for the discerning traveling golfer who wants good to exceptional golf and experiences, but on a budget. 


Ciao

[Jim Franklin]

I would add fun factor as a category and start including playability. Not sure why we rate the playability of a course and then it doesn't count.

[Niall C]

Peter


I very much like your post no. 6. It says a lot more than just about rankings.


Niall

[Niall C]

Of the Golf Digest criteria the one I have the biggest problem with is Memorability. Why should a course where you can remember every hole clearly be better than one you can’t ? For example, how often have you played somewhere, really enjoyed the golf, but after a period of time have only an indistinct memory of the course but you remember you enjoyed it, whereas on another course you thought poor you remember every offensive detail ? You surely wouldn’t give the latter higher marks in that category.

In the recent chat about Troon, Ran referred to the seventh being one of the best holes and others agreed. Along with the Postage Stamp, it’s possibly the most memorable hole on the course. You can stand on the tee and see the whole hole all before you which doesn’t happen on a lot of links. A lot of the other holes are indistinct or the subtleties unknowable first time round. However from discussions with some of my friends who have played the course quite a few times as I have, and are familiar with it, the 7th rarely gets mentioned as one of the top holes. That to me illustrates the weakness of memorability as well as bringing me on to another point which is the advantage of familiarity with the course.

It is often said you need to play TOC a number of times before you get to know the course. That being the case, how can you judge it on one play ? Is that not also the case with any number of older courses, particularly links, where the inherent strategies of the course are rarely apparent in one play.

If I could remove one criteria it would be memorability and I’d also make a downward weighting to ratings based on one time visits.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, I suppose you could make an upwards weighting for repeated visits, but the question is who are you making this ranking for? If you make it for people, who visit the course on a "once in a lifetime" trip, then of what interest would be the evaluation of a long-time member with 200 rounds on that course? He may know a lot, but people have only one round and the course needs to deliver the first time around.

If you indeed make the ranking for people, who are looking for a new club to join, then by all means, repeated play is king.

And that, I believe, is also the issue with memorability (I am assuming this to mean positive memorability of the course design, not general memorability of all kinds of stuff that happened during my round). For a "once in a lifetime" player, all he takes home from his one round are memories.

Ulrich

[Niall C]

He may know a lot, but people have only one round and the course needs to deliver the first time around.

Ulrich

Actually it doesn't. My point is it's not the course but the rater who isn't up to it. By common consent TOC is a great course but can a golfer really appreciate exactly what they have played after one game ? Are you really going to fully appreciate it first time round ? Not likely and that goes for any number of courses. Doesn't stop them being great.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall,

I believe that in most discussions the term "by common consent" is way overstretched.

I don't think that greatness can be objectively measured. I don't think we can come up with one definition of "greatness" that everyone would subscribe to. If we could do this "scientifically", then yes, we could indeed rank courses independent of any target audience.

However, as soon as we have a target audience, it is not sufficient to merely look at the course. We'll have to look just as closely at our audience, if we want to be successful.

A lot of ranking and reviewing is done for the target audience of tourists. They will not care about a course that cannot deliver the first time round. In other words: they're just as "not up to it" as the rater and thus the rater is doing them a service.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Ulrich


It doesn't matter who the target audience is...it can't hurt to have an informed opinion because any type of recommendation must first be built on quality golf.  You mention TOC, but that is a waste of time because it is immune from critical opinion.  Everybody wants to see TOC at least once. 


Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

I didn't mention TOC at all.

My thinking is that publication implies target audience. Even vanity publication. Or especially it. Isn't it the point of publication to have others read it?

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I didn't mention TOC at all.

My thinking is that publication implies target audience. Even vanity publication. Or especially it. Isn't it the point of publication to have others read it?

Ulrich

Sorry Ulrich, that was someone else obsessed with TOC. 

If you can tell me that golf magazines are targeting specific golfers with their lists and those specific golfers are indeed the sole audience, maybe I can buy into your theory.  I am thinking the taregt audience is mainly golfers 

Even so, how does a more informed opinion hurt rankings? 

Ciao