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

[Parker Page]

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.

Although Memorability is my least favorite category as well, we should probably clarify that Memorability has nothing to do one's memory of a course.  Essentially, it's a terribly misnamed category.  Here's Golf Digest's definition: "How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide both individuality to each hole and a collective continuity from first tee to last green."  I've always thought that a better name for the category would be "character" or even "flair."  But even so, I think Memorability could be rolled into Aesthetics fairly easily.  Ron Whitten would probably disagree with me, but alas.


I also think Resistance to Scoring could also use a tweak.  I know many would like to see it eliminated altogether (and it probably could be rolled into Shot Values), but the main problem is that the definition requires panelists to consider, "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?"  "From the back tees" is the problem.  The two best examples I can think of come from Atlanta.  Both Atlanta Athletic Club and Peachtree have installed back tees that exist solely to test the best amateur, collegiate, and professional players who happen to play the course.  Even for the scratch player, they are unfair and therefore lose points in that category and that's a shame.


Other than that, I feel like a double emphasis on shot values, the variety and thoughtfulness of the design, the firm and fast conditioning of the course, the beauty of the scene on which the drama of the round plays out, whether the design provides a test to the skillful player, and the overall ambience of the course is a decent way of discerning whether a course is "great."

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

more informed is generally great, no doubt. I guess someone, who has played a course numerous times, can still write for a one-off visitor, so no harm done. Although from my own experience, courses tend to "grow on me" with repeated play and I find it hard to remember how it was the first time around. But I suppose that's a luxury problem to have

But it does beckon the question whether "familiarity" is an often overlooked, positive property of a golf course that can, over time, lessen negative effects that a first time visitor would perceive on a somewhat deficient layout.

What you write about golf magazines got me thinking. If they don't worry about their target audience or only have a very mushy idea about "uh... golfers", then I predict they will run into problems. Oops... sounds like my prediction has just come true

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Ulrich


I think you are right that familiarity can breed oversight.  But I suspect a lot of raters can go either way with repeated plays.  Courses can grow on me and some can grow to annoy.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Parker


Many thanks for clarifying that. You are absolutely correct, it's a complete misnomer.


Sean


As you now know it was me that mentioned TOC. I'm not obsessed with it but thought it a handy example that everyone knows. Of course the weakness in this particular example is that even first time golfers at TOC usually know so much about the course that they have a good level of prior knowledge.


Ulrich


Perhaps you should suggest they rename the rankings to "Top 100 Greatest the first time you play them". The mags would love it as they could then have a separate category called the "Top 100 Greatest second time round".


Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall,

I just googled "best restaurants in London" and found hundreds of different lists. Few of them appear to be even rating the same restaurants, they all have different categories, there's everything from a Michelin star rated place to a pizza joint. So we would have a lot of renaming to do for all those "Top 100 Restaurants in London" lists

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich:


The problem with your method (and with this thread) is that golfers don't all agree on what the criteria should be. Some value difficulty, some value fun, some value beauty ... and all value their own best performances.


My approach to that problem has always been to let the makeup of the panel determine the criteria indirectly, by stating their preferences.  That's a lot more simple than polling all of the panelists as to what they think the criteria should be, and trying to impose that; especially since the individual panelists are still likely to vote with their hearts and not according to your system.  If they like the course they are going to give it high numbers, no matter what category you ask for ... an analysis of the GOLF DIGEST voting over the years makes that pretty obvious, if you don't believe in human nature.


I arrived at this method when I was put in charge of the GOLF Magazine panel, at the age of 24.  The editor suggested we come up with some sort of criteria, like GOLF DIGEST supposedly had [although they did not vote by numbers at all], but I demurred on being the one to tell Jack Nicklaus and Pete Dye and Seve Ballesteros and all of our other panelists what they should be voting on.  As you might, too.

[Sean_A]

My approach to that problem has always been to let the makeup of the panel determine the criteria indirectly, by stating their preferences.  That's a lot more simple than polling all of the panelists as to what they think the criteria should be, and trying to impose that; especially since the individual panelists are still likely to vote with their hearts and not according to your system.  If they like the course they are going to give it high numbers, no matter what category you ask for ...

Tom

I agree.  No matter the "mathematical" approach, golfers will massage numbers to fit their beliefs and eye test.  The thing we must remember is that no matter how well dressed up, rankings are a set of opinions.  Does it really matter or help if we have standard categories?  I think not.  Pick the right people and let them get on with it.

I really struggled with developing a best list and still have little faith in the process.  What I end up doing with any given course is to compare it to the next one on the list and determine if it is better or not.  To me this is still not very satisfactory because I don't have enough snap shots of each course compare on an equal footing. I'll take a recommendation approach anyday over a best of approach.   

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   I would do away with "ambiance."  What has that got to do with the architecture of the golf course?  My course dropped in the Classic Courses rating because we had red, white and yellow flags to denote front middle and back hole locations - "too publicy," "not classic enough" we were told.  So, now we have all white flags, and boy is it tough, without a range finder or pin sheet, to figure out where the pins are on the course's 13 uphill approaches.  The raters also didn't like ball washers and benches near the tees - same reasoning.  While I may actually agree the these features might be deemed a little tacky by some, they have nothing to do with the architecture of the course.  Maybe if the publication purported to rate clubs, rather than courses, a case could be made.  But, as I see it, the quality of the club's hot dog's at the half way house should also be included under the present factors being considered.

[Parker Page]

   I would do away with "ambiance." 

Jim - I certainly understand your frustration with the way your course was evaluated.  Ranking a course based on its ball washers cannot be described as anything but absurd.  However, don't you think that there is a certain unquantifiable quality to certain golf courses that sets them apart from others.  Some might argue that Spyglass Hill is a better course than Pebble Beach, but doesn't Pebble (aside from aesthetics) have a certain hard-to-describe quality about it that sets it apart?  And although I've never played Cypress Point, I can imagine that there's something unquantifiable that distinguishes it even from a course as extraordinary as Pebble.  That's ambiance to me.


Tom - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on whether the two methods (giving discretion to a few good panelists vs. giving categories to a large number of panelists) are really two ways of accomplishing the same thing.  As you said, every Golf Magazine panelist has preferences by which he/she rates courses (difficulty, beauty, fun, et al), and so the GM rankings reflect a balance because they have a balance among the panelists.  On the other hand, Golf Digest tries to achieve the same balance by forcing the panelist who values beauty (fun, conditioning, hot dog quality) above all to consider and value the challenge a course presents.  Now whether GD accomplishes their goal is another argument altogether.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom,

I absolutely agree that there is no category system that fits all. Just as there is no political party that fits everyone's beliefs. That is why we have more of them.

However, just as a political party needs to publish their agenda to make sense to voters, an individual rater should also have his categories or preferences and publish them. If someone just "votes with his heart" and says "I'm a famous golfer, so I am entitled to that", then what am I to make of that as a reader?

Or to put it in other words: let's not be the Donald Trump of raters by just doing whatever the hell we please, because we think we're special

Ulrich

[Jim Franklin]

If the quality of food was included in ratings, Olympic would be my number one by a wide margin.

[Sam Kestin]

Ulrich:

The problem with your method (and with this thread) is that golfers don't all agree on what the criteria should be. Some value difficulty, some value fun, some value beauty ... and all value their own best performances.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment--but to my mind a great start is figuring out what each of the categories should be.


To me, a perfect "ranking" system would have as many different criteria as possible. Then (on the front end of a website) you could using sliding scales to weight each of the criteria based upon how important to YOU that particular metric might be. If you're someone who cares more about aesthetics and doesn't like a course that's too hard, you slid the Aesthetics bar up and the Resistance to Scoring bar down. The website re-ranks the courses based on an alteration to the algorithm that more heavily weights aesthetics and less heavily weights Resistance to Scoring.


We all seem to agree that ranking courses is an entirely subjective process to begin with. Why shouldn't our rankings be personalized to our preferences? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to see a "Top 100" list that is filtered through the prism of whatever our particular tastes are?

[Sean_A]

Ulrich:

The problem with your method (and with this thread) is that golfers don't all agree on what the criteria should be. Some value difficulty, some value fun, some value beauty ... and all value their own best performances.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to see a "Top 100" list that is filtered through the prism of whatever our particular tastes are?

We can, but its called a favourites list 


Ciao

[Parker Page]

Now that's an interesting idea, Sam.

[Thomas Dai]

Despite the desire for objectivity there's always going to be a hige element of personal subjectiveness.


And admitting this personal subjectiveness is important.


So can you rank by personal benchmarking?


Say, for discussion purposes, that you reckon TOC is the greatest course you've ever played.......I can't really see how you can rate courses you haven't played. Then which course have you played that's nearby as good as TOC? Well you slot that course in at number 2, and the one that's nearly as good as number 2 comes in at number 3 and so on.


And one list isn't really enough. You really need a links list, a heathland list, a parkland list, etc, even an odd ball list (for Painswick!).


Atb