[Ryan Taylor]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

To be honest having SC in the top 100 is a joke.

says the guy who belongs to the golf digest moneymaking scheme that sells annual memberships to raters to golf courses that they don't even own, a panel that has deemed 8 unwalkable cartball fiascos such as the alotian as among the us top 100...a magazine that prints a world list with typos & factual mistakes that is basically ignored by architecture enthusiasts


tommy, have you sent your check in this year?

Like

[Tommy Williamsen]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

To be honest having SC in the top 100 is a joke.

says the guy who belongs to the golf digest moneymaking scheme that sells annual memberships to raters to golf courses that they don't even own, a panel that has deemed 8 unwalkable cartball fiascos such as the alotian as among the us top 100...a magazine that prints a world list with typos & factual mistakes that is basically ignored by architecture enthusiasts


tommy, have you sent your check in this year?

Now now Bill.

[Joe_Tucholski]

NCR South drops the second most slots (-8).  Moraine goes up second most (+12).  The two courses have boundaries that touch.


Lots has been discussed regarding the work at Moraine.  Anytime a course closes for a year of work it's going be a big deal.  That being said NCR has done significant work each of the last couple years (new bunkers, new green surrounds, tree removal).  The courses are very different and I'm not saying the work at Moraine doesn't deserve the accolades it's received (I've not yet played it), but have to wonder if the close proximity is hurting NCR.


Basically I figure raters are hesitant to dramatically up vote Moraine and are lowering the NCR ranking as compensation due to proximity.


Disclaimer:  I'm personally invested in NCR and really enjoy the two courses.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Doesn’t Golfweek charge to be a rater as well? I thought they were charging long before Golf Digest started doing it.

[Matthew Petersen]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

To be honest having SC in the top 100 is a joke.

says the guy who belongs to the golf digest moneymaking scheme that sells annual memberships to raters to golf courses that they don't even own, a panel that has deemed 8 unwalkable cartball fiascos such as the alotian as among the us top 100...a magazine that prints a world list with typos & factual mistakes that is basically ignored by architecture enthusiasts


tommy, have you sent your check in this year?

I'm not a rater. I have no horse in this whole GW/GD stuff.


But it seems worth noting when these particular knives come out that Golfweek too has Alotian at #14 modern.

[Ari Techner]

NCR South drops the second most slots (-8).  Moraine goes up second most (+12).  The two courses have boundaries that touch.


Lots has been discussed regarding the work at Moraine.  Anytime a course closes for a year of work it's going be a big deal.  That being said NCR has done significant work each of the last couple years (new bunkers, new green surrounds, tree removal).  The courses are very different and I'm not saying the work at Moraine doesn't deserve the accolades it's received (I've not yet played it), but have to wonder if the close proximity is hurting NCR.


Basically I figure raters are hesitant to dramatically up vote Moraine and are lowering the NCR ranking as compensation due to proximity.


Disclaimer:  I'm personally invested in NCR and really enjoy the two courses.

I've not played NCR so I can't comment there but to me Moraine is special.  I've played most of the list and it's the most under rated course on the list imo.  It is one of the best few parkland courses in the country, again imo.  It has everything  it's tremendously unique, has great variety, plenty of difficulty, amazing greens and is on a fantastic piece of land.  I'd expect Moraine to keep climbing the list.

[James Reader]

Interesting to see Robert Trent Tyre Jones credited as the designer of Augusta!

[Joel_Stewart]

What kind of broken GD scoring system rewards 8 cartball courses with US Top 100 status?  Were the dissenting votes thrown out under Dean Kunth's standard deviation system which ensures minimal new thoughts or opinions?  Will the tired Ron Whitten retire or just continue to stubbornly stick to his flawed methodology?

I heard Jerry Tarde was going to retire soon, hopefully Whitten follows him out the door although Whitten hasn't cashed in like Jerry has.


With both out it would allow someone new to build a new methodology for calculating a Top 100. One can only dream!

[Tom_Doak]

it would allow someone new to build a new methodology for calculating a Top 100. One can only dream!

I heard a rumor that GOLFWEEK is starting to work on just that, although time will tell whether it relies more on good sources, or on large numbers of bad ones.  With all of these lists, the reliability is really just a function of whether the panelists actually know what they're talking about, or not.


Otherwise, as they used to say in computer science circles, it's just Garbage In, Garbage Out.


But now, of course, your bros in Silicon Valley package up all that garbage as Data, and try to figure out ways to profit from it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, Tom's analysis begs the question(s):

Who among us knows what they're talking about?

What does 'knowing' even mean in this context?

[Tom_Doak]

Of course, Tom's analysis begs the question(s):

Who among us knows what they're talking about?

What does 'knowing' even mean in this context?

Peter:


Of course, that's a fair question.  The answer to it is probably just as subjective as the enterprise of ranking courses itself.


I always figured the goal was to ask a broad cross-section of the world of golf:  Tour players and amateurs, architects and superintendents and photographers, writers and rules officials and whoever else you could think of. 


The only additional qualification is that they have to have seen a reasonable percentage of different courses in different places, so that there is some crossover in the results.  If only one sub-set of panelists has seen Course A and an entirely different cohort has seen Course B, comparing them numerically is pretty much a waste of time.


The latter thought gave rise to the prominence of a few raters who had traveled very extensively and seen nearly all the top contenders.  But now there are too many of those guys:  they dominate the process by communicating with one another and effectively conspiring to influence the results, and others who have devoted most of their lives to golf are now "lesser opinions" somehow.


Personally, I'd rather know what Seve Ballesteros thought of a course, than any of the panelists who post here.  And I do know, because I still have his ballots at my office     But even that was a silly exercise, since he tended to vote up the courses where he was paid big appearance fees to play every year.  There's no one that doesn't have conflicts of interest in the process.

[William_G]

 There's no one that doesn't have conflicts of interest in the process.

and that includes everyone, including Tom Doak.

well typed!

cheers

[Tom_Doak]

 There's no one that doesn't have conflicts of interest in the process.

and that includes everyone, including Tom Doak.

well typed!

cheers

Fixed that for you. 


Sure, I know a hell of a lot of people involved in the process, as most architects do.  The question is whether we do anything to influence them to vote our way, in ways that cannot be seen by the public at large.


Lots of people think The Confidential Guide is a conflict of interest -- but whatever it is, it is certainly NOT a HIDDEN conflict of interest.  If you think my opinions are biased by factors other than what I really think of the courses I review, then you are going to discount my opinion accordingly, because my name is right on there.  If only others' conflicts were right in their byline, the world would be a much better place.

[Jeff Schley]

 There's no one that doesn't have conflicts of interest in the process.

and that includes everyone, including Tom Doak.

well typed!

cheers

Fixed that for you. 


Sure, I know a hell of a lot of people involved in the process, as most architects do.  The question is whether we do anything to influence them to vote our way, in ways that cannot be seen by the public at large.


Lots of people think The Confidential Guide is a conflict of interest -- but whatever it is, it is certainly NOT a HIDDEN conflict of interest.  If you think my opinions are biased by factors other than what I really think of the courses I review, then you are going to discount my opinion accordingly, because my name is right on there.  If only others' conflicts were right in their byline, the world would be a much better place.

Bias is much different than a conflict of interest.  All "experts" have bias in their subject matter or they wouldn't have taken their time and efforts to devout their lives to the subject matter. There is also unconscious bias that we all have anyway based on who we are and where we come from.  This is why multi cultural/gender/socio-economic teams look at problems differently and have value.

Conflict of interest is a whole other situation than bias.  Conflict of interest is where someone is skewing their opinions because it helps them either financially/professionally/personally and they are in a position to do so.  They are the source of information or have supervisory control over the information.  It DOESN'T mean they aren't trustworthy, just need to be vetted with additional scrutiny as most experts act in good faith or their reputations would be at risk.  It is this premise that keeps most in check and on the honest side, but doesn't mean due diligence shouldn't be exercised.

[Sean_A]

A conflict of interest is not necessarily acting for an interest, the apprearance of conflict is a conflict of interest.  If one discloses the interests than often it isn't a problem unless one (or one's family, friends, business partners etc) stands to gain financially ifpeople act in certain ways...in this case a person should recuse themselves from the process unless it is impossible to carry out "business" due to the conflict.  I would suggest that the course ranking business rarely needs financially conflicted persons to carry on with business. I do think there is a certain amount of course ownership and jobs connected with candidate courses for best of lists.  These persons should in many cases not be allowed to participate in the process if there is to be any sort of transparency in the business....this is basic stuff. At the moment, I believe we are far from achieving transparency because I don't see lists of disclosable interests posted anywhere.   

Ciao

[Jim Franklin]

So Bill, you continue to harp on Digest now charging a fee, but never responded to Golfweek charging a fee for a substantially longer period of time. Good for you.

You also never got back to me about the mistakes that Digest continually makes. Someone here pointed out one and I spoke to the editors and their research showed whoever said it was a mistake was, in fact, mistaken. They do not want to have mistakes in their publication and would appreciate knowing if there are any. So please let me know.

I have played golf in 48 states and a few other countries. I may not be the world traveler you are, but, having played over 1100 courses, I have seen plenty. I prefer to walk when I play. I understand the need for some to ride and I do not totally discard a course when riding may be necessary. I liked The Alotian. It isn't my favorite course. It isn't in my top 50, but it is in my top 100. And I know quite a few players (non-panelists) that love the course.

In my travels, I play with a variety of people and their likes and dislikes may shock you. A guy Sunday, while playing Hidden Creek, was telling me how GREAT the Great Waters course at Reynolds Plantation was. I asked if he played Cuscowilla also and he said yes, but Great Waters was way better because the views of the lake were so good. Most people don't look at nor do they understand a lot of the architecture. They like eye candy. Fazio does that well. It isn't my cup of tea. I would much rather play a C&C, Doak, Hanse, Devries, Kidd course, but we are in the minority.

[Edward Glidewell]

They like eye candy. Fazio does that well. It isn't my cup of tea. I would much rather play a C&C, Doak, Hanse, Devries, Kidd course, but we are in the minority.

I think it's a disservice to Fazio to claim his courses are merely eye candy and not comparable to courses by C&C, Doak, etc.


Are ALL his courses comparable to theirs? Absolutely not, but he's also built significantly more courses than they have combined. He's designed a lot of very good golf courses, and several world class ones. The only C&C course I've played is Dormie Club (I've never played a Doak, and the only one that's potentially in the cards any time soon is Heathlands, which is obviously not the best representation of his work), and it's better than any Fazio I've played -- but of the Fazios I've played, I like most of them more than most other courses I've played. I've never played one that was bad. There's definitely eye candy involved, but they also tend to be very solid golf courses.


I'm not sure that's what you meant, though. So I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement.

[Jud_T]

My issue is that we're still debating improvements to an inherently flawed system.  Yes, it would be better if all the panelists knew what the hell they were talking about, had no conflicts of interest, weren't access whoring, bed notching etc.  You'd still end up with a very well-curated, obsessively plated bland fruit salad of pseudo-mathematical gobledygook.  What if I want very specific spicy ethnic food?  Don't get me wrong, I love lists.  I'd just rather see Sean Arble's 50 most fun GB&I courses, Tom Doak's Gourmet's Choice or Ian Andrew's Top 20 Courses of Architectural Interest any day of the week.  Any list that tries to tell me, with a straight face, that there's a 0.21 differential between Lawsonia and Congressional deserves either an Oscar or a rotten tomato.     

[Ira Fishman]

I am not a rater and do not spend a lot of time looking at the rankings, but in perusing the ones that have come out the last few years, it seems that courses favored on this site--both new ones beginning with Sand Hills and those by ODGs--have moved into and up in the rankings.  How does one explain that phenomenon but for the fact that the rating systems, even with their flaws, must be doing something right?  It certainly cannot be the case that GCA.com participants dominate the raters ranks. 


Ira

[Jud_T]

Ira, it has nothing to do with what is right and everything to do with the growing popularity of the style and aesthetic of minimalism, and the investment in, and success of places like Bandon and Streamsong.  It might mean that we should be sending the Keisers a holiday card, but it doesn't mean the methodology of the groupthink is vastly improved.  It just means the groupthink has drifted in a direction we approve of. 

[Ira Fishman]

Jud, that would explain the improved rankings for courses since Sand Hills, but not the improvement in rankings of courses designed by the ODGs.


Ira

[Jud_T]

Jud, that would explain the improved rankings for courses since Sand Hills, but not the improvement in rankings of courses designed by the ODGs.


Ira

Haven't many of the ODG courses that have moved up been restored by guys like C&C, Doak, Hanse et. al.?

[John Kavanaugh]

I am not a rater and do not spend a lot of time looking at the rankings, but in perusing the ones that have come out the last few years, it seems that courses favored on this site--both new ones beginning with Sand Hills and those by ODGs--have moved into and up in the rankings.  How does one explain that phenomenon but for the fact that the rating systems, even with their flaws, must be doing something right?  It certainly cannot be the case that GCA.com participants dominate the raters ranks. 


Ira

Ira,


We like what raters like because we are the raters. When raters began to pay there was no better place to sell the tickets.


It honestly makes me sad that Brad Klein did so much to improve the lives of so many on this site and no one stood up to Golfweek when he left. A Golfweek thread should never see the light of day again on this site. They and B4 don't deserve the exposure.

[Ira Fishman]

Jud, some but a lot of them have been done by other architects who are not "household" names even on GCA.com.


Ira

[Mike Hendren]

Barney, as you know one of Brad's final acts at Golfweek was to dismiss me from the rater panel.  I deserved it as I had not recently held up my end of the bargain. I assumed my support wouldn't carry much weight, but am convicted by your post to say that Brad was very good to me over a dozen years on the panel. I regret that I took more than I gave.


Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()