[Jonathan Cummings]

RJ - I really think that the GW panel is different for all the reasons you cite above.  The panel is smaller and well-screened actually interviewing potential panelists.  The system they use is straight 1 to 10 ranked averages for two categories - pre 1960 courses and post 1960 courses.  They are no editor modifications to the rankings.  The only screening is statistical - courses with too few ratings are excluded.  I also get the sense (I do not work for the magazine so I may be wrong in this) that the magazine doesn't try to sell a lot of advertising based on the annual lists.  It seems to me it is just pure published rankings, as pure as any subjective list could be.

JC

[Mick]

RJ Daley
"...wide golfing public that still don't do their homework, or are too intellectually lazy to go learn for themselves and thus wind up putting their stock and credence in this yearly ratings fest."

I mostly lurk around this site rather than participate in posts but this comment got my back up.  While I enjoy reading about GCA, calling golfers who don't 'intellectually lazy' is ludicrous.  This intellectually lazy bunch maybe out there at this moment spending their spare time reading about something like philosophy, or science, or history, or foreign affairs.  Obviously not as important as GCA, but perhaps worthy of some thought.

[George Pazin]

Mick -

I've read enough of Dick's posts to put this comment in its proper context: he is referring to these individuals as intellectually lazy specifically with respect to golf course architecture. As these raters are expected to contribute to the process, I would hope they would take it upon themselves to educate themselves in the proper fashion, be it through reading, participating in a site like this, discussions with other raters, etc. One can be intellectually lazy in one field while being a virtuoso in another.

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you for the rescue George

Of course that is what I meant Mick.  I believe there are a good number of people rating golf courses that do so because of who they know and connections and what have you, but haven't ever really studied GCA, its history, traditions, and couldn't tell you 3 of CB's 9 or Dr. Mac's 13 principles of GCA. They tend to be those that rate for popular consumption based on popular or widespread consumer values. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think that the ratings don't reflect the observations of the best and most knowlegeable.  

To reverse this a bit Mick at my own admission (and as George's observations have clarified)  I am intellectually lazy in many areas where I'm sure you are top of the lot Mick.  That is just the way it is in life.  We all have subjects that really blow our skirts up, and mentally take a pass in other areas.  But, I'm not rating the efficiency of rocket motors nor the design merits and structural integrity of skycrapers.  All I know a little bit is GCA and I reserve the right to have a take...though no rater am I.  JC makes an interesting point about the GW panel.  But, I think it still comes down to a beauty contest with widespread popular values that overlook some valid artistic and technical merits.

[Lou_Duran]

RJ-

I disagree with your characterization of rankings as a modern day farce.  They may not reflect your exact sequential preferences nor mine for that matter, but I think that they serve as excellent identifiers of the "best" golf courses out there.  BTW, I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge gained from the breadth and depth of experience possessed by most raters.  Personally, I put much more weight on opinions developed from field study than strictly from reading pre-1935 books or viewing contemporary photographs.  Unlike movie reviews which often tend to be one man's opinion, and may be highly biased, the GD and GW lists reflect a wide range of views.  That so many people find them useful and that we continually argue about them suggests that the lists  are anything but a farce.

[Mick]

RJ - Since you were not calling the golfing public at large intellectually lazy, I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

A query on Engh's bunkers.  I know they do not have the natural rugged look that many here favour, but (judging from the pics) they look penal and even better,  different.  How can that be bad?  I know he favours this style on most of his courses (again pics) but is that not true all architects?

[ChasLawler]

Regarding Engh's bunkers: just form looking at pictures - they appear to be a maintenance nightmare. That's a lot of fly-mowing.

[RJ_Daley]

What do the rankings identify and for whom?  I think it is mostly for those that don't know great GCA themselves due to their own lack of study of the subject.  I am sure some of the raters are well studied or at least have played around the world quite a bit and have seen alot of great stuff.  But, then the process gets somehow homogenized.  Why?  The lists become an identifier for those that collect trophy golf invites or golf vacations and become something to say you played someone's list "best new" at the next cocktail party.  I didn't want to go here, but you have dragged me kicking and screaming to rely on a rating to make the point.  I looked at the pictures of Black Rock on their not very good web site.  I got the distinct impression of Sand Pines!  You can't be serious that the pretty bunkering that is totally modern architecture and conventionally placed with modern conventional upscale mowing patterns and all the other photogenic magazine frames holds a candle to FH?  How did GD get this result?  I say it is due to modern day farcical values.  Did last years Tullymore ever get one more mention after the 10+ page thread of last years debate of "best new" upscale?  Do you really think BR has legs and will endure on top of anyone's list?

But, the argument (and I am playing right into the desired effect of it) sells magazines.  Controversy about a consensus of the ordinary is better than general agreement amongst a group of white men GCA nuts sitting around typing all day in their pajamas but make knowlege of the subject their passion.  Maybe this is a broadside that RW might have launched at the pomposity of us in the GCA peanut gallery knowing full well that this pick sent a gasp throughout cyberspace .  Maybe in some way RW did a Solomon like thing and split the baby, but in this case gave it to BR rather than to both the hot contenders DN and FH's.  That is assuming RW has some influence like an editor and can spin the results.  One way or another, the result don't seem too credible to me.  And, then again I don't actually care.  I'll listen to what other's I know are actually debating on merits of various golf courses to make my decisions before the latest list.  

Lou, you do the same I think.  I have a funny feeling that if TEPaul and Mike Cirba started gushing over a new course in details that are a real discussion of the design merits of a course, you would put more priority on that than whatever was identified by whichever rating has been designated their 'best new'.  Wouldn't you?

[A_Clay_Man]

What about the intellectually lazy green chair and committee people that ARE and do deserve the calling out? If they are off studying Plato, hand some Behr.

And if they are just your average Joe and they wanna spout off about what a great course is, Don't you think they should know it has little to do with the beer girl, green grass or how many mil was spent on the clubhouse.

Excusing the ignorance of the art of gca, is what got us here to begin with. I say hit'em over the head. They'd do the same to you in their own field, assuming they have the integrity to be honest and not PC.

[Mick]

Clayman - I agree, if a person are going to pipe up with regards to GCA, or have some official position in regards to GCA, then they should take the time to educate themself as to what the principles and history of GCA are.  My perfect excuse to lurk rather than post.
RJ - I would love to be able to comment on the strategic elements of Engh's designs but since I cannot, I simply note that his bunkering is distinctive and appears to address what many consider a problem with bunkering on modern courses, namely the lack of real penalty.  Although the sand itself is enough for my sorrowful excuse for a game.

[George Pazin]

Clayman - I agree, if a person are going to pipe up with regards to GCA, or have some official position in regards to GCA, then they should take the time to educate themself as to what the principles and history of GCA are.  My perfect excuse to lurk rather than post.

Please don't just lurk - put your ideas out there. As long as you've got thick skin, you'll have more fun joining in. We all try to shout each other down occasionally, but we're generally all still friends. Heck, I don't even mind when Barney sends me mean private messages, I'm still looking forward to meeting him someday.

At the very least, you can vent a little!

[Jeff_Brauer]

"That is assuming RW has some influence like an editor and can spin the results.  "

rj - Ron doesn't even tally the votes anymore.  They send him the winners and he writes the article.  Period.  It had become too big (as you say) for one man to handle, and its tallied by committee, further reducing any possibility of collusion.

For what its worth, Ron started the whole idea of architect critic and even the best new because he has exactly - if not greater - passion for the subject than ANYONE here!  How can I say that?  I knew him when....

Further, unlike many here, who claim certain people are "intellectually lazy" Ron has not only read every book anyone else has, he has studied more courses than anyone, more old plans than anyone (his home office is a museum rivaling the Tufts archives) and has a better memory than anyone.  (I reserve the right to ammend that statement as both he and I age! )

Further, unlike many here, Ron has actually played all the courses in top contention during the year.  He definitly is not lazy intellectually!  Hell, he was smart enough to know he didn't want to be a lawyer (although not smart enough to not buy a country golf course to further fuel his passion!)

How high falutin' can anyone be if they haven't actually played all the courses they bash or praise?  Further, the die hards in this group are as bad about accepting a Doak or Coore course as you accuse many GD panelists of being when reviewing Fazio or Rees!  You just don't see it, because it's your (sorry in advance for using this word - BIAS)!

Why shouldn't some other criteria (other than this groups favorite architects, or the mantra of "using the land') come into play in ratings?  

In the case of FH, I have heard that the course is very short, with a lot of short par 4's.  GD set up a series of criteria for judging - including resistance to scoring and variety - and has wavered very little from that over the years.  So, if FH (and I haven't seen the numbers) did score low in RTS or variety for its high number of short par 4's among good players, does that make them all uneducated heathens?  Or a loose group of golfers with their own point of view, that the sheer number of raters balances out to a consensus?  I still believe in the randomness of the system, even if I don't always agree with the results.  (How the hell did Colbert Hills get Bupkus, Ron?)

Slightly off topic, but what is so superior about other mags systems to some of you?  They are all basically knock offs of GD, with some unique twists.   As I have said before, the next logical step in the ratings game is the Blended System - BS for short - where FH or DN will average the three major rating systems plus those of some pajama cladded, internet junkies who come up with a variety of other systems, like the "fit the landform index" or the "Quirk Report Index" to come up with the number 1 for the year.  Of course, not everyone will still be happy, since this arrangement is copied from the BCS college bowl system, and we know that that produces a consensus winner every year.

In any event, the magazines all do the best they can, and it should be fun!  

Go about your ways - rant is over!

PS - Hate to speak for RW, but the words "pompous" and "Golf Club Atlas" have come up in "close proximity" in at least one of our discussions.  He's also said some other things, but I won't repeat them - he has been in trouble for using profanity on this internet site before, and I don't want to vicariously get him in trouble again!  (I'll leave the context up to your collective imaginations!)

[RJ_Daley]

Dog gone it Keffrey Brauer, are you taking lessons from Mucci?  You have mixed my words and your mis-chacterization of what I said makes it look like I am saying RW is intellectually lazy.  If you re-read my statements on this matter, I have always been respectful to RW and given him credit for being the catalyst and intellectual champion of the whole popular resurrection of the appreciation for GCA.  I am just saying that he has become the victim of "some" people's calling him a dope due to the widespread success and popularization, he started!  Many folks now have a serious take on GCA because Ron inspired them to learn.  The intellectually lazy ones are the CONSUMERS who seem to need ratings to define for them what is good, because many of those consumers don't spend the time to actually learn what is great, has been classically thought of as great, and endures as great architecture.  Many use the ratings to rate their own lives as sort of validation of what they have access to and collect their experiences at "best news" as a trophy case full of validation of themselves.  Many of that consumer group haven't got knowleged to rate best new from discussions of the merits of new courses, because they don't even know the language GCA is spoken in...

I respect and pay tribute to Ron Whitten for all his contributions, but reserve the right to be critical too.

As for pomposity in proximity to GCA it was I who brought those words up together.  I thought I would be understood as tongue in cheek trying to show that I realise our own shortcomings too...  But, I'll take this groups crack about GCA anyday over the stuff the ratings game in magazines has become, which is homogenized in my view.

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt & assume you merely skimmed the prior posts!

Did anyone call RW intellectually lazy? I know Dick was referring to the rating minions (I don't think he was even necessarily restricting this to GD raters, he probably meant rateres in general).

RW has a greater passion than anyone on here? Maybe, maybe not. I'd put him higher than me, sure, but I'm not sure I'd put his passion above some others. I'm not even sure I'd put his passion above yours!

RW started the idea of the architectural critic? There's a lot of dead guys that might feel otherwise....

As for your off topic rant on GD's system versus other systems, there are indeed plenty of us who don't favor ranking at all, or favor something akin to Rich's Michelin ranking system.

I, for one, am sorry that some have expressed such low opinions of RW - it was tough enough to get him to participate, I don't expect he'll be back anytime soon. But that's the price you pay for being the man in charge. I'm sure you'd find criticism of Ran within the industry, since this site tends to stir things up and it's his name up top, but a more balanced and level headed individual you'll likely never find.

Lastly, anyone that uses "pompous" & "Golf Club Atlas" in the same proximity is treading perilously close to being intellectually lazy! You can call individual posters pompous, but there is no collective identity of the site other than the fantasy that exists within the minds of those stung by the criticism! !!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slapper,

That's your opinion, based on your limited exposure to the membership, and we just differ on this issue.

I don't think members and prospective members would shell out the initiation and dues to join a club that wasn't viewed as top notch, by them, and the rest of the golfing world.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

I served for 17 years as a rater for GD and I have said in past threads and even in comments to key people at the magazine that the approach of adding more people to their panel doesn't ipso facto provide more coverage of the key courses or somehow provide more "insights" on what is really good out there from an architectural perspective.

I really believe if Ron simply did the "best new" himself you would likely get far better results than what is coming from the Zagat's guide to "better golf" you get from a good number of panelists (Huck being an exception ).

Keep in mind how GD blew it with the omission of The Kingsley Club -- to name just one clear example. The course didn't even finish in the top ten "Best Private" even though Ron himself admitted in his review of the course on GD.com that it was the best new course he had played in '02.

I believe there are many dedicated people who do provide a real insight on the best courses in the USA. The structure and methodology of the GD panel needs to be examined by the magazine -- the results forthcoming are not on the cutting edge of what such a major magazine should be providing IMHO.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt:
I would like to know more of the methodology. I understand that a course has to be rated by at least 10 raters. How many raters played each course? How many raters played more than 5 courses in any category? How many raters limited themselves to private clubs? Was there a disagreement among raters who played the same course? Given the geographical limitations for some raters,is there a geographical bias? These are questions I'd like to have some answers.GD should publish some of their methodology.
Steve

[GeoffreyC]

Fifty years from now in 2053 when books are written about Friar's Head showing the "old" and "new" photos of the course and placing it properly within the context of other great clubs that have carried on the great traditions of the game this small omission (Best New Private course of 2003) will not mean a thing.

All the best to the winner Black Rock and Dallas National both of which I hope to see some day.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Where is this list?

[Steve Lapper]

Slapper,

That's your opinion, based on your limited exposure to the membership, and we just differ on this issue.

I don't think members and prospective members would shell out the initiation and dues to join a club that wasn't viewed as top notch, by them, and the rest of the golfing world.
But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Pat,

   Just as I thought you'd found your senses and adopted a moderate line, you go off and make another wacko statement. How many FH members do you think I know? 1,2,5,10,15,20???  How many do you really know??? I'll not waste the treehouse's time with this but instead bet you a pint at the Baltusrol meeting that it is at least 2x your #. I spoke with 8 today and not a one cared a hoot about the rankings....in fact many joked that now Kenny would have to pay them to belong? Or now we could turn it back into a potato field....none gave a shit...you are wrong....exactly

[Matt_Ward]

acer2x / Steve:

Time prevents me from going into length about the many pertinent questions you raised.

Suffice to say for now -- too many panelists for GD are really regional / local in nature but they are given the same weight as those who are truly "national." I have always believed that a split panel would be of better service simply because someone at the national level has the wherewithal to seriously provide some sort of perspective and cross comparison. If you have someone who simply plays in their "neck of the woods" how are they supposed to see the forest?

GD believes that having "more" panelists will allow for a greater range of surveys and break down any supposed favoritism. I don't see that -- just witness the major fumble on The Kingsley Club as just one clear example.

There is no perfect answer to the ratings system because clearly there is subjectivity. However, one should not "dumb down" any ratings process with a Zagat's guide process. At that point you don't get such serious responses -- much of it dissolves with "I feel" commentary rather than much more serious analysis that can only come with detailed cross comparisons.

Let me also mention that many people may seriously believe that a candidate course is the best in their "neck of the woods" but when you take that candidate and hold it up against the nation it will likely encounter much stronger competition. Parochial concerns matter to some people and their voting habits may reflect this.

You also have the situation where certain panelists are known by some of the major architects / course developers. Some of the panelists routinely rate these courses (clearly getting access to private courses helps) and you have to wonder if the numbers aren't affected -- either too high or too low.

Look, I just believe that you can accomplish the same thing with a whole lot less people. Believe me -- there are panelists for GD, Golf Magazine and GolfWeek -- the three major pubs --who have people that travel extensivey and really know what they are looking at -- some of them obviously post their comments here on GCA.

Having more and more people doesn't add to the "quality" info you get back IMHO. I know I've met many fascinating people through my years at rating courses and I have my own offline network that I routinely use across the nation in setting up my travel plans for a given year. I depend upon these people and I can truthfully say they far surpass what I have seen from some of the results over the years.

I wish GD well -- but it's time to look at the process and see if a better way can be developed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slapper,

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it flies in the face of human nature.

So nobody cares about what others thinks of their golf course ?  Yep, that's been my limited experience in the years that I've been involved with golf.  Those members at NGLA, GCGC, Shinnecock, Merion, Pine Valley, Cyrpress Point and Seminole, they don't care about the perception of their golf course either, so the Friar's Head members are in good company.

That's why Ron Whitten and Brad Klein, two non-members are invited to play there.  

And remind me again, who did they play with ?

Gee, let me see if I can connect the dots on that one.

C'mon, take a step back and re-read what you've typed.

It's a nice party line, but you don't reallly believe it, do you ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
What would it take to convince you otherwise? Why is this FACT so hard to believe?

[Clinton]

I spoke with 8 today and not a one cared a hoot about the rankings....in fact many joked that now Kenny would have to pay them to belong? Or now we could turn it back into a potato field....none gave a shit...you are wrong....exactly

I spoke with 8 today and not a one cared a hoot about the rankings....in fact many joked that now Kenny would have to pay them to belong? Or now we could turn it back into a potato field....none gave a shit...you are wrong....exactly

Slapper,

And I did not have sexual relations with that woman either!!

Bill Clinton

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

   Lets assume your psych lesson: "that everyone cares what others think of them and their associations."

   Is it impossible to accept that these FH members don't care about a magazine and its raters?

  Is it possible that they have greater faith in other perceptions(i.e. the immediate feedback from their guests or visitors) ?

   Do you really think the members at Pine Valley, NGLA, Shinnecock, Cypress or Merion care about a magazine and its annointed "special people?" Do you think they care enough to encourage the magazine's people to visit and play the course?
As many here have said, those places don't SEEK, NOR ENCOURAGE visits from ANY RATERS! That is a FACT!

   That is what I am trying to say. Friars Head doesn't SEEK, NOR ENCOURAGE a magazine or its raters to come visit. That is a FACT!  In case you can't clearly see it, that is an affirmative policy of not seeking a spotlight or attention from those looking to make comparisons.

     Whitten (and I believe Brad Klein, but don't 100% know for sure) were not sought to come out and "rate" or "assess" the course. Ron Whitten sought out Bill Coore and asked to see the property with him. Kenny (and Bill) are proud papas who plays with 100's of guests who want to see his creation.

    Now, you can take a step back and seperate your psychoanalysis from the reality that these guys in Baiting Hollow just didn't care and didn't seek ANY publicity for their efforts.

     There are those that SEEK attention and those that SHY away from it. Both, not just one, are human nature. Is that so tough for you to understand?

     It is a far better human quality to have accolades find you, rather than go seeking them. I am confident that is what occured here.

    I know the folks at DN proactively sought such attention and I am happy they've received it. They have openly suggested themselves as a future host to USGA and PGA events. This a quoted FACT. I don't believe FH has.

Is that clear enough for your stubborn refusal to see the difference?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()