Scott,
I am going to politely decline a posting of my Top 50. If time permits, I would not be averse to piecing together a list of courses I think are under-rated.
However, I do not pretend that my personal tastes (or lack of) have any validity whatsoever. It just the opinion of one person on the particular courses I seem to hold in higher esteem than the majority of panelists.
That stated, The Pit would definitely make it into my Top 50. Years ago, when I was down in Pinehurst, The Pit was our "afternoon round" for five straight days - even with the incredible selection of courses in the area. We simply could not stay away.
I look upon that golf course as far more than an amusement or curiosity. It occupies its own category in my mind, perhaps just as Tobacco Road does for others.
It is difficult to square in my mind the disparity between the body of work Dan Maples has produced and The Pit. How that came squirting out of his pen is a mystery . . . . maybe it was always in there, struggling to get out.
Shivas et al:
Something occurred to me a little while ago. GW employs a worksheet by which a panelist can theoretically place a number (based on an impression) in a given category and then make a calculation that produces an overall evaluation.
I am not sure how often panelists actually go thorough the exercise, but given that the process was conjured up by an academic, it makes sense. In truth, I find little disagreement in GW or GD’s methodology.
But it somehow reminds me of the opening scene in Dead Poets Society, where Robin Williams is reading to the class a theory as to how a poem’s individual words can be dissected and therefore adjudged.
His comment at the conclusion of the reading was: “Excrement.”
Not that I agree. I certainly do not, but it represents an opinion worth discussing. I’ll bet the vast majority of GW panelists simply come up with a visceral overall number, and put it in the box.
Nutcakes like me tend to agonize over things, maybe I need to get a life.
As for panelists in general, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of raters - which particular panel is irrelevant - do not study the subject with passion.
Of course, maybe too much knowledge brings the law of diminishing returns into play. There are a few of us, and WE know who we are, that might be better off not boiling our brain about the details instead of trying to relax and enjoy the ride. I’m still thinking about it.
Which brings me to today’s revelation in the personal growth department:
Why so much reliance on the numbers? They are a bit too confining. I know there is only room on a scorecard for a number, but as i stated on a previous post, sometimes numbers lie and there is more to the story.
Gyro is marching under a different flag these days, which puts me into the interesting position of having seen the battlefield from both sides of the line.
Both have their merits and both have their drawbacks. But there is one aspect of my current citizenship I find appealing: The ability to articulate my thoughts as an addendum to rating scores.
I’ve been told that most raters only write a line or two, but if that is all you have to say after 4 hours on a golf course, you are either being lazy of not paying sufficient attention.
I regularly write 200 words or more because like Hunter Thompson says: “Writing about something forces me to confront my true impressions and feelings on the subject.”
I wonder whether giving panelists an essay question about each course and giving it equal weight with the numbers makes sense.
Of course, this would complicate the issue, but ratings are really based upon opinion and impression because it is impossible to quantify feelings with any more than general accuracy.
You would need somebody at the top to wade through all the prose, but it might serve the process better to ask that panelists justify their numbers with words.
Half baked, but worth a thought. . . .