[Paul Richards]

Gerry:

No doubt what you said is mostly true.

However, hundreds of trees could be removed from tee to green, not lessening the golfing challenge, but making the course look, feel, and breathe much better.  The forests of oaks and other trees are choking each other!  

As I said, Medinah did a wonderful job with the tree removal around the tees and around the greens.  They just need to finish the job from tee to green!!

[Tom Walsh]

How does one account for the rise of St. Louis CC from 97 to 66. 31 spots?!
Tom from StL

[Gerry B]

Paul:

After reading your comment about tree removal you do make a valid point. They could do some thinning  / pruning of the fairway tees to put some air back in the course  -but where does one stop. As an example -I read that Oakmont's tree removal program was to restore the course to its original feel and one of the members told me that they accomplished just that.

I just feel that Medinah would lose some of its luster and intimidation factor if Paul Bunyan syndrome set in. Plus we wouldn't be able to utter the words"spit it out"  after hitting errant tee shots.(lol) Save the trees!

[John_Conley]

How does one account for the rise of St. Louis CC from 97 to 66. 31 spots?!
Tom from StL

Tom:

A few more good scores.  The 31 spots weren't from 50 to 20.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul R:

The answer to your question is quite simple ...

Ask people when was the last time they played the course?

No doubt you're correct -- if a facility has / is undergoing changes (either positively or even negatively) it's important to weigh that individual vote based on WHAT IS not what was.

I also agree that too many people may have played a particular facility from years gone by and will always hold that facility in high (or possiblky low) regard even when facts may say otherwise. No course stands still and ratings need to reflect that reality to be relevant and meaningful.

I don't doubt for a NY minute that votes should reflect where the course is and not based on assumptions / realities from the past. Ratings are about RIGHT NOW -- they are not about simply reaffirming the past when the record doesn't support it.

Paul -- I would go forward and say that too many courses
are simply living off their laurels from years gone by. Many people -- erroneously I might add from my travel experiences -- simply include courses -- like famous universities -- simply on the belief that they have always been there and should remain so. Augusta National and Pebble Beach are two of my favorite examples of such a situation. Ditto Oak Hill / East and Oakland Hills / South.

Ask yourself this as a big Beverly supporter -- why doesn't nearby Skokie receive any acclaim since the work has been done there for quite some time?

Clearly, votes should be weighed according to "real time" situations -- otherwise you will have nothing more than the same courses being feasted when the facts say differently. Ratings should reflect 2004 -- not the distant past. A tweak is certainly in order IMHO.

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

You make a lot of really good points here.

You asked about Skokie - I believe it suffers from the same rating problems that Beverly does.

FYI, Skokie is now a FANTASTIC golf course.  Ron Prichard did an amazing job.  IMHO it should be a top 100 Classic Course without a doubt.

However, the problem lies with the fact that Skokie has a ton of ratings - many raters have played this course over the years.  Sadly, most haven't played THIS golf course - they played the "old one" - prior to the changes, but they still turn in a score for the rankings.

I have a feeling that the scores from the "old" course were in the 5 to 6 range. So when you take 30 or 40 scores of 5 to 6, add in 10 that are 7 - the average doesn't improve all that much, or at least not enough to qualify for the top 100.

The bottom line is that Skokie is a 7 or 7.5 TODAY - unfortunately, it suffers from the fact that many people in the past held it in high regard, (but not high enough to qualify for the top 100), so it had many visits, but the older scores are making it virtually mathematically impossible for it to make the Top 100 now, even though it deserves the accolades.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul:

One way to eliminate the "past" votes is to scale such votes accordingly over the course of time -- no different than how golfers are rated in the world rankings.

If someone played the course within the last 1-2 years that vote would register more of an impact than say someone who played the course 4-5 years ago and clearly those who may have played the course from a time frame greater than that. Votes should have a shelf life -- no different than shelf life is posted on milk, bread or other food products you purchase in the supermarket. If you're vote is not fresh -- it's likely a stale one and of no meaning for the purpose in IDing the very best layouts in either Illinois or the USA.

All golf courses do change over time -- some go through considerable changes which can add to the qualities of the layout or in other instances diminish the nature of that particular layout. Staying current is the only sure fire way to see things as they are TODAY.

Truth be told -- I would much rather see votes be no older than 1-2 years tops. A place like Skokie is a true success story and how it fails to achieve any sort of traction for additional attention escape me given all the love fest bestowed to Shoreacres. In my mind -- Skokie is a first rate layout and kudos to Prichard for the work he achieved there.

P.S. Paul -- when will all the work at Beverly conclude?

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

Excellent comments, all.

BTW, Beverly has four fairway traps that need to be grassed and the cart paths are just roughed in, so they need to be completed (with crushed granite).

Weather permitting, the front nine should open on May 1st, and the back nine on about the 15th or so.  There will not be any guest play for the first few weeks or so - the Board decided to let the members have first crack at it since we had to give it up since the fall!

I walked it last weekend and it looks awesome.

Kudos to Ron Prichard on delivering what looks like an amazing job!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Along Matt's train of thought, I would also apply scaling to frequency of visits.  The premise here is that the more a rater sees a course, the more "accurate" his rating is.  One visit would have a 40% weighting, two visits a 75% wieghting, and three or more visits a 100% weighting.  Or something along those lines.

The problem is, this system takes away valuable votes from potentially an already undersampled ballot.

Comped rounds would count against: one visit would have a -40% weighting, two visits a -75% wieghting, and three or more visits a -100% weighting.  

JC

[brad_miller]

Jonathan, your scaling makes some sense provided the "rater" has a clue. True greatness gets better with each play and better understanding, some of our modern works look and feel the best during there first play. Just my opinion though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()