Comments on: The great course ratings debate: Tom Vanderlip wades in http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/ Robert Thompson\'s comments, criticism and opinion on the world of golf. Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:43:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: New Book on Stanley Thompson - Robert Thompson - Going for the Green - OntGolf.ca http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-6340 New Book on Stanley Thompson - Robert Thompson - Going for the Green - OntGolf.ca Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:50:52 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-6340 [...] Vanderlip is back on Score. Last year, Vanderlip's take on golf course rating was a hot topic on G4G. Hot and hotly [...] [...] Vanderlip is back on Score. Last year, Vanderlip’s take on golf course rating was a hot topic on G4G. Hot and hotly [...]

]]> By: kerry http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3162 kerry Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:08:19 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3162 TV, I am not confused, just unconvinced. I am or have been, a member, a public player, a league player or a beginner. I have been fortunate enough to play many great golf tracks, private and public in many countries. Not all, but more than average. Ask Robert. What courses am I missing an invite to? Go to any golf forum like Torontogolfnuts.com and find solid course reviews. They overvalue conditioning, difficulty and judge courses based on many things other than the course itself. It is a forum of average golfers! Have some average Joe's outside the industry played most of the best tracks in Ontario? Perhaps a few but mostly the public clubs. I already stated Bob Weeks would love to hear from them if they have played enough courses to determine if Coral Creek is better than Osprey Valley or Westmount. Score golf already has a Best Value in the Golfers Choice Rankings. Atlantic: Highlands Links Quebec: Carling Lake Ontario: Lakeview GC West: Kananaskis Country GC B.C.: Golden GC I don't have any issue with that ranking on a value basis. I think Kananaskis is a good value but not a particularly strong golf course from a design point of view. But for what an Albertan pays for it, I understand it place. It's no Jasper Park or Banff Springs from a course perpsective. Lakeview is a fine value for the GTA. A few truly interesting holes and some classic par 3's. Perhaps we value different things in a course review and cannot appreciate the same perspective. We agree to disagree. Good luck! TV,
I am not confused, just unconvinced.
I am or have been, a member, a public player, a league player or a beginner. I have been fortunate enough to play many great golf tracks, private and public in many countries. Not all, but more than average. Ask Robert. What courses am I missing an invite to?
Go to any golf forum like Torontogolfnuts.com and find solid course reviews. They overvalue conditioning, difficulty and judge courses based on many things other than the course itself. It is a forum of average golfers!
Have some average Joe’s outside the industry played most of the best tracks in Ontario? Perhaps a few but mostly the public clubs. I already stated Bob Weeks would love to hear from them if they have played enough courses to determine if Coral Creek is better than Osprey Valley or Westmount.
Score golf already has a Best Value in the Golfers Choice Rankings.
Atlantic: Highlands Links
Quebec: Carling Lake
Ontario: Lakeview GC
West: Kananaskis Country GC
B.C.: Golden GC
I don’t have any issue with that ranking on a value basis. I think Kananaskis is a good value but not a particularly strong golf course from a design point of view. But for what an Albertan pays for it, I understand it place. It’s no Jasper Park or Banff Springs from a course perpsective.
Lakeview is a fine value for the GTA. A few truly interesting holes and some classic par 3’s.
Perhaps we value different things in a course review and cannot appreciate the same perspective.
We agree to disagree.
Good luck!

]]> By: Garry McKay http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3161 Garry McKay Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:19:59 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3161 First, as a ranker for both Score and Ontario Golf let me say that I think it's great that Tom (whom I consider a friend) has weighed in on the debate about rankings. No ranking system is perfect but I have to say that I think that both Score and Ontario Golf do a better job of it than most of the American golf publications. I think it's downright silly, for example, that golf digest insists its rankers have single digit handicaps. I'm not sure what percent of the golfing public have single digit handicaps but I'd bet it's very small. That might explain why a couple of courses that have won Best New Course in Canada in Golf Digest can't even crack Ontario Golf's Top 50 in the province. I have to say that the point that I really disagree with Tom on is that rankers should report what score they shot. When I'm playing a course for rankings purposes I virtually never keep score. I don't want to spend all my efforts concentrating on my game. I want to concentrate on the course and I want to see all of it. I don't want to keep out of every bunker on the course. I don't need to hit out of every one of them but I sure want to hit out of a few. I want to see what the vistas are like (if there are any) so I wander around a bit. That's not to say that I don't try and play the course as best as I can, but I'm not so preoccupied with that I don't go through the checklist I have for every new course I play. I'm a pretty average player - about a 15 - and when I rank a course I try to look at from all handicap perspectives. And I know, personally, how I play doesn't affect if I like a course. When I played Smugglers Glen in Gananoque this year, which was up for best new course, I was hitting it sideways but I really like it. I also know I like Tom's course (Pen Lakes) a lot yet its chewed me up on more than one occassion. I think Tom's ponts -while I don't agree with some of them - make for good debate garry First, as a ranker for both Score and Ontario Golf let me say that I think it’s great that Tom (whom I consider a friend) has weighed in on the debate about rankings.
No ranking system is perfect but I have to say that I think that both Score and Ontario Golf do a better job of it than most of the American golf publications.
I think it’s downright silly, for example, that golf digest insists its rankers have single digit handicaps.
I’m not sure what percent of the golfing public have single digit handicaps but I’d bet it’s very small.
That might explain why a couple of courses that have won Best New Course in Canada in Golf Digest can’t even crack Ontario Golf’s Top 50 in the province.

I have to say that the point that I really disagree with Tom on is that rankers should report what score they shot.
When I’m playing a course for rankings purposes I virtually never keep score.
I don’t want to spend all my efforts concentrating on my game. I want to concentrate on the course and I want to see all of it.
I don’t want to keep out of every bunker on the course. I don’t need to hit out of every one of them but I sure want to hit out of a few.
I want to see what the vistas are like (if there are any) so I wander around a bit.
That’s not to say that I don’t try and play the course as best as I can, but I’m not so preoccupied with that I don’t go through the checklist I have for every new course I play.
I’m a pretty average player – about a 15 – and when I rank a course I try to look at from all handicap perspectives.
And I know, personally, how I play doesn’t affect if I like a course.
When I played Smugglers Glen in Gananoque this year, which was up for best new course, I was hitting it sideways but I really like it.

I also know I like Tom’s course (Pen Lakes) a lot yet its chewed me up on more than one occassion.

I think Tom’s ponts -while I don’t agree with some of them – make for good debate

garry

]]> By: B http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3160 B Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:25:49 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3160 TV, Golf Digest has a ranking which is solely the public, no panelists, T&L Golf only has those ranking. Surely you are aware of these, as you have the 4 1/2 star GD rating on your website. So do you simply wish there were a Canadian-only version, or that this be the only form of rating? There are lots of websites where users can submit their reviews of golf courses, restaurants, movies, etc. Yet there are still movie reviewers, food critics who make a living writing on the subject. You could choose to go to a site where everyday people rank whatever and I can choose to read people who do it for a living. The same is true in golf courses. The criteria you spoke about above (especially value) are things that when evaluating the best courses in the country, world, etc. I could care less about. The same ranking that gave your course Pen Lakes 4 1/2 stars, gave Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, Kiawah Ocean, Whistling Straits and Pinehurst 5 stars, which I have no problem with. However, such luminaries as Big Creek Golf & Country Club, Little Mountain Country Club, Madden's on Gull Lake, TPC of Myrtle Beach, and Woodland Hills Golf Course were also among the 5 star winners. There is no way that TPC Myrtle Beach is in the same league as the others mentioned, but as you said no rankings are perfect. Rankings submitted by the "average golfer" generally weigh heavily towards whether the service was good, whether they played well with their friends, whether the course was in good condition, whether they were in a good mood, etc. That is fine. However, if those are not issues of greater concern to me, why can Score or whoever has a different approach not be able to fill the void I am looking for in a ranking? Lastly, as a CPGA member, I am sure you rarely pay full price for your golf. Do you find that not paying full price (or anything at all) clouds your opinion of the golf courses you play? If someone gets comped every time they play golf, do you think this puts their assessment skills at a disadvantage? Do you think movie critics who get sent movies on DVDs to their house to review cannot be critical as the "average movie-goer" can buys a ticket? I guess I feel they can and that is why I still look at ranking of the best courses every time they come out. TV,
Golf Digest has a ranking which is solely the public, no panelists, T&L Golf only has those ranking. Surely you are aware of these, as you have the 4 1/2 star GD rating on your website. So do you simply wish there were a Canadian-only version, or that this be the only form of rating?

There are lots of websites where users can submit their reviews of golf courses, restaurants, movies, etc. Yet there are still movie reviewers, food critics who make a living writing on the subject. You could choose to go to a site where everyday people rank whatever and I can choose to read people who do it for a living.

The same is true in golf courses. The criteria you spoke about above (especially value) are things that when evaluating the best courses in the country, world, etc. I could care less about. The same ranking that gave your course Pen Lakes 4 1/2 stars, gave Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, Kiawah Ocean, Whistling Straits and Pinehurst 5 stars, which I have no problem with. However, such luminaries as Big Creek Golf & Country Club, Little Mountain Country Club, Madden’s on Gull Lake, TPC of Myrtle Beach, and Woodland Hills Golf Course were also among the 5 star winners. There is no way that TPC Myrtle Beach is in the same league as the others mentioned, but as you said no rankings are perfect. Rankings submitted by the “average golfer” generally weigh heavily towards whether the service was good, whether they played well with their friends, whether the course was in good condition, whether they were in a good mood, etc. That is fine.

However, if those are not issues of greater concern to me, why can Score or whoever has a different approach not be able to fill the void I am looking for in a ranking?

Lastly, as a CPGA member, I am sure you rarely pay full price for your golf. Do you find that not paying full price (or anything at all) clouds your opinion of the golf courses you play? If someone gets comped every time they play golf, do you think this puts their assessment skills at a disadvantage? Do you think movie critics who get sent movies on DVDs to their house to review cannot be critical as the “average movie-goer” can buys a ticket? I guess I feel they can and that is why I still look at ranking of the best courses every time they come out.

]]> By: tom vanderlip http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3159 tom vanderlip Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:04:30 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3159 Kerry, What the hell are we arguing about? You are confusing the points. Let me put them in point form, so maybe it is easier for you to follow along. -The average golfer means the average golfer. you seem to associate this person as some trunk slammer from the local muni. This is not the case. The average guy is a member at a private club, a regular green fee player, a league player, a beginner etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with income. I am only referring to everyone other than writers, pros, sales reps, golf association leaders, etc. -Trust me...if you think that there are people out there who haven't have played a great number of these courses you are kidding yourself, because I hear everyday where people have played and what they say and believe me they know good or great or average golf. Even if a course does only 30,000 rounds a year I assure you not all of them are panelists. so somebody is playing all these great courses. -I never wanted a guy to win a contest. I just suggested a change to the current format, and judging by the e-mails I have been receiving they would welcome the opportunity. You should have a little more faith in the golfing public, of which you are a part, maybe you would get invited to play some of these courses. TV Kerry,

What the hell are we arguing about? You are confusing the points. Let me put them in point form, so maybe it is easier for you to follow along.
-The average golfer means the average golfer. you seem to associate this person as some trunk slammer from the local muni. This is not the case. The average guy is a member at a private club, a regular green fee player, a league player, a beginner etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with income. I am only referring to everyone other than writers, pros, sales reps, golf association leaders, etc.

-Trust me…if you think that there are people out there who haven’t have played a great number of these courses you are kidding yourself, because I hear everyday where people have played and what they say and believe me they know good or great or average golf. Even if a course does only 30,000 rounds a year I assure you not all of them are panelists. so somebody is playing all these great courses.

-I never wanted a guy to win a contest. I just suggested a change to the current format, and judging by the e-mails I have been receiving they would welcome the opportunity.

You should have a little more faith in the golfing public, of which you are a part, maybe you would get invited to play some of these courses.

TV

]]> By: Kris http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3158 Kris Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:23:27 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3158 Hey Rob. Regarding point #2 and your response. As a long time reader of your work, I can't forget the articles you wrote for the NP where you would join a business exec on his home course and detail how handily you beat him. We readers were often given a hole by hole account of the day’s events along with the final tally. I'm disappointed you no longer feel it's important to include such detail. It gave us guys that really know your game something to snicker about. (Did he really say he shot 70 something?). Keep up the good work. Hey Rob. Regarding point #2 and your response.

As a long time reader of your work, I can’t forget the articles you wrote for the NP where you would join a business exec on his home course and detail how handily you beat him. We readers were often given a hole by hole account of the day’s events along with the final tally. I’m disappointed you no longer feel it’s important to include such detail. It gave us guys that really know your game something to snicker about. (Did he really say he shot 70 something?). Keep up the good work.

]]> By: kerry http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3156 kerry Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:37:22 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3156 TV, We disagree on the the public's savy. I say they are less informed. Their is more than one Toronto area golf forum where the average joes post course reviews and they are pretty universal in their praise of "challenge" and "fairness". What does that mean? What is a "nice" course? Your point seems to demonstrate that value is a moving target. For each individual value is different. For those with higher disposible income they see Copper Creek as good value. For the average joe, it's often overpriced. So "value" is often related to income of the individual. It moves. That is what I am talking about. I understand that golf industry survives on the average joe and they vote every day with their dollar, but it does not mean they understand what makes a golf course great. Score Magazine already does what you want, what is the problem? As for getting an average Joe onto the panel, if one is available who has seen most of the courses I am sure Bob Weeks is willing to entertain the idea. But if your whole rant boils down to one guy winning a contest to get on the Score Panel, their's not much meat on that bone. TV,
We disagree on the the public’s savy. I say they are less informed. Their is more than one Toronto area golf forum where the average joes post course reviews and they are pretty universal in their praise of “challenge” and “fairness”. What does that mean? What is a “nice” course?
Your point seems to demonstrate that value is a moving target. For each individual value is different. For those with higher disposible income they see Copper Creek as good value. For the average joe, it’s often overpriced. So “value” is often related to income of the individual. It moves. That is what I am talking about.
I understand that golf industry survives on the average joe and they vote every day with their dollar, but it does not mean they understand what makes a golf course great.
Score Magazine already does what you want, what is the problem? As for getting an average Joe onto the panel, if one is available who has seen most of the courses I am sure Bob Weeks is willing to entertain the idea.
But if your whole rant boils down to one guy winning a contest to get on the Score Panel, their’s not much meat on that bone.

]]> By: Boyd http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3150 Boyd Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:39:31 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3150 Relax, TV is not out to get anyone. He is a huge supporter of golf and by no means was his intent of offend anyone. The fact that if they read it weekly, they would see the humour behind it all. Relax, TV is not out to get anyone. He is a huge supporter of golf and by no means was his intent of offend anyone. The fact that if they read it weekly, they would see the humour behind it all.

]]> By: tom vanderlip http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3149 tom vanderlip Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:11:20 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3149 Kerry, You are going to tell the paying public that they don''t have an informed opinion? Let me tell you they are much more savy and informed than you think. Give them some credit. I talk to these people everyday and I think they have a pretty good idea of what a nice golf course is. Would it kill one of these publications or websites or newspapers to have a contest (by region) to win a chance to be a course rater? How many zillion people do you think would love this opportunity? I just suggested that we give a voice to the people that pay the way for the golf industry. The average member, green feer or league players. Although you don't seem to recongnize they are the most important element in grand scheme of things. Value is not a moving target....what on earth are you talking about? If you buy something and you think it is worth what you paid for it is good value. Simple as that. It could be a 150 dollar green fee or 45 dollar green fee and if you feel that it was worth the price....be happy! TV Kerry,

You are going to tell the paying public that they don”t have an informed opinion? Let me tell you they are much more savy and informed than you think. Give them some credit. I talk to these people everyday and I think they have a pretty good idea of what a nice golf course is. Would it kill one of these publications or websites or newspapers to have a contest (by region) to win a chance to be a course rater? How many zillion people do you think would love this opportunity? I just suggested that we give a voice to the people that pay the way for the golf industry. The average member, green feer or league players. Although you don’t seem to recongnize they are the most important element in grand scheme of things. Value is not a moving target….what on earth are you talking about? If you buy something and you think it is worth what you paid for it is good value. Simple as that. It could be a 150 dollar green fee or 45 dollar green fee and if you feel that it was worth the price….be happy!

TV

]]> By: kerry http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3148 kerry Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:33:14 +0000 http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2006/10/27/the-great-course-ratings-debate-tom-vanderlip-wades-in/#comment-3148 TV, That is a simply a popularity contest. The Score Rankings are not meant to be a popularity contest but the results of several informed opinions. Not perfect mind you but at least the opinion of someone who has seen many courses. That often limits the panel to people who work in the golf industry. But which "Common Joe" has seen enough great courses to rank them properly. How does one rank courses in Ontario if you have not at least seen the majority of good tracks in the province? Having interacted regularly with the opinion of the Average Joe golfer on golf courses, design and value, I have discovered that they don't have an informed opinion. Difficulty is usually overated, esthetics are overappreciated and strategic elements are underappreciated or misunderstood. Value is a moving target depending on disposible income. Score publishes it's Golfers Choice Awards. A popularity contest amoung Score golf readers. Sounds like what your suggesting is already being done. See link http://www.scoregolf.com/rankings/gca/2005/winners.cfm So what's the problem? TV,
That is a simply a popularity contest. The Score Rankings are not meant to be a popularity contest but the results of several informed opinions. Not perfect mind you but at least the opinion of someone who has seen many courses. That often limits the panel to people who work in the golf industry. But which “Common Joe” has seen enough great courses to rank them properly. How does one rank courses in Ontario if you have not at least seen the majority of good tracks in the province?
Having interacted regularly with the opinion of the Average Joe golfer on golf courses, design and value, I have discovered that they don’t have an informed opinion. Difficulty is usually overated, esthetics are overappreciated and strategic elements are underappreciated or misunderstood.
Value is a moving target depending on disposible income.
Score publishes it’s Golfers Choice Awards. A popularity contest amoung Score golf readers. Sounds like what your suggesting is already being done.
See link
http://www.scoregolf.com/rankings/gca/2005/winners.cfm
So what’s the problem?

]]>