Ethan
Money List Winner
I think most readers would agree with the big picture conclusions, and although one can argue about whether Muirfield is a better course than RCD, most of us would agree that they are both at the top end of the rankings.
I have some experience in working on rating scales for measuring medical outcomes in clinical trials, and the problems are exactly the same as with golf courses. How many points do you give in a scale for arthritis (golf course) for pain (ambience) compared to mobility (design quality), and how do you deal with imbalances - say a course with terrible design but wonderful condition versus the other way round.
It is possible to deal with this by capping points for less important aspects. So a course couldn't earn more points for condition than it does for design, say. This would be the technical equivalent of saying you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Or by changing conditioning and ambience to a multiplier of the points awarded for design quality rather than an additional number of points. Great condition gets 125% points, terrible 75%, say. Both of these approaches peg the score better to course design. Also, conditioning varies with time, depending on recent weather, course treatment and traffic, so I think it is more possible to give an erroneous score for that. Course layout doesn't change so much.
I have some experience in working on rating scales for measuring medical outcomes in clinical trials, and the problems are exactly the same as with golf courses. How many points do you give in a scale for arthritis (golf course) for pain (ambience) compared to mobility (design quality), and how do you deal with imbalances - say a course with terrible design but wonderful condition versus the other way round.
It is possible to deal with this by capping points for less important aspects. So a course couldn't earn more points for condition than it does for design, say. This would be the technical equivalent of saying you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Or by changing conditioning and ambience to a multiplier of the points awarded for design quality rather than an additional number of points. Great condition gets 125% points, terrible 75%, say. Both of these approaches peg the score better to course design. Also, conditioning varies with time, depending on recent weather, course treatment and traffic, so I think it is more possible to give an erroneous score for that. Course layout doesn't change so much.
Last edited: