Are ratings over-rated?

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby said:

"But please do explain something else to me:  why is ARCHITECTURE all that matters, in any discussion of a golf course or certain golf courses?  Are we studying design or playing golf?

To me architecture matters exclusively in the former, but so many other things go into the latter... that I've never understood why any discussion about a golf course should be limited to architecture alone.  For people who build golf courses, sure - that's how they can judge themselves.  But for people who play the game?

I don't get it.  Never have.  Educate me, oh great one."

OK, TomH, I will. I think you've got it! That's what those raters who rank courses ARE DOING--just playing golf! They sure don't seem to be studying architecture. That IS the problem.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Out of curiosity, is there a direct correlation between high shot values and a course with strong smelling coffee? Does a course that has multiple options off the tees mean its juice has lots of pulp?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How much do the rankings have to do with golf architecture?

I think that is THE critical question.

I'd say very little, directly.

I view the rankings as being tangentially related to archtecture only to the extent that the rater is really analyzing some of the effects created by the architecture, ie, shot value, etc., etc., rather then the architecture itself.

If you look at each magazines criteria I don't believe that you would conclude that the purpose of the rating exercise was to evaluate the architecture of the particular golf course being played that day.

Somewhere, somehow, someone made a leap from the mathmatically established ranking for that golf course, to that number's relevance to the underlying architecture of that golf course, but, if you analyze the rankings they have very little to do with a direct examination of a golf course's architecture.

But, that's just my opinion, we'll see if TEPaul agrees.

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby said:

"But please do explain something else to me:  why is ARCHITECTURE all that matters, in any discussion of a golf course or certain golf courses?  Are we studying design or playing golf?

To me architecture matters exclusively in the former, but so many other things go into the latter... that I've never understood why any discussion about a golf course should be limited to architecture alone.  For people who build golf courses, sure - that's how they can judge themselves.  But for people who play the game?

I don't get it.  Never have.  Educate me, oh great one."

OK, TomH, I will. I think you've got it! That's what those raters who rank courses ARE DOING--just playing golf! They sure don't seem to be studying architecture. That IS the problem.

You can surely do better than that, TEP.  This is a serious question.  I know, quite abnormal for me.  But this time I am sincere, and serious.

Why should architecture in a vacuum (as I describe it in my question to you) matter to anyone but people in the business or students of it?  Why should it matter, exclusively, to golfers?

See, I'd venture to say that for these ratings to be useful TO GOLFERS, the raters WOULD be better off playing more golf and studying less architecture....

My point is this:  if you asked 100 regular golfers what they liked about a course, architectural features would me mentioned not at all by 80 of them, and for those 20 who do mention it, it would come after other factors such as setting, conditioning, ambience....

So tell me again why architecture is the ONLY thing that matters?

It is the only thing that matters if we are trying to assess the skill of the golf course architect.

But if we are to assess the worth of a course to a golfer... well, it is just one of the things that matters.



TH

[T_MacWood]

TH
I'd often wondered what the rankings provided...it appears you see it as identifying the best experiences for the average Joe....you fit nicely into that unfortunate GD stereotype.

IMO the setting is integral to architecture, how do you separate the site from the golf course (but a good site and a good course are two different things). The ambiance should be the result of a relationship of the golf course to the site....but for too many it is the clubhouse accommodations. Condition is of little importance unless it significantly detracts from the play of the design.

You are doing the average golfer a disservice if you overemphasize the New Mexico landscape. You are doing the average golfer a disservice if your evaluation is effected by how poorly you were treated at Chicago GC. You are doing the average golfer a disservice if you rate perfectly conditioned soulless course even with a worn-out gem.You are doing the average golfer a disservice by thinking the average golfer can not appreciate golf architecture.

If you take you rating position seriously....the job of identifying the best courses...how do you not become a student of golf architecture? I would think the exercise of identifying the best courses would involve figuring out why some courses are better than other courses, not only exploring what you believe is imporatnt, but what did the great architects and students of architecture find was important. How can you call yourself an expert of the best golf designs without being a student of golf design?

IMO too many raters would prefer not to study the architectural side. They know what they like and they know what their buddies like, that is good enough. They are focused on themselves and their game, if the course doesn't fit their game's strengths and weaknesses, there could be a problem.

For my money Bernard Darwin was one of the best students of golf architecture. He wrote a weekly column for 50+ years read by many an average golfer. He wrote thoughtfully and it had to have elevated everyone. In contrast the current ratings that seem to stimulate course collecting and expensive trends, and not better golf courses. He acknowledged beautiful settings while at the same time pointing design weaknesses. He appreciated ambiance, but the ambiance was a product of the architecture. He evidently believed golf architecture should be important to the average golfer.

Unfortunately there are no Darwin's around today, so very few are exposed to an architectural bent. GCA is a perfect illustration, a site devoted to golf architecture but many would prefer to kabits about anything other the architecture.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

You know reading your post #29 you do have a very good point there---and I think I'd agree with you (I know that's rare sometime on here for someone to change his mind about something he fundamentally believes in as I do about the uselessness of magazine rankings today).

But again, you do have a real good point. Raters and rankers probably needn't think that much about the actual golf architecture of a course, merely the experience or whatever that the general golfer might have. And that clearly does have value and worth maybe even tremendously so.

However, (and you obviously had to know there was going to be a "However"), this to me is a bit like the cart leading the horse--more than a bit actually. It's a bit like the age old classic political question--"Does the classic politician LEAD or merely FOLLOW his constituency?"

I believe that a ranking mechanism such as a golf magazine or any serious ranking mechanism of golf couses (that it's hard to deny are based on golf architecture) has some responsiblity to educate their constituency and lead them to greater understanding of the subject they're airing.

Maybe you don't believe that but I do.

Maybe these magazines who rank actually think they're talking about architecture and educating golfers but I don't think they are. What's the comparison or difference between #1 and #10 they way they do it by the numbers other than eight integers?

But maybe you have a real point there that this ranking stuff  doesn't need to be about golf architecture. I just think that's too bad.

Sorry that's the best I can do on a very serious and important subject!  

[THuckaby2]

Tom M.

You love to make these things all about me - kudos.  What I ever did to earn your wrath remains a mystery, but what the hell, you are a unique guy.  Suffice to say that I surely didn't intend these questions to be about me and my way of handling the rating process.  Just FYI there, what I do is answer the questions as asked by the magazine; I give numerical values to the criteria they require.  It's really not that difficult.  And nothing goes into it beyond that.  Not treatment, not my game, not anything outside of the exact meaning of each criterion we are to assess.

BTW, I bet I have read more Darwin than damn near everyone here except the real students... so give me a break there.

This isn't about ME.  Though you give me zero credit, I believe I can handle the rating process, and do.  

No, this is about what I feel is a very valid question:  just how important is architecture to the average player.  Now Tom P. gives a damn good answer, and that makes sense to me - thanks, Tom P.  Perhaps it is the responsibility of the magazines, and by extension the raters, to educate the masses.  My only question there is do they want to be educated?  Do they care?  But in the end if these rankings serve to steer people to courses that are good for golf - as Geoff S. eloquently writes in his latest book - they can be a good thing.  And they sure aren't now.  I still have a hard time fitting pure "architectural principles" into this - because so many golfers could really give a rat's ass about this and the task of educating them seems so daunting - but nothing worthwhile comes easy.

So Tom Paul - thanks.  That does help.  Tom MacWood - thanks for trying, but again, less about ME and more about the principles here would be a much more effective way of dealing with things like this.  Just a thought.  As my friend Richard says, what you choose to do with this thought is up to you.

TH

ps - nice memory about Chicago GC.  But combining this with the fact you said you have pictures of my kids on your refrigerator, you are REALLY scaring me now.  I never thought I'd merit stalking....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Isn't architecture the foundation of everything else on a golf course, including the playing experience ?

Isn't it the DNA, the fundamental building block, by which everything else evolves ?

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I find it intersting and ironic that on a day when another post is progressing regarding the value of ratings, I count no fewer than 8 threads on the front page of our DG here that pertain to rankings of some kind or another.  Roughly 1/3 of all posts on this first page have something to do with ranking something.  

For a group of "high browed intelictuals" like we are there sure seems to be a fair ammount of attention to ranking everything humanly imaginable.  There are lists of things ranked I never even thought of.  It might be interesting to see a compilation of all the different  ranking threads that have ever been on here over the years.  I am sure one of you guys that knows the innerworking of this place will amaze us all by somehow doing some search and compiling that list.  But I seem to recall such threads as "Top 10 Hot dogs at the turn" and probably there has sometime been a thread "Top 100 bathrooms on the course".

Everyone sites the rankings as a necessary evil because "THEY SELL MAGAZINES"  well that doesnt explain why all these "Ranking" posts appear here, are we selling magazines that I wasnt aware of?

So if anyone thinks these evil "Rankings" are ruining our ever-pure architectural world I would propose a 60 day abstinence program where by no thread would be started or continues that either uses the word ranking(s) or participates in such vile behavior under another name.

I dont think we could do it.  And you know why, because it is human nature to want to stratify things.  It started when you collected baseball cards as a kid and laid them out on the table with your friends and debated the relative merits of each one ranking them.

There is nothing inherantly bad in them it is just being human to dabble in ranking things.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Daryl K Boe,

If you'll look more closely you'll see that one poster created about 15 ranking threads in the space of about one half hour.
This saturation of "ranking" threads pushed many other threads to the back pages.

I'd regard it as an anomaly, rather then SOP.
An unfortunate lapse in judgement.

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby,

Isn't architecture the foundation of everything else on a golf course, including the playing experience ?

Isn't it the DNA, the fundamental building block, by which everything else evolves ?

Of course it is.

But is DNA all that makes up the human?  In summing up a person, it certainly wouldn't be sufficient to rely ONLY on his dna, right?

That's my point.  Architecture is very important, sure.  But to the exclusion of all other factors?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

You missed the point, it's THE foundation, the DNA building block from which all other elements evolve.

Redanman,

Would you describe your almost simultaenous postings on rankings as "saturation posting" or "random posting" ?

[redanman]

Thought-provoking, process-analyzing, but never random-anything.

[les_claytor]

First let me say that I don't begrude golf course rankings.  If that's what floats your boat...sail away.  The recent influx of ranking topics may have encouraged the topic, but I have checked some lists out, and some are interesting.  I agree if you're not interested, don't chime in.  BE ALL MEANS, I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD TO DEMEAN OTHER TOPICS.

One important remark, is the distinction between golf course architecture and golfing satisfaction.  Of course, the two are intrinsically connected with quality of golfing experience being the ultimate goal of all worthwhile architecture.

The night before I started this thread, I couldn't sleep so I went through every course I could remember in my head.  Who needs to count sheep right!  

Anyway, I found it interesting that I can remember details of courses I have played much more vividly than courses I have contributed to the design and construction.  Even courses that I have studied as a spectator of tournaments and sketched faithfully, I have to go back to my sketchbook to actually remember hole sequences and details.  

I guess for me, the gut impression of a course is the distinguishing factor in personal worth.  All factors: architecture, shot values, site, environment, conditioning, plant variety, buildings, etc. contribute to this gut impression.  

I say gut reaction, because I subscribe to the  theory of three brain centers in the gut, heart, and brain.  Supposedly, the gut and heart are the true and instinctual brain centers following emotion, while the cerebral brain operates more out of fear and calculation.  I know I'm simplyfying the theory, but our initial impression coming from the gut, heart is usually the right one.  

Back to the rankings, it's my belief that by trying to compare courses by lists or ranks, we fall into the quantitative trap that suppresses our artistic senses.  Maybe we are just ranking our emotional and sporting reactions to courses, but I find it difficult to do.

I've tried to rank a personal top ten, but how do you rank North Bewick with The Old Course?  Now the Old is probably a better championship course, but the emotions derived from playing North Berwick can not be put to words. So I just lump a group of courses, some famous, some not so famous as personal favorites.  

I prefer to judge a course objectively on it's own merits, and I guess lump it into a group.  I find it hard to compile rankings, but it does stir debate which is a worthwhile excercise in itself.  

I'd like to discuss intrinsic worth, but I'll tee up another one for that.

Les