let us praise the LISTS

[Alex_Wyatt]

1. They are fun and make for good conversation.
2. Any course that ever gets ranked is probably worth a look see.
3. Without them, I might never have known to seek out places like Camargo or Yeamans Hall or Rye or Woodhall Spa. Forgive me if I needed the help.
4. Many of the raters disagree with my opinion, but its always interesting to see what they are especially attracted to.
5. Sometimes virtue is rewarded. When a Gil Hanse gets best new affordable, or Crenshaw and Coore and Doak get recognized the way they are in GM, I am sure they feel good for the well deserved recognition.

[Carlyle Rood]

Lists are excellent, especially if you're unaquainted with courses in less visited regions.

I also love gratuitous galleries of photographs and site plans.  Last night, I even discovered that flyovers of Baltusrol are available for free "on demand" using my cable television.  (It even had tournament summaries for each day for free.)

[Mike Benham]

2. Any course that ever gets ranked is probably worth a look see.

By why do they need to be ranked 1 - 100?  What if they were just put into the list alphabetically?

Does that mean if Camargo was listed in the 100 - 200 category, it wouldn't be worth a "look see"?  

[cary lichtenstein]

Everyone likes the lists, everyone reads the lists and everyone wants to play the courses on the lists.

Anyone who says different is lying thru his teeth

[PThomas]

they will NEVER go away, so it's really tilting at windmills

[Wayne Freeman]

They're a lot of fun and there's nothing in golf quite like playing the great ones.  

[Brad Klein]

Why I hate the lists:

1. small differences become exaggerated
2. hard to generate a wide enough basis of comparison among experienced raters
3. creates illusion that courses rated 101+ are lousy
4. drives up development costs and adds to over-flowery feature-mongering (there's a new phrase)

Still, the advantages outweigh the liabilities:
1. fun, something to write, argue and talk about
2. educates golfers as to elements of sound design
3. creates a better golf course in terms of attention to details and conditioning
4. creates feature work for writers
5. generates advertising revenue for magazines when courses feel that they have been properly recognized by credible ratings processes
6. raises the profile, readership and brand value of the magazine

[TEPaul]

[Dan King]

cary lichtenstein writes
Everyone likes the lists, everyone reads the lists and everyone wants to play the courses on the lists.

I hate the lists, I'd have to be incredibily bored to read a list and I like to play good courses, if they are on some list it is only coincidence.

I don't even make a grocery list when I shop.

Dan King

"By all means screw their women and drink their booze but never write one word about their bloody awful top-100 list.
  --Stolen from Henry Longhurst

[TEPaul]

Dan:

I agree. Certainly noone can be so general as to say EVERYONE likes the lists. Obviously you and I hate the lists.  

Actually I don't exactly hate rankings, just how some of these golf magazines go about them---eg 1 to 100 with virtually no real educational explanation of why. You can give me something like Doak's "Confidential Guide" any day. At least it has course reviews throughout that explain why some course is considered good or great and why others aren't. Anyone can learn something about golf architecture from that. But what can you learn from a simple list that merely mentions 1,2,3,4,5.....etc?

[RJ_Daley]

Surely, they are pulling our leg.  Alex and Brad making lists to rate the pros and cons of lists?

Dan, I hate that I even read a thread about the lists...

When I grocery shop, I start at the front door with the meal I have in mind, then go get the stuff...

[Tags:]

Tags: