A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year

[Tom_Doak]

What exactly is the point of rewriting such a list every year?

The only reasons for the ranking to ever change are:

1.  Major renovation work, which should not be happening that much on the best golf courses in America (in my opinion);

2.  Changes in conditioning, which a bunch of panelists should not be judging, if it should count for anything to begin with; or

3.  Changes in the makeup of the panel, whose personal biases are reflected in the final list -- but why pay attention to that?


Or could it be #4 -- selling magazines?

Personally I wouldn't vote for either Pine Valley or Cypress Point as #1, but I'm surprised they were close enough to switch places, and I wonder why it happened.  The only change I know of at either course is the lengthening at Pine Valley -- was that deemed to be a negative?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

You are contradicting yourself! You have often said, and I agree, there are probably 25 bullet proof "Top 10" courses, and after that there 200-300 "Next 75" courses.

PS I am paraphrasing from memory.

[Jason Mandel]

I'm not a rater so I don't profess to know the inner workings of the system.

However, I do question how some of these Top 25 courses can change.  I know Brad has said many times that he does not allow raters to request access to the Top 50 Classic courses.  I guess they are allowed to rate the course if they are brought there as a guest of a member.  Is that the only way they are allowed to rate these courses Brad?

Tom,
I may be opening up a can of worms here, but what course would you vote number 1 if not PV or Cypess.  NGLA?

Jason

[Joel_Stewart]

Of course its selling magazines but behond that, its a method for identifying great architecture.   The top 5 or top 10 are set and rarely change, but the lower 50 are excellent examples of architecture and how they change.

Tom:

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  You have restored many classic courses bringing them back to life.  Should they not be evaluated?   Unlike a painting, golf courses change over time and need to be reevaluated.

[Dan_Callahan]

You assume that the same magazine readers have been following the lists closely every year. For many, however, an annual list is "new" in so far as it is the first time a particular reader has viewed it. If you are a student of golf architecture, there is a strong probability that you have committed these lists to memory. But for the average member of the public, I think the situation is different.

[John Kavanaugh]

The Golfweek lists may sell adds but it doesn't sell any subscriptions.  You guys are out there in the real world just like me and surely you know this....Nobody except a few members of maybe 300 clubs gives a damn one way or the other.  I would guess less than a thousand people nationwide even know what changes year to year.

[David Wigler]

John,

I have no numbers to back this up (If Brad chooses to, he probably has the data) but I would bet that the annual ratings issue is by far the biggest seller and most requested for ad space.  As well, if it is like the SuperBowl, you could charge a healthy premium for ads in this issue.

I do not know what Tom's point is.  Of course ratings are done to sell magazines and ads.  If I ran a magazine, wouldn't my purpose be to sell them and get advertising in them?  Why wouldn't I run features that the vast majority of my reading public are very interested in?  Whether GCA aficionados like ratings or not, they are very popular and drive business.

For fun when you have a free ten minutes, get out a sheet of paper and write down the names of televised awards shows.  I just came up with 38 (And I do not watch that much TV).  I'll bet my wife could break fifty in ten minutes.  People love ratings!  

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think I have ever seen a Golfweek for sale as a single issue anywhere, of course the only newstands I frequent are in airports.  I do see alot of Golfweeks laying around at almost every course I visit and the ratings issue may have a longer shelf life (if you call the thing on the back of the toilet a shelf) thus the ads would be more valuable.

[Jordan Wall]

The Golfweek lists may sell adds but it doesn't sell any subscriptions.  You guys are out there in the real world just like me and surely you know this....Nobody except a few members of maybe 300 clubs gives a damn one way or the other.  I would guess less than a thousand people nationwide even know what changes year to year.

Well then it is quite funny how much these magazine ratings get talked about if nobody cares.

I mean, I bet when GD had PV as #2 in 2000 people went absolutely balistic.  Why??  People, as much as people dont like to admit it, they care.  I know I like to see all the rankings, and whether for good or bad, it certainly brings up plenty of discussion here.  So it would not really be true to say that only a few people care.  Would you be angry if Victoria National was thrown off the list of the best 100 courses??  Dont tell me that wouldnt make you angry, or at least make you care about how bad some of these ratings are.

Remember, just because the ratings are bad does not mean people dont care.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jordan,

I said 1000 people care...that is alot.  Please note that I am not counting the 1500 raters, hundreds of writers and personel that work at the 1500 nominated clubs plus the people on this site that don't fit any of the above (all 20 of us)  Do me a favor and just try to find someone outside the industry that knows the nuances of these lists...they don't exist.

If I am wrong, which I may be...Bandon may be the perfect place to find people who care.  I would have liked to have seen what may have happened if Bandon Trails was rated higher than Bandon Dunes...I don't think even that would have made a difference on rounds played.

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

I said 1000 people care...that is alot.  Please note that I am not counting the 1500 raters, hundreds of writers and personel that work at the 1500 nominated clubs plus the people on this site that don't fit any of the above (all 20 of us)  Do me a favor and just try to find someone outside the industry that knows the nuances of these lists...they don't exist.

If I am wrong, which I may be...Bandon may be the perfect place to find people who care.  I would have liked to have seen what may have happened if Bandon Trails was rated higher than Bandon Dunes...I don't think even that would have made a difference on rounds played.

I dont doubt that 1000 is a lot rather I am just saying that people do care.  I could tell you many people who care.  I can also tell you why.  These ratings tell people where good places are to play that might not know otherwise.  Maybe at Bandn it wouldnt matter, but that is completely different because they have three great courses and obviously there are gonna be more people wanting to play a course actually right on the ocean.  If anything though, these ratings will send the message to people to play the Trails though.

I mean, I am not at all saying Bandon has bad courses, but think about how much different they would be if they were not rated in the top 100, at least as far as rounds played are concerned.  That is how so many people find out about these courses, and these lists provide business for many courses.  Like I said, they may be bad lists (that is up to the reader) but people most certainly care and these lists do provide business for courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jordan,

Tom Doak just said it is done to sell magazines...that is the point I dispute.  I just called up Barnes and Noble in Evansville, In...a store managed by a GCA member...and it doesn't carry Golfweek so a guy can go in and buy the ratings issue.   I agree that the ratings are fun and valuable for people who love to play golf...I just don't buy that people subscribe to Golfweek because of them.  If you don't subscribe, pleas tell me where to buy a single copy.

note: If 1000 people care enough to buy the single issue you are talking about $3950 in revenue....how much of that goes to Golfweek...meaningless.  It is all about advertising..not sales.

[JESII]

note: If 1000 people care enough to buy the single issue you are talking about $3950 in revenue....how much of that goes to Golfweek...meaningless.  It is all about advertising..not sales.

Yes, so tell me, do advertising fees have any correlation to sales?

[Jordan Wall]

Alright, my bad John, I just misunderstood.

BUT, how many courses would be a lot less known and have a lot less business if it wasnt for magazine ratings??  I would say quite a few to be honest, but I dont have a number.

Just something to think about though.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Would a bi-annual listing work better, or a once every 5-10 years?  I'm not sure.

I do know that classic courses fluctuate on the lists for some of the reasons you mentioned, but I also can say that I'm not surprised to see PV displaced from #1.  

Despite ongoing efforts at removing foliage there, I believe there is growing awareness that it's not happening fast enough to restore abandoned lines of play, bunkering features, and visual vistas lost to time.

What's more, the efforts in recent years to clean up and formalize the formerly wild stretches of sandy terrain are frankly sad.  For crying out loud they even ride a sandpro through them every day so that shrubs and other growth within the sandy areas have to be separated with enough space to drive large motorized equipment through.  

Conversely, a course like Pasatiempo or Yale seem to have dramatically jumped higher based on sensitive restorations and/or maintenance efforts that bring out the best in the original design.

So, to answer your question, I think it's nice that there's still a forum that reflects the present care and feeding of the classic courses to a great extent.  

I'm still waiting to see ANGC plunge based on the tree plantings and other ongoing Frankensteiniation of the place but the exclusivity there likely prevents many raters from actually playing it; thus, the static position.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

JesII

Of course they do...Subscriptions.  I don't think the ratings issues of Golfweek increase subscriptions enough to matter.  I'm not talking about Golf Digest and the other mags you find on newstands...that is different.  Do all the clubs who get Golfweek and the Supers who get SuperNews pay for their subscriptions...I don't think so.  I wonder if those readers and all the people who see the issues at their courses are even "sales"...

I bet I am in a very small minority as one who subscribed to SuperNews...who paid for it that is..

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

How about #5:  to discover hidden gems.  Granted there are fewer and fewer that people don't know about, but you're one of those (or THE one) who started that, with Crystal Downs, among others.

I believe some of the 'hidden' gems that GW has added to the list in recent years include Lehigh, Fenway, Lawsonia, Astoria, & Hollywood.

[JESII]

John,

I have assumed most every magazine generates its revenue from advertising, with subscription fee as a distant focus. True, Golfweek is rarely (if ever) found on news stands but the point is that the rankings issues have staying power for those that do read it and thus can value their advertising space higher.

And yes, the back of the toilet counts as a shelf in my house.

[John Kavanaugh]

JESII,

Would you find it unethical for a sales staff of a magazine to ask a club if they want to advertise in a magazine where their course will appear on the cover.  Or would it be unethical to tell a club that if they buy a full page spread they will be on the cover.  I personally think both are just good business.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeez guys...can we at least pretend to stay on topic specific to Tom's original question?    

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...Doak said this is to sell magazines.  He was one of the pioneers of the craft and I am calling him out on his statement.  Just tell me where I can go and buy the Golfweek issue if this is true.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...

John,

No worries there.  I snuck on through that hole in the gate.  

Frankly John, it shouldn't matter to you if I played and/or rated Pine Valley or not.  My comments could easily be coming from my assessment of things at this year's Crump Cup, where anyone and everyone can see the course for themselves.
 

[Jordan Wall]

John,

If they really wanted to sell magazines they would put PV as #7 or #8 in the country and have the #1 course be Oakmont or something (not saying Oakmont is bad).  It would make everyone so shocked people all over would want to buy a copy for themselves.  Also, put Pebble at #25 or so in the rankings and well...

now that would sell magazines!

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...

John,

No worries there.  I snuck on through that hole in the gate.  

Frankly John, it shouldn't matter to you if I played and/or rated Pine Valley or not.  My comments could easily be coming from my assessment of things at this year's Crump Cup, where anyone and everyone can see the course for themselves.
 

Mike,

I thought you told me you played Pine Valley this last cycle and thus entered a rating....sorry if this is wrong.  Why should it not matter to me if you played Pine Valley or not...you are my friend and I value your opinion.  I also value what you wrote about Augusta but it would have meant more to me if you had actually played the course instead of just visiting the tournament as I have done.  I always value the opinions of people who have played a truly great course more than those who have just visited.

[John Kavanaugh]

To answer Tom Doaks original question...In todays society it is a bitch to wait two years to view the impact of your opinion let alone one.  I think if I was in charge of a rating service I would have it in a database so every rater could instantaneously see how his valuable opinion changes the list.  Once a year should be an absolute minimum.  That is exactly why threads that go to the second page on this website die...we need immediate feedback.

[Tags:]

Tags: