Do clubs care about rankings?

[Tom_Doak]

Sounds like it, from this request for proposals I just received:

"Currently, [blank] is ranked [a certain number] in Australia by the Golf Digest magazine but our desire is to improve this ranking as far as possible."

Also, earlier:

"Technology and more demanding criteria for Australian Open championship rating requires the course be updated and strengthened where possible."

Their list of potential projects includes blowing up as many as six greens to achieve these goals!  If they want to change the golf course, that's fine, but they go out of their way to say that they are trying to preserve the heritage of the existing course, when clearly they are not.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, I rate for GD.  Everyone once in a while Courses will make a special request to GD for panelists to visit.  A month ago I received an e-mail from GD that Winged Foot wanted panelists to visit.  There are a few, like Friars Head, and Augusta and Pine Valley and Cypress Pt, that don't allow panelists to visit.  But they get plenty of panelists on their own.  I remember playing Bob-O-Link a few years ago and the pro told me that their members don't care.  But when I played the course and the members discovered that I was there member after member came up and asked, "Why aren't we ranked higher?"  
It fascinates me how seriously clubs take the rankings.  I'll get members angry with me because they went from 47 to 66.
When Greeneville (Chanticleer) dropped out of the top 100 the head pro made it clear that some members droped their subscription to GD.
Sometimes the pro will tell me that the super made it a point to put pins in the best locations.  And almost every couse will apologize that their course is in the normal good condition and that their greens are not at their usual pace.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

In my opinion, they ALL care.  Some won't discuss it.  Some won't admit it.  Some will deny it.

I've yet to hear the "We're number ten" cheer break out at a sporting event.  

Mike

[HamiltonBHearst]

To a certain extent all clubs care, even ones that shouldn't, like the clubs I belong too.



As a new club, Friar's Head has succeeded more than most in getting the word out about the quality of the design.  Maybe, one well thought out and documented review by Mr. Morrissett is worth more than the hordes of raters seeking jumbo shrimp.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, You and the other Architects on here as well as Brad are the best qualfied to answer that question. I think of those courses which are of sufficient quality to merit discussion, they all do to one degree or another.

[JLahrman]

If they want to change the golf course, that's fine, but they go out of their way to say that they are trying to preserve the heritage of the existing course, when clearly they are not.

Tom, unless it's somewhere else in the proposal I don't see where they say they're trying to preserve the heritage of their existing course.  If the club's heritage is one that hosts big championships and the top players, blowing up greens and moving tees fits that heritage.  Are they concerned with the club's heritage or the course's heritage?

[Mike_Cirba]

Anyone who thinks that the premier clubs don't care should have been at Pine Valley the week after they fell from #1 to Pebble Beach.  

It was generally the only topic of discussion, even if the results were rightfully pooh-poohed.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Maybe, one well thought out and documented review by Mr. Morrissett is worth more than the hordes of raters seeking jumbo shrimp.

Hamilton

I'm waiting for Ran's review of Sebonack when he played with Tom and Noel.  There have been Portrush updates and Black Rock reviews posted since he played it.

PS- Mike Cirba - I remember that lunch in the PV clubhouse.  It was very interesting to hear their comments and interest in GD rankings.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoff:

I'm still waiting for his review of Stone Eagle but it's possible Ran thinks my courses have already received more than their fair share of attention.

JAL:

That is a very interesting distinction you make, between the heritage of the course and the heritage of the club.  I hadn't really thought about it much before.  The club in question refers in several places to preserving the character of the original design, but in others to the course's championship history, which is clearly more important in their current intent.

I suspect you are right, that a lot of clubs (not just in Australia but also in America) are more interested in the CLUB's status than that of the actual COURSE, i.e. "look how special we are".

[RJ_Daley]

If they want to change the golf course, that's fine, but they go out of their way to say that they are trying to preserve the heritage of the existing course, when clearly they are not.

Tom, isn't the deeper question you may be asking; (should I respond to them?)

My fleeting - and off the top of my head thought is; if I were you, I'd say thank you very much, but I don't wish to do this remodel.  I would say that because you are being put in a precarious position.  They talk about preserving heritage, yet you know that blowing up greens and lengthening things for the sake of a very few top players and meeting their technology advantages will most likely fly right in the face of a classic old courses design heritage or playing ideals.

Then, if you go out and do the work being asked, and people say you sold out, or are guilding the lilly by allowing them to drive rhetoric like "preserving a heritage" which really wasn't done.  Then you look like joe average golf course archie.

At the very least, if your crew needs the work, then I'd tell them to do it as a subsidiary, not Rennaisance.

My personal opinion is that you have reached a pinnacle of GCA and have a reputation for excellence and a core philosophy.  If that club said, they are not preserving a heritage and are modernizing for competition based on length and tech, at the expense of design heritage, then you can say your remodelled efforts gave them what they want, and you knew it wouldn't preserve anything historical, classic, or within the realm of heritage.  But, I don't think the rhetoric can state things both ways.  IMHO

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoff:
I'm still waiting for his review of Stone Eagle but it's possible Ran thinks my courses have already received more than their fair share of attention.

Tom - Perhaps Ran likes jumbo shrimp too   If we see a review of Trump Bedminster we'll know for sure.

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:

There was already no question that we were not going to take on the work ... Australia is a long way to go to listen to green committee members tell us what to do, but I don't take on jobs like that even in the States.

In declining the work, I did tell them I'd seen as many good courses spoiled, as improved, with the general mission statement they have in place, and that it was essential to find a consultant who is committed to getting the construction work right.  I know of at least one outfit in Australia who are qualified, possibly more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Clubs that aren't close to being ranked, don't care about being ranked.  The thought never enters their mind.

But, clubs that are ranked, or were ranked, or are close to being ranked do care ...... to varying degrees.

Clubs in winter vacation areas think about it since the bulk of their members are non-residents, drawn from the north.  Being ranked creates a higher profile and a more attractive product for perspective members.

There is so much in the way of product in these areas, so much competition for members, that being ranked allows a club to differentiate itself from the others, making it easier to attract and retain members, which is vital for the survival of the club.

It's perceived as an important component of marketing, and joiining is akin to receiving the "Red Badge of Courage".

Certainly, being highly ranked shouldn't be perceived as a negative, by anyone.

If it wasn't an important issue to non-members, would you have so many people trying to gain access to play these clubs ?

[Noel Freeman]

Geoff:

I'm still waiting for his review of Stone Eagle but it's possible Ran thinks my courses have already received more than their fair share of attention.

JAL:

That is a very interesting distinction you make, between the heritage of the course and the heritage of the club.  I hadn't really thought about it much before.  The club in question refers in several places to preserving the character of the original design, but in others to the course's championship history, which is clearly more important in their current intent.

I suspect you are right, that a lot of clubs (not just in Australia but also in America) are more interested in the CLUB's status than that of the actual COURSE, i.e. "look how special we are".

Tom--Ran didnt take many pix that day b/c of the sun if you recall and the overhead lighting.. I'm wondering if he will wait until he gets another shot to shoot it..

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Do clubs care?  At least one in the Pacific NW does.   While playing with an unnamed pro from an anonymous course, the conversation came around to rankings.  

Bottom line was that travel by golfers to the ranked course drove measurable revenue in the from of green fees and in shop sales.  These sources of cash were important to members and his pro shop profits.  

He certainly wanted to enhance the ranking and visibility of the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Just cause you go to church don't mean you love Jesus..

[Dan Kelly]

I know of at least one outfit in Australia who are qualified, possibly more.

Oh, no! Renaissance Golf are doing so much work in British-speaking nations that Tom Doak have started using plural verbs with collective nouns!

Come home, Tom. All are forgiven!

[Dan Kelly]

Anyone who thinks that the premier clubs don't care should have been at Pine Valley the week after they fell from #1 to Pebble Beach.  

It was generally the only topic of discussion, even if the results were rightfully pooh-poohed.  

Even a stiff upper lip needs some exercise.

And what could be a safer topic than Golf Digest's silly rankings?

[Sean Leary]

Eugene CC has a Top 100 committee dedicated to keeping the club in the Top 100 of one of the Mags. They have added tee boxes to absolutely maximize the yardage..

[Punchbowl]

Fisher's Island does not like the fact that their ranking has improved.  The know what they have and they enjoyed the anonymity.  Now there is more pressure by outsiders to get on the course.

[Jim Franklin]

Punchbowl -

I do not think your statement is 100% accurate. When I played there this summer, my host and some of his member friends were saying they couldn't believe Fishers was not ranked higher. You can't have it both ways, top rankings and no guest play. Trust me, they don't have much guest play anyway and when they do its pricey.

[Andrew Summerell]

Sounds like it, from this request for proposals I just received:

"Currently, [blank] is ranked [a certain number] in Australia by the Golf Digest magazine but our desire is to improve this ranking as far as possible."

Also, earlier:

"Technology and more demanding criteria for Australian Open championship rating requires the course be updated and strengthened where possible."

Their list of potential projects includes blowing up as many as six greens to achieve these goals!  If they want to change the golf course, that's fine, but they go out of their way to say that they are trying to preserve the heritage of the existing course, when clearly they are not.

Tom,

I played that course a few weeks ago on an interstate golf trip. I was actually told that you were contacted by one of the staff.

The course in question is very pleasant & has had some bunkering re-done over the last few years, some of which is good & some of which is not.

Chasing rankings is like a dog chasing its tail.

[Shane Gurnett]

Tom,

The rankings game here in Australia is alive and well. Especially since the influx of quality courses in the last 10 years or so (Barnbougle, 13th Beach, St Andrews Beach etc) has pushed down some of the more established courses into unfamiliar territory.

[Voytek Wilczak]

I was told at Shinnecock by a key person at the club that the goal was to become #1 in world rankings.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Obviously, yes; otherwise why do many clubs/courses post their ranking on their websites or hang the certificates from GD or GW somewhere in the clubhouse.