Quaker Ridge and Golf Digest

[JMEvensky]

Is it really important to be loved by a handful of raters whose imprimatur is really pretty worthless to a private club with QR's history?

JME - you've nailed it!

Thanks,but I really don't get this whole QR member reaction thing.

Steve Lapper said the same thing and he has greater experience there than I.

For me,QR is about as good as it gets for a private club.I just don't understand why the members worry about the opinions of people whom they'd never allow to join.

[Tom_Doak]

JME:

You would be very distressed to find out how many club members know what ranking their course had in the latest magazine list.  It's way more than you'd think, probably because the staff all promote the hell out of it to the members to show what a great job they're doing.

The more you get to understand how the rankings work, the less it matters.  I'm fortunate that I have some courses ranked pretty highly, but I couldn't tell you what the numbers are, because it doesn't really matter.  It bothers my clients (some of whose courses are ranked, some not) way more than that, though.  They all want to know why A and not B?  And there's really no answer for them.

[Sean Leary]

It would seem to matter more those newer clubs those trying to sell memberships (which is almost all new clubs, save a few) than for the old line top clubs that have already established a reputation.

[JMEvensky]

JME:

You would be very distressed to find out how many club members know what ranking their course had in the latest magazine list.  It's way more than you'd think, probably because the staff all promote the hell out of it to the members to show what a great job they're doing.

I know.I guess it really doesn't matter how nice a golf course you get to play,you always worry about what the others are saying about you.

In my parallel universe,members of clubs like QR don't suffer from the low self esteem that the non-members do.The whole point of joining a place like QR is so you can tell everyone else to "f*** off".

Usually,when idiot members need reassurance about something golf course related,I just e-mail the link to a topical discussion here.Actually works pretty well.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

You would think members of these old clubs wouldn't care, but you'd be wrong. 

I can tell you for a fact that the green committees of a few of them always ask what they can/should be doing to the course to keep its place from slipping in the rankings.  We try to tell them they are the pinnacle of design and that they should not be worried about this stuff, but when they slip, they think they NEED some new back tees or something.

[Andy Troeger]

Mike Cirba, you make some great-sounding points.  Any reactions from the GD raters here?  Do Mike's points ring true, if not for you perhaps other GD raters you know? 

Jim,

To be honest I don't know that many of our fellow raters yet well enough to know how they rate courses--I've played with maybe ten others including your but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if many of them do fall into the points Mike makes based on what I know of the group. Many of them are low-handicap players that are very active in tournament golf--their views might be closer to what the pros would look for in a golf course than the average golfer.

That might also explain the difference between their views and this group's views--most folks here seem to think the pros know very little about design. I tend to disagree with that--these guys know something about golf courses, but their priorities are different. There's no "one way" even if this group doesn't like this particular rating.

Of that ten, most of them were pretty sharp in terms of understanding architecture and taking the process very seriously. A few are members of this discussion group, some of the others are very well travelled worldwide and can defend their opinions.

To me that's the key--being able to defend why one rated a course the way that they did. Even if I disagree, I try to be respectful of that view.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I made this post either two or four or six years ago when some rankings came out and I will say it again.  It's important for the rankings to be done well because they have many implications. The courses that are better ranked have more demand for membership, outings, etc. but more importantly, the acclaim of the winners leads to their being emulated. That's why Augusta's elevation is so upsetting.  Because all around the world people think...ok, if we want to be "better", we need to narrow our fairways, plant trees, put in back tees, etc. I don't think that's better, but the effect out there in the world is to spread those influences.  I saw this effect first hand in Asia years ago.  When Oakmont and Winged Foot were cutting trees to great acclaim on this website, the green chairmen in Japan were planting trees to be more like Augusta.

One of the great things that has happened in the last 10 years is that Doak and Coore and to an extent Hanse have gotten recognized by these magazines, which gets them more work, which means that one of them builds a new course or fixes an old course that would otherwise have been in other hands.  That's good and real and important.

I am not concerned about QR's real quality because of this  magazine issue.  I am concerned that my green chairman, super and architect now have to deal with questions on whether what we are doing is the right thing (which I know it is). Since we don't know what raters saw the course in what shape at what time its hard to say if they were responding to the poor conditions of 2007 or that they didn't like the direction we had taken in 2008.  Clearly the basic architecture, thank goodness, hasn't changed at all in the last 20 years, so all of this volatility of position can only be about playing conditions. 

If these GD guys were doing their jobs correctly, QR would have fallen way down the list 5 years ago when it was maintaining its position. I think its potential is top 20-25 easy if we get everything right.  But most members didn't feel any impetus to support change that was desperately needed when the magazines were so laudatory.

[John Blain]

Jeff,

Personally, I think QR is outstanding and desrves a higher ranking but my question to you is this:

Is QR's ranking more of an injustice than Fenway and Sleepy Hollow not even cracking the Top 100? I played all three last year and quite honestly I didn't think any particular course was that much better than the other two. They were all outstanding but I have to tell you that SH and Fenway were in much better condition than QR.
The guys in the shop at QR told me that Gil was just starting the resoration work, no? I know they have done significant tree removal but isn't there much more work to be done?
Also, I'm not sure when you played Oak Hill last but I played there last summer and it was outstanding in every way. They have done some considerable tree removal and the golf course was spectacular. Is it the eleventh best course in the country? Maybe, maybe not but in all honesty I would rank it ahead of QR.

-John

[Jeff_Lewis]

Somebody else commented on Oak Hill, not me. Also, with respect to errors, I am sure that the Digest list has more than its share. Both Fenway and Sleepy are terrific tracks indeed.

[Phil Benedict]

I played QR once in a town outing that rotates between Fenway, Scarsdale and QR.  It was a perfect Fall day and a memorable experience.  Lots of out of bounds to the right - must be tough on slicers.  I thought the course was great but only playing that one time and out of order because of a shotgun start, I may not be the best judge.  Fenway was equally good I thought although not as renowned at the time I played it. 

[Tags:]

Tags: