Golf Digest has been criticized for utilizing 'tradition' as a criterion in rating a golf course. Consequently, many raters concentrate on the famous and traditional layouts, those which have hosted a major championship. Other raters focus on prestigious golf clubs, those which are not accessible to the common player. Because of this preoccupation with playing the elite designs, many wonderful courses, among the 18,000+ in our country today, go unnoticed and are not even considered. If 'tradition' was not a criteria, perhaps many other courses would be discovered and gain the status they deserve.
Many famous golf clubs with years of history and tradition do in fact have great golf courses.Too many of these courses are also glorified just because they are famous, and 'fame and greatness' are simply not synonimous. Just because a course has hosted a major tournament doesn’t annoint it as having a great layout, though this perception prevails. For example, why should the Ocean Course at Kiawah be ranked any higher because The Ryder Cup was held there? Likewise, why should a course, such as Merion, lose its lofty rating simply because major championships have bypassed it for years?
Golf Digest has also been criticized for using 'ambience' as a criterion. 'Ambience' is defined as 'the quality of the atmosphere or setting'. Ambience too often distracts the rater from focusing on the elements of pure design. A rater should not be influenced by an immaculate club house, a delicious lunch, or a helpful caddie just as a film critic does not evaluate movies based upon the intimacy of the theatre, the fresh popcorn or the friendly attendant. These amenities are extrinsic to the matter at hand. Ambience, therefore, clearly does not have anything at all to do with a course’s integrity of design. It can certainly compliment the day; however, it is irrelevant in judging architecture. A golf course should not climb the charts simply because they hire a staff as accommodating as Augusta Nationals or construct a locker room as charming as Seminoles.
Ideally, outside influences, such as tradition, prestige, ambience, and amenities should not serve to influence raters. Raters are well rehearsed in being objective in response. Raters fully understand that the substance of the design outweighs the form of its parts. Nevertheless, raters are human and therefore cannot totally separate prejudicial influences. Just as a juries have difficulty disregarding incriminating, inadmissible evidence, raters too are inherently prejudiced by the subjectivities which bookend a round.
Since extrinsic matters, such as 'tradition and ambience', naturally influence many panelists anyway, then why does Golf Digest find it necessary to list them specifically as criterion? By doing so, they are sending the wrong message to architects and clubs across the country. Everyone wants their course to be ranked. Everyone tries to be a part of something special. In an attempt to bolster their recognition and ranking, clubs are attempting to build tradition and create ambience.
Many greens committees have destroyed their original classic designs in attempt to create traditional, championship layouts. Short, distinctive par 4’s have been all but eliminated because of the obsession with length found on championship courses. Lilliputian Donald Ross designs are considered outdated even though they require a tremendous amount of finesse and skill to negotiate. Architects as well are designing 7200-yard courses in hope of attracting a major tournament. Developers are spending extra millions just to compete with neighboring courses which are doing the same. They are presently incorporating unnatural, eye-catching features into golf courses today. They are trusting that raters will remember the glamour and glitz captured by lake fountains, waterfalls, island greens, and outlandish clubhouses above and beyond the strategic value of shotmaking options. Consequently, more new courses are becoming too long, too difficult, too artificial, and too expensive to play and maintain. Furthermore, many laid-back clubs with extension-of-the-home atmospheres have flooded their memberships with a surplus of extras and amenities, the absence of which made the club more appealing to begin with.
In reality, tradition is acquired over time. It cannot be created over night. Similarly, ambience is heightened when it is natural and unforced. All too often, by trying to build tradition and create ambience, clubs have destroyed their own. If the 'tradition and ambience' criterion was replaced with a tree management criterion for instance, perhaps these very same clubs would shift gears and perform measures which would actually benefit their design. At least this criterion would be relevant in evaluating golf architecture instead of the club as a whole.
As toppers, Ron and his in house panel supposedly can add bonus points to their rater's final tallys based upon tradition and ambience. Speaking of "cooked", or a justification to alter....It potentially resides at Golf Digest as well.
Golfweek does not specifically utilize 'tradition' and 'ambience', as criteria to evaluate. These elements may perhaps influence individual panelists, but at least they are not promoted as integral to the overall process. All of Golfweek’s guidelines do appear to focus on design integrity.