The result of course rankings

[John Kavanaugh]

Ted,

I'm sure we are both equally aware of Wolf Run, Crooked Stick and Victoria National.  In the last ten years the three clubs have battled various ranking lists for best in Indiana, if not the region if you include Valhalla and the courses at French Lick.  Please name one line item that increased at any of the above clubs maintenance budgets in an attempt to out do the competition in the name of rankings.

The sub air systems for the greens at Victoria National (you just asked for one).

TS

Ted,

The sub air was installed during construction of the course.  It was our long lost super who declared it a failed technology and bought all the fans.  From the same guy who sold them the sub air no less.

Thank God that Matt has seen the error in those ways and is bringing the sub air back.

[Ted Sturges]

John,

I understand that the sub air systems were installed during course construction (which also added to the cost of admission at VN).  Running them during the year adds to the maintenance costs each year.  CS and WR do not have them, so this would be one example to answer your question.

TS

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I understand that the sub air systems were installed during course construction (which also added to the cost of admission at VN).  Running them during the year adds to the maintenance costs each year.  CS and WR do not have them, so this would be one example to answer your question.

TS

Ted,

Keeping the greens alive and well is for the pleasure of the members not the raters.  We only now run one or two of the current sub air systems because our previous super abandoned them in favor of getting his picture on a fan brochure.  Crooked Stick now even has those fans.

For you to say the rankings are driving costs up you would need to show a practice that would stop if Digest and Golfweek fired all their raters.  I don't think it would change a thing.

[Sven Nilsen]

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

Mac,  "dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf"...I don't believe there is much evidence that this exists.  There are literally hundreds of course raters out there today (too many of whom are in hot pursuit of free golf).  I think you told me that you were a rater for one of the magazines (I truly can't remember which one).  Do you even think that 50% of the people on the panel you are on "understand what makes for great golf?".

TS

Ted:

You overlook the enthusiastic rater, one who may not have the wealth of knowledge of his more seasoned peers, but sincerely wants to learn about golf and see a variety of courses.  There's a fine line between this type of panelist and those in hot pursuit of free golf, but there is a line.

The fact that this type of rater is part of the pool whose collective opinions are syphoned down to a single message may be a fatal flaw in the Golf Week model (or any rating panel without a strong vetting process), but that is a different discussion of another day.

Sven

[Greg Tallman]

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

Mac,  "dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf"...I don't believe there is much evidence that this exists.  There are literally hundreds of course raters out there today (too many of whom are in hot pursuit of free golf).  I think you told me that you were a rater for one of the magazines (I truly can't remember which one).  Do you even think that 50% of the people on the panel you are on "understand what makes for great golf?".

TS

Who defines what makes great golf?

Again, the masses version of great and the purists' version of great are on opposite sides of the spectrum more often than not.

[Matthew Petersen]

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

Mac,  "dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf"...I don't believe there is much evidence that this exists.  There are literally hundreds of course raters out there today (too many of whom are in hot pursuit of free golf).  I think you told me that you were a rater for one of the magazines (I truly can't remember which one).  Do you even think that 50% of the people on the panel you are on "understand what makes for great golf?".

TS

Who defines what makes great golf?

Again, the masses version of great and the purists' version of great are on opposite sides of the spectrum more often than not.

I had the same question. Lots of different golfers look for lots of different things in a golf course. That's why the big mags have ratings based on multiple reviews and reviewers. The other side is something like Doak's CG where you are getting the unfiltered viewpoint of one person who's biases are declared upfront.

[C. Squier]

Brian,

What exactly do you think Dr. Klein can do with Mac's post?  You can not possible expect Golfweek to throw out every rater who does not vote how he is told.  Can you imagine trying to have a family, spend over 100 days a year on the road and babysit 800 raters.  Golfweek has already pioneered rater training.  From what I can tell they excessively screen panelists for past experience and ethics.  Brad Klein should spend his valuable time telling his raters how to do a better job, not visa versa.

As far as this brown thing goes, raters have lives too.  They must travel and rate 12 months out of the year which leads to visits during varying weather conditions and seasons.  Sure, some courses play the weather perfect two to three months a year but you can't expect a rater to wait till that perfect moment.  Damn at that rate they would be lucky to see 10 new courses a year at a much higher expense to their already stressed out travel budgets.

JK - though taking your posts on ratings literally isn't easily prescribed, I'll agree 100% with you that the last thing Brad needs is someone telling him how to better evaluate a golf course.  

Mac - sustainability is simply defined by the ability of the club to meet its obligations.  If the club has members with deep enough pockets, why can't they station a Penn State intern on every tee box, fairway and green to hand water if that's what floats their boat?  Far too many variables for a rater to judge the sustainability of a golf course based on darn near zero knowledge of the things that really matter.  

Ted - I also agree with John and if I were in charge of the world, every rater would need to be a member of a local club.  That way, playing "rater golf" would have direct opportunity cost of not playing your own club where you've already mailed in a dues check.  Surely there are those who are on any panel for the sole reason of cheaper golf, but there are also many who would be better off economically if they stayed home instead.  Certainly not looking for sympathy (that's the dog's job!), but two years ago I had 3 sets of dues checks and 16 "home" rounds.  I suspect I'm not the only rater who doesn't want to dollar cost average their dues.  

I'd also be shocked if the vast majority of members of top 100 clubs don't immediately flip to the ratings to see where they land when the latest GD/GW/GM rankings come out.  Hell, you can't be on the putting green at NGLA or Shinnecock and not hear guys talking about which course is better....and they're the epitome of the proverbial coin flip.

[Tom_Doak]

I played two fine courses over the past two days, both of them suffering a bit from the staggering summer heat wave and drought in the midwest.

One course was near the big city.  It has a fine architectural pedigree, features prominently in many rankings, and was in the best shape I've ever seen it.

The other course was in a smaller city, where the locals would never pony up for expensive maintenance.  It, too, was designed by a famous ODG architect, and has a lot of really cool features, but between the less posh town and the less posh maintenance budget, it figures nowhere in the rankings.

Maintenance budget at the first club:  $1.2 million.  Maintenance budget at the second club:  $520,000.  The only real difference in conditioning of the two courses was that the greens were soft at the latter course, and very firm at the former, which made it quite challenging.

Is the difference between the rankings of these two courses due to the difference in maintenance budgets?  No, I wouldn't say that.  But does the second club save hundreds of thousands of dollars on maintenance, because they don't buy into the rankings game?  I think the answer to that question is yes.

[Sven Nilsen]

After year's of not being able to figure out where Matt Lauer is (let alone that little sneak Carmen Sandiego), now I have to take a guess at where Tom Doak has been?  You ask too much world, too much.

[Tom_Doak]

After year's of not being able to figure out where Matt Lauer is (let alone that little sneak Carmen Sandiego), now I have to take a guess at where Tom Doak has been?  You ask too much world, too much.

I wouldn't have posted that if anybody knew where I'd been the past couple of days.  And I'm not going to verify any guesses, since I don't want to share what particular courses are spending on their maintenance.

[Peter Pallotta]

Lot of insights, but I'm not sure anyone has actually gotten to the heart of or answered Ted's question. (Sure, maintenance issues/costs are a related issue, but it's like closing the barn door after the horse has left).  I'd put the question this way: Why is it important (i.e. how is it good for golf) that we all know (and that we all are told, over and over again) that PV or SandHills is the no. 1 course in the country? What does that tell us? What should we do with that information/what that tells us? What does it actually mean, to anyone besides a select few with a stake in the game, that course X is 78th best and is better than course Y in the 95th spot? Is is just information? Trivia? Is anyone in the business meant to strive towards replicating the experience provided by the 30th ranked course in the country instead of the 40th? How about a would-be course on a lousy piece of land (so-called lousy) -- should the developer and architect move a billion tons of earth to get it closer to the ethos/value system that is (apparently) manifested in a top 10 course? To borrow a phrase from Jud, how is it good for the game that Crystal Downs is now nationally recognized? Is CD a better course now than it was 30 years ago, and, if not (and it's not) do we mean to suggest that a steady and meaningful process of education lies behind this change in status? Is it education or is it indoctrination? Lots of questions -- for all the flaming that goes on (and that i do too sometimes around ratings and raters etc), I think it is genuinely a complex question worth exploring.

Peter
 

[John Kavanaugh]

It's not important if it is good for golf if it is good for enough golfers.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's not important if it is good for golf if it is good for enough golfers.

Pithy, and true -- at least from the perspective of "enough golfers"....

[Jason Thurman]

Rankings are just human nature. I can't think offhand of a single human creation that doesn't get ranked, particularly in the Internet age.

There is no result of course rankings. They're a reflection of who we were before they were ever created. Imagining a world where humans don't care enough about rankings to create them is to imagine a world where golf doesn't exist, because there would be no need to identify "the best" at arbitrary things and therefore no one would ever have said "Hey, I'll bet I can whack this rock farther down this field with this stick than you can."