[John Kavanaugh]

So my post was a little overly broad. Not every single person ranks things. Fine. But clearly it is a common human tendency, which was the point of my post. Again, look around at other kinds of magazines. Tech magazines rank everything. Consumer Reports is nothing but ratings of products. Music magazines rank albums, guitarists, etc etc etc. This list could go on and on.

People are interested in rankings. It gives people a frame of reference and something to argue over, whether it's related to food, music, golf courses, cars, women, or refrigerators.

I don't begrudge Jaka or Dan or anyone else for "not getting it" and not being much of one for ranking things in their own lives. But look around the world and you'll see rankings everywhere, so marveling over golf course rankings as if they are some bizarre thing is simply odd to me. It fits right in with a very broad tendency throughout the culture.

Exactly, which is why so many young children yearn to grow up and be critics one day.  Some people must be born that way because no one would choose to be a critic.

[Matthew Petersen]

So my post was a little overly broad. Not every single person ranks things. Fine. But clearly it is a common human tendency, which was the point of my post. Again, look around at other kinds of magazines. Tech magazines rank everything. Consumer Reports is nothing but ratings of products. Music magazines rank albums, guitarists, etc etc etc. This list could go on and on.

People are interested in rankings. It gives people a frame of reference and something to argue over, whether it's related to food, music, golf courses, cars, women, or refrigerators.

I don't begrudge Jaka or Dan or anyone else for "not getting it" and not being much of one for ranking things in their own lives. But look around the world and you'll see rankings everywhere, so marveling over golf course rankings as if they are some bizarre thing is simply odd to me. It fits right in with a very broad tendency throughout the culture.

Exactly, which is why so many young children yearn to grow up and be critics one day.  Some people must be born that way because no one would choose to be a critic.

I always figured the old aphorism about teaching "Those who can't ..." was actually far more applicable to critics. You love the medium but aren't good enough to have a career in it, so you find the next best way to be involved in that world.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha Ha - good one, Tony M! Thanks for the laugh.  

Oh, by the way, that was the 5th funniest post I've read this month.  It had the 9th best opening stretch (of 15 words or less), and was 3rd in terms of overall flow and pace.  Most importantly, it ranked 1st for funny posts introduced on the last Friday of the month, and a solid 2nd amongst all funny posts with good opening stretches (of 15 words or less) and overall flow and pace introduced on any Friday of the month by people whose names start with a "T" but not followed by an "A".  (Sorry - I don't want to get into a big debate, but I honestly believe "T"om Doak beat you there, and by a wide margin).  

Peter

[Jud_T]

So therefore it's a pure coincidence that Jaka calls a top 100 course home, the odds of which are roughly 0.054% and likely will belong to 2 in the near future (0.0029%).   

[John Kavanaugh]

So therefore it's a pure coincidence that Jaka calls a top 100 course home, the odds of which are roughly 0.054% and likely will belong to 2 in the near future (0.0029%).   

I have earned the right to my opinion about rankings by joining Dismal River at a time where every rater, magazine and critic in the world hated the place.  I proved them all wrong, but that is another story.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tee hee - yes, as you often remind us, JK...which is doubly self-serving (and enviable) now that you've helped drag the rankings/consensus opinion in Dismal's favour.  Well done, sir, well done!!

[David Kelly]

I always figured the old aphorism about teaching "Those who can't ..." was actually far more applicable to critics. You love the medium but aren't good enough to have a career in it, so you find the next best way to be involved in that world.

Except that many of the greatest critics of the arts were very accomplished practitioners as well.  In literature you have people like Samuel Taylor Coleridge,  Umberto Eco, Vladimir Nabokov, John Updike and Robert Penn Warren.  In film you have people like Jean Luc Godard, Eric Rohmer, James Agee, and Francois Truffaut. In art you have Roger Fry, John Ruskin, Jean-Honoré Fragonard. 

And in golf course architecture you have Tom Doak.

[Kalen Braley]

So Dan,

After 4 pages of responses, has you original question been answered or at least partially answered?

I tend to fall in the camp of "we do it cause its in our intrinsic human nature"....

[George Pazin]

nevermind...

Rankings on here usually tell you more about the ranker than the subject - quite helpful in that regard.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The clubs like it if they make it in to the 100. They hate it if they don't. They like going up. They hate going down. We treat it seriously primarily because we know we can have an effect on the clubs revenues by where we place them. Other than that, it's a bit of fun.

What concerns me most is the risk for knee-jerk reactions by the clubs, based on a slip in rankings.

It would be interesting to know why certain prominent clubs in Ireland have undertaken costly renovation work in the last few years. I recall one club mentioning that they had slipped down the rankings, and that the recently completed redesign would restore the course to it's proper position in the rankings.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to rankings. I think they are a bit silly, but they do generate debate, and that's not a bad thing.

Donal:

What about a knee jerk reaction to the rankings that leads to an improvement/restoration of the course?  Why would a reaction to the rankings necessarily be bad?  What if a course has deteriorated because of maintenance practices/lost architectural features and needs a kick in the pants to get things right?  What if a course has been resting on its laurels instead of preserving its history or performing proper tree maintenance then slips in the rankings and responds by doing the right thing?

Bart

Bart,

I'd have no problem if a committee decided to renovate their course based on the reasons you gave, and I would hope that any decision to renovate would not be based on the position of the course in a rankings list.

[Tommy Williamsen]

We all make comparisons or in a sense rank.  "I went to X restaurant yesterday and had a great crab cake.  It isn't as good as Y restaurant, but it is better than Z."  "I thought it was the best movie I have seen this year."  "Royal County Down is the best course on the planet." 
So for a magazine to put in print what we all are thinking is pretty natural.  It isn't a big deal.

[Niall C]

Not sure how things work in the US but as an off and on golf magazine buyer with no particular loyalty to any one publication, I will tend to buy a mag that has rankings to see what they say about particular courses which will in some respect make me want to play certain courses. In that respect the magazine wins because if the average consumer is like me then they will tend to buy mags that have rankings and the courses will win because through the rankings they will get more people looking to play them.

Seems totally logical and worthwhile all round or am I being too sensible ?

Niall

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
After 4 pages of responses, has you original question been answered or at least partially answered?

Personally I still think a rating system would work better for golf than a ranking system. I see no reason why a course like Seminole should compete with a course like Spyglass. To me, they are two completely different types of courses and it feels too much like comparing apples to bowling balls. I also think making spots on a list important to courses and architect hs proven to be dangerous. It's not always bad, but often enough to be concerned. With a Michelin-type rating system I feel like you get many of the advantages people mention without any of the danger.

I also think if the rankings were useful at one time that time has past. I don't see a lot of value in total strangers telling me about their rankings.  If I were to make a trip to Australia, I'd ask this group. I would ignore posters whose opinions on golf are very different than my own and pay attention to those whose tastes more closely match my own. This I see as useful.

But I did find Greg Holland's respond (No. 35) was one of the more compelling. There are plenty of golfers much less connected than many of us. They are just looking for where to best spend their money while traveling. They go to these lists and it can be sort of their trusted critics. It would be better if they figured out how to contact people with similar tastes, but that might not be as readily apparent, so why not go to the Golf Mags (while they still exist)?

The ranking of golf courses still is not something I care a great deal about. I'll probably go back to ignoring all ranker threads.  But I'll be less inclined to confuse the term ranker with the term wanker in the future.

Cheers,
Dan King

Being a one of a kind means we are automatically the best in the world at what we do.
― Victor WIlliamson

[John Kirk]

"Some things work, and some things don't, and through this hyper analysis, the art of building them is improving."

This could have a thread of its own. That's well and clearly said, John, and you may be right, and at times I agree with you/that sentiment. But mostly, I don't believe things work that way, not great things at least.  An art, any art, improves not because of hyper analysis by the collective/outside agencies, but because there are born here and there, then and now, artists/creators who are so very good at what they do that they in turn shape that very collective.  As far as I know, there was no hyper-analysis of 16th century play-writing when Shakespeare burst unto the scene (in fact, if there had been, he would've been accused of doing many things "wrong").  Any hyper analysis in the 40s and 50s seems to have had zero affect on Marlon Brando, when he revolutionized acting. As you know, there was no such thing as "jazz theory" when Louis Armstrong basically invented the language of jazz and the soloist's art. The great artist and the great art/craft comes first, and creates the very parameters within which we then discuss that craft.

Peter

I believe the artists (architects) benefit from exposure to as many ideas as possible.  Louis Armstrong grew up in New Orleans listening to Jelly Roll Morton and Buddy Bolden, and is a contemporary of Sidney Bechet.

Sorry to always frame arguments in terms of Tom Doak's career, but don't you think Tom's efforts to provoke discussion on Golf Club Atlas coincide nicely with his greatest period of creativity?  I think he reads what others here say, and listens to his associates and friends, and it all goes into the hopper for use later in golf course design.

With golf courses, the parameters are rather strict.  There's no reinventing the wheel.  A great modern architect won't change golf courses like Armstrong or Charlie Parker changed jazz music.  But some of these modern golf courses do a great job of presenting a beautiful walk with a varied and exciting challenge.

[Bart Bradley]

The clubs like it if they make it in to the 100. They hate it if they don't. They like going up. They hate going down. We treat it seriously primarily because we know we can have an effect on the clubs revenues by where we place them. Other than that, it's a bit of fun.

What concerns me most is the risk for knee-jerk reactions by the clubs, based on a slip in rankings.

It would be interesting to know why certain prominent clubs in Ireland have undertaken costly renovation work in the last few years. I recall one club mentioning that they had slipped down the rankings, and that the recently completed redesign would restore the course to it's proper position in the rankings.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to rankings. I think they are a bit silly, but they do generate debate, and that's not a bad thing.

Donal:

What about a knee jerk reaction to the rankings that leads to an improvement/restoration of the course?  Why would a reaction to the rankings necessarily be bad?  What if a course has deteriorated because of maintenance practices/lost architectural features and needs a kick in the pants to get things right?  What if a course has been resting on its laurels instead of preserving its history or performing proper tree maintenance then slips in the rankings and responds by doing the right thing?

Bart

Bart,

I'd have no problem if a committee decided to renovate their course based on the reasons you gave, and I would hope that any decision to renovate would not be based on the position of the course in a rankings list.

I would hope so too.  But in the real world there is a lot of inertia.  A whole lot.  Sometimes these projects need something to provide the juice to get started.  Perhaps a fall in the rankings is one such motivator.

Bart

[John Kirk]

The absolute truth of the matter is that I have never seen someone list their favorite courses without the intent of creating envy from the reader.  I had no idea you loved your Dad so much and were one of the rare lucky people who got to enjoy time on the golf course with him that you cherish to this day.  I don't have that just like I haven't played NGLA or Cypress.  Good for you!!!

Response #1:

Look, I am very proud of my impressive list of top 25 courses played, and nobody helped me build that list.  I did it all myself, by establishing friendships and making connections within the golf community.  I spent thousands of dollars traveling to play these fantastic golf courses so I could evaluate them for my list.  I did it myself.

Response #2:

I think you're wrong, John.  I don't think that way at all.  It doesn't even cross my mind.  If anything, I actively avoid that sort of reaction, though I've made a mistake here and there.

I want to be admired like everyone else, but admire me for something else.  I try to be those things.  Envy gets in the way of a good time.  I never envy people for wealth or luxurious golf lives.  Sometimes I envy people for their talent, looks, work ethic, accomplishments or natural ability.  I almost never envy those who've accumulated great wealth and status, with which can come a charmed golf life.  But envying golfing lives?  C'mon!  FTS.  I want to play and laugh and learn and sometimes analyze golf courses for their merits, and that can be done just about anywhere.

[John Kirk]

For new golf courses, making a top 100 list can be a financial make or break event, though I would venture the majority of top 100s opened in the last decade are breaking.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, John - good post #88 (and the rest too), and an interesting and valid counter-argument. So good in fact that I'll leave it there and maybe suggest that we both are touching on elements of creative dynamics and processes.

Peter

[Dan King]

John Kirk writes:
I believe the artists (architects) benefit from exposure to as many ideas as possible.  Louis Armstrong grew up in New Orleans listening to Jelly Roll Morton and Buddy Bolden, and is a contemporary of Sidney Bechet.

I've been thinking about this since you posted. What would be better for a young Satchmo, looking for exposure to the music of N'Awlins? He could either have a numerical rank of best performers of NOLA or just a list of the ten or twenty important acts he should see? Say you give Louis the numerical ranked list. As a young kid, his goal is to be the best. If Jelly Roll Morton is ranked No. 1 and Buddy Bolden is ranked No. 2, then to be the best he will have to be at least slightly better than Morton.  Would there be any point in paying any attention to Bolden?

If instead he got a list of the ten or twenty great performers from around the Big Easy, it is more likely Louis will want to check out all the important acts, to see what he can get from each. His goal would not be the copy any one single act, but to learn what he could from each. To be the best now, he will take stuff from many acts and create something original. And that is how art moves forward.

We could come up with a list of the 10-20 best musician in history. There will be slight variations, depending on taste, but a large enough sample size could come up with a list of 20 musicians that had a significant impact on music. But why rank them? Isn't the priority of those important musicians then just a matter of taste? Most would agree Mozart and Hank Williams belong on the list of important musicians. A preference between the two only comes down to taste in music. It makes no sense to create a list that says Hank Williams is better than Mozart or visa versa.

I think the same is true in golf. If we say Pine Valley is the best golf course in the world, a young architect will decide to be the best he needs to build a course similar to Pine Valley and figure he can ignore other great courses. If you give that aspiring architect a list of a dozen courses they should check out, than you have a better chance of coming up with something unique.

To me a Michelin-style system is a good response to many of the issues currently addressed by this thread, without the dangers. There are perhaps a dozen courses everyone that cares about course architect should see (three-star courses), and then perhaps a couple dozen more that have taken some of those dozen courses ideas and expanded on them, often improving on them (two-star courses), and then perhaps 50-60 other great, but less important for an education, courses (one-star courses). 

Cheers,
Dan King

There is two kinds of music, the good, and the bad. I play the good kind.
 --Louis Armstrong

[David Kelly]

John Kirk writes:
I believe the artists (architects) benefit from exposure to as many ideas as possible.  Louis Armstrong grew up in New Orleans listening to Jelly Roll Morton and Buddy Bolden, and is a contemporary of Sidney Bechet.

I've been thinking about this since you posted. What would be better for a young Satchmo, looking for exposure to the music of N'Awlins? He could either have a numerical rank of best performers of NOLA or just a list of the ten or twenty important acts he should see? Say you give Louis the numerical ranked list. As a young kid, his goal is to be the best. If Jelly Roll Morton is ranked No. 1 and Buddy Bolden is ranked No. 2, then to be the best he will have to be at least slightly better than Morton.  Would there be any point in paying any attention to Bolden?

Well since Bolden played the cornet and Morton played piano I would say, yes.  

This is a completely false argument because Armstrong didn't learn from a list and the purpose of ranking golf courses is not to teach someone about golf architecture.  There are many arguments that could be made against golf course rankings but saying they aren't something that they don't set out to be isn't one of them.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

I'm not sure what your issue is.  You'd be happy if we had a 50 great courses one should see list but once someone assigns numbers amongst the 50 you get your panties in a bunch?  Anyone who goes out of their way to only play the top 10 at the expense of the next 40 is a wank anyway.  If you don't care for the bickering about whether Whistling Straights should be ranked above Bandon Trails simply ignore the discussion.  I don't like all the vampire TV shows, but I accept there's a market for it and just turn the channel elsewhere.

[John Kirk]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the detailed response.  Rich Goodale recently mentioned that he likes the Michelin Guide style scale:  great (*), better (**), best (***).  Assigning a number is not as important as the process of evaluating the course and debating its merits.

Magazines tends to use a 10 point scale in theory, though it's really about 13 meaningful ratings, from 4 to 10 with half ratings (such as 7.5) allowed.  That's a lot of rankings to choose from, though I'm sure the half point scores make sense to the course raters.

Let me leave it at that for today.

[Dan King]

David Kelly writes:
Well since Bolden played the cornet and Morton played piano I would say, yes.

I'm not a musician -- I was forced to play clarinet when I was a youngster until I broke it hitting my brother over the head -- but it seems to me that you do not only learn about music from musicians that play the same instrument or even type of instrument as you. It would seem to be unique, often times it is taking something existing and changing it, sometimes using various different instruments than the original version. 

This is a completely false argument because Armstrong didn't learn from a list and the purpose of ranking golf courses is not to teach someone about golf architecture.  There are many arguments that could be made against golf course rankings but saying they aren't something that they don't set out to be isn't one of them.

You might want to go back and read some of the posts in this thread. There were numerous people touting the rankings as an educational tool. Personally, I don't think the magazines motivation is all that interesting.

Jud Tigerman writes:
You'd be happy if we had a 50 great courses one should see list but once someone assigns numbers amongst the 50 you get your panties in a bunch?

I'm reasonably sure my panties are fine. But maybe you know more about them than I do.

Jon Kirk writes:
Rich Goodale recently mentioned that he likes the Michelin Guide style scale:  great (*), better (**), best (***).  Assigning a number is not as important as the process of evaluating the course and debating its merits.

I'm a disciple of Rihc, not the other way around.

Cheers,
Dan King

I think that anybody from the 20th century, up to now, has to be aware that if it wasn't for Louis Armstrong, we'd all be wearing powdered wigs. I think that Louis Armstrong loosened the world, helped people to be able to say "Yeah," and to walk with a little dip in their hip. Before Louis Armstrong, the world was definitely square, just like Christopher Columbus thought."
 -- South African trumpet legend Hugh Masekela

[Peter Pallotta]

There are great talents -- and then the rest of us potter around and try to explain and characterize and judge/rank. And any of us can be the great talents and "the rest of us" at different times.  When Miles Davis first broke through and was young and particularly brash (and in his critic mode), he had unkind/cutting/disparaging things to say about Armstrong -- both the 'simplistic' nature of his music and his performance style. Later, with age and more wisdom (and in his musician mode) Davis came to realize that Louis was playing sh-t forty years earlier that the moderns were just rediscovering then.

Peter

[Dan King]

You can't play anything on a horn that Louis hasn't played.
 -- Miles Davis

I know what I plan to be listening to while walking the dog today.

Cheers,
Dan King

While the Satchmo Legacy tour was under way, somebody asked Freddie Hubbard, "Why are you wasting your time playing this old music?" Freddie replied: "Man, you'd be surprised how much I'm learning - not only about myself, but about the musicians who came before me. You don't realize at first when you listen to Armstrong's records how great this man was and how hard that Hot Five music was to play. After the experience of reading and playing those parts, I have an even greater respect for Louis Armstrong than before."
 -- liner notes to "The Satchmo Legacy Band Salute to Pops Vol. 2"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()