New Rankings by Golf Course Architects

[Ulrich Mayring]

The Golf Course Architecture magazine is launching their own rankings, which are to be compiled by golf course architects exclusively:

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/GCA-launches-golf-course-rankings/2697/Default.aspx

It is discouraged, although as I read it not forbidden, to vote for one's own courses:

http://www.tudor-rose.co.uk/gcasurvey.aspx

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

I hope it turns out better than the old ranking by the ASGCA that was published in USA Today.  Somehow they would always forget to include some top-30 course like LACC or Prairie Dunes while they were busy putting on their own token choices.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall that ranking to be classic and modern, sort of a forerunner of the GolfWeek system now, so voting for a modern wouldn't have kept an older course off the list.

Perhaps the biggest concern to authenticity would be some impoverished gca allowing his vote to be bought by some enterprizing resort course.......

[Jim Colton]

Wait...they are going to get a top 100 list by asking for a designer's top 10? In a pure world, that should yield less than 50 good answers. It seems to create an incentive to sneak one's own course in there at 9 or 10, as it would seem anything with a vote or two should make the final list.

 

[Ronald Montesano]

Yay...another list...time to take my medication.

[Jim_Kennedy]

GCAM should just let the architect's vote for their own courses, makes it easier to cull them later.

[Tom_Doak]

I recall that ranking to be classic and modern, sort of a forerunner of the GolfWeek system now, so voting for a modern wouldn't have kept an older course off the list.

Jeff:

Voting for a modern course wouldn't have kept an older course off the list, but there were also a bunch of token courses where someone or other was the consulting architect and could publicize that.

Or, maybe there's a better reason why they left off a course like Prairie Dunes?

[Jud_T]

Pretty soon we'll be into our own form of derivatives: i.e. rank the top 10 rankings!

[Mac Plumart]

Pretty soon we'll be into our own form of derivatives: i.e. rank the top 10 rankings!

1. Golfweek composite (yep, I did it and do it).
2. Planet Golf
3. Golf Magazine
4. Partridge Doak Scale
5. Links

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I don't have an encyclopedic memory of most things, including those rankings, but recall a few oddballs on there.  Why PD was left off, I don't know.  Hey, I consulted there about that time, but I don't recall if I voted for it or not.  It was around 1980-1985, no?  We also have to recall that many courses now on lists weren't on them back then, when GD focused on difficulty, so oddball choices might partially be explained by the values of the time.  Not sure, really.

In general, ASGCA used to feel that rankings were best left to others, but things seem to have changed.  I guess we can count on this "new" idea for rankings to surface every 30 years or so, just over one generation apart, long enough for every one to forget the pluses and minuses of such an idea.

[Lester George]

After filling out my survey for this ranking I curiously found that only one of my top 10 was built after 1935.  Just worked out that way.

Lester

[David Kelly]

I don't have an encyclopedic memory of most things, including those rankings, but recall a few oddballs on there.  Why PD was left off, I don't know.  Hey, I consulted there about that time, but I don't recall if I voted for it or not.  It was around 1980-1985, no? 

You were consulting at PD at the time but don't remember if you thought it was a Top 100 course?

[Chris DeNigris]

After filling out my survey for this ranking I curiously found that only one of my top 10 was built after 1935.  Just worked out that way.

Lester

Lambert's Point? 

[Lester George]

Chris,

Exactly!!!  It would make my list of 9 hole courses if anyone ever did one!

Lester

[Ian Andrew]

The sampling of ten courses is too small to work for a list of 100 courses.
It doesn't address what we have not seen, what we do not like, or what we think should be better known.

I always thought asking architects for "The 10 Best Courses not on the Top 100 List" would produce a much more compelling read.

[Rick Baril]

I agree with Ian - and others.  Not sure how this will be cobbled into a Top 100 list.

After filling out the form, I found:
1. my efforts to visit courses, while traveling - in addition to the one's we work on - hasn't been as productive as I believed
2. my personal "courses I really need to see" bucket list - is much larger than I thought
3. not sure how this produces a 100 course list, with legitimate "weighting" (what happens if 15 courses recieve one vote each, for example)
4. wish I had the formula for balancing: work, family, marriage and playing 100 courses worthy of being on the top 100 list
5. would have liked to see a more creative ranking/formula/method
6. and a strange thought - could this produce a list of courses mainly designed by ODG's, since archies can't vote for their own and might be reticent to vote for competing architects work? (I know, this is twisted.  Likely a product of following the Arias trial too closely)

[Adam Lawrence]

I agree with Ian - and others.  Not sure how this will be cobbled into a Top 100 list.

After filling out the form, I found:
1. my efforts to visit courses, while traveling - in addition to the one's we work on - hasn't been as productive as I believed
2. my personal "courses I really need to see" bucket list - is much larger than I thought
3. not sure how this produces a 100 course list, with legitimate "weighting" (what happens if 15 courses recieve one vote each, for example)
4. wish I had the formula for balancing: work, family, marriage and playing 100 courses worthy of being on the top 100 list
5. would have liked to see a more creative ranking/formula/method
6. and a strange thought - could this produce a list of courses mainly designed by ODG's, since archies can't vote for their own and might be reticent to vote for competing architects work? (I know, this is twisted.  Likely a product of following the Arias trial too closely)

To be honest, we don't know either. But we think that the views of architects are worth collating - it'll be something interesting and different.

[Tom_Doak]

a strange thought - could this produce a list of courses mainly designed by ODG's, since archies can't vote for their own and might be reticent to vote for competing architects work? (I know, this is twisted.  Likely a product of following the Arias trial too closely)

Rick:

This is true to some extent of the GOLF Magazine rankings, where architects vote, but not for their own courses.  It tends to hold down the rankings of the modern courses just a little bit -- which helps to balance the hype factor for new courses.  But, if it's ONLY architects voting, that effect will be much stronger.

In fact, the methodology of this list is exactly the same as the first GOLF Magazine list of the Top 50 Courses in the World, back in 1979.  The same 15-20 U.S. courses got a bunch of votes, but then the leftovers were courses like Royal Hong Kong and Royal Selangor, which were on the ballots of Asian panelists who hadn't seen ten courses among the real top 100.  So, the least-traveled panelists were the ones who filled out the final 5-10 spots on the list.  And that was only 50 courses ... if they'd gone all the way to 100 they would have been taking courses with just one or two mentions.

P.S. to Adam:  You mean you are going to ask for a bunch of data and then decide how to use it?

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom, not exactly, we know how we want to use it but we don't know if it'll work out as we hope. Should we do it another way? Quite possibly, and over time wel'll doubtless refine it. Nonetheless, we think the basic concept of courses ranked by architects is an interesting one.

[Ulrich Mayring]

You could extend it to all subscribers of the magazine.

Ulrich

[Rick Baril]

Adam,
Agreed. It will be most interesting.
I think the “process” is going to be interesting part – deciphering the data and determining influences – and, if you’ll actually arrive at a logically ranked 100.  I had fleeting image, that your findings resulted in; “The Top 53 Golf Courses”. 

Mostly, I will be anxious to hear your thoughts after you interpret the data. 

Tom,
Thank you re: GOLF Magazine ranking comments.... somehow, I feel less twisted!
 
My list (and candidates) were weighted toward European courses, much more than I anticipated.  This is likely a result of making a point to seek out courses during work related travel - where my domestic travel is more family related, and I was less likely to carve out time to visit courses. 

So, in my case, business vs. personal travel, affected my exposure to – and consequently my list of courses.  This makes me wonder how many variables affect this type of ranking…

Glad better minds than mine have been assigned this task…

[Mike Nuzzo]

Adam
Who is an architect or has been?   
Cheers