Rankings - Harmful/Helpful

[Brent Hutto]

The example of a "330 yard Par 4" is an interesting one. That's what my home course has in abundance from the tees I play. Several Par 4's clustered in the 325-340 range with remainder being either 290-315 or 360-ish. In an average round I'll hit about three Par 4's, another three Par 3's (which are 100-160 yards) and a couple of the Par 5's (420-460 yards).

For me that range of eight or so GIR (assuming I'm hitting the ball well by my standards that day) seems to be a sweet spot for enjoyment. Playing one set of tees farther back I'll hit one or two Par 4's, one or two Par 3's and maybe one Par 5 on average. Somehow a round with four GIR and a score around 90 seems less fun than a round with eight GIR and a score around 85.

For all I know a round with twelve GIR and a score around 80 might be more fun still but I think they don't make tees that short! To average 12 GIR/round I'd probably have to tee it up at the 100 yard marker on every hole. Because even with an 8-iron in my hand I can miss a green by 20 yards on any given swing.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Interesting.  I always go by hitting a green because I reckon golf is more about distance control than it is about pure distance.  So really, the ability to reach a hole is one criteria in deciding a good overall length of course.  By your measure of driver and say 6 iron on average I am looking at a course of 6850 yards.  That is way too far for my liking, yet my expectation for the number of greens hit would probably not decrease - heavy sigh.  

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - that is interesting, i.e. that if your standard of play was as low as mine, you could 'comfortably' (in my eyes) play at almost 6900 yards...which i take it you rarely do. Shows how many and subtle and varied ways the golfers' expectations play out.

Peter

[Steve Lang]

   Hey #18 at SPCC is only 330 yes, but it is uphill, demands good drive and approach club selection per lie, and all you see is the front edge..

probably lower % hit #1 at SPCC.. so what?

Helpful:  if every developer wants a "modern championship venue" someone has to sort the good, bad, and ugly for better or worse, at least for bragging rights…  I'd venture that thought was central to development of the USA's early classic courses too, i.e., having the best gca provide something worthy of the club's stature and out-compete the neighbors …

p.s. was a GW rater for a year, gave it up last june…

[Sean_A]

The example of a "330 yard Par 4" is an interesting one. That's what my home course has in abundance from the tees I play. Several Par 4's clustered in the 325-340 range with remainder being either 290-315 or 360-ish. In an average round I'll hit about three Par 4's, another three Par 3's (which are 100-160 yards) and a couple of the Par 5's (420-460 yards).

8 GIRs and what is your handicap?  Unless you are a god awful putter, based on that info I can't see how you are above an 11.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

The example of a "330 yard Par 4" is an interesting one. That's what my home course has in abundance from the tees I play. Several Par 4's clustered in the 325-340 range with remainder being either 290-315 or 360-ish. In an average round I'll hit about three Par 4's, another three Par 3's (which are 100-160 yards) and a couple of the Par 5's (420-460 yards).

8 GIRs and what is your handicap?  Unless you are a god awful putter, based on that info I can't see how you are above an 11.

Ciao

Well, that's what my game is capable of, subject to the caveat

For me that range of eight or so GIR (assuming I'm hitting the ball well by my standards that day)

Unfortunately there are a good many rounds mixed in there where I hit the ball all over the place and don't come close to 8 GIR. I also have an irreducible tendency to make about four double/triple bogeys per round even when I'm playing well, usually by hitting my tee shot somewhere that isn't a simple chip-out or layup recovery.

So right now my index is 13.4 but I'm starting to figure out that from 5,700 yard tees even a short hitter like myself can sometimes benefit from teeing off with a 4-iron or similar. After two decades of playing from 500 yards longer it has taken me a few months to figure out how to play the game effectively when I don't have to bang driver off every tee and then hit fairway woods to try to reach greens.

An interesting aspect of the "Tee It Forward" game for me is changing my thinking from Par 5's being potential disaster holes (because they take three long shots) to Par 5's being the easiest holes. It's quite recently I'm starting to adopt the kind of tactics that most players probably use on the three-shot holes. The mindset when you can in theory approach every green on the course with an iron and maybe even get on the odd Par 5 is two is very different than when playing the course from too far back.

[Jud_T]

This discussion has strayed. Aside from selling books and magazines, ratings are a way to focus interest on architecture, new courses and renovations.  They stimulate discussions such as these.  so long as no one takes them too seriously, they are positive as interest producers and possible educational tools.  However, if the "wrong " lessons are learned and they cause owners, builders architects to try and achieve ratings by emulating trends, they can be destructive.  As for the trend toward longer courses, I think that it is wrong to blame the ratings although they may have some impact.  The changes in equipment which have led to nearly unprecedented increases in distance have led to lenghthening course which desire to remain challenging to top level players.  Since these courses hold tournaments, they often become models for the consuming public.  While I agree with Barney that we need not design to the least common denominator, nonetheless, the increase in length leads to several unfortunate unintended consequences.  Increased length usually leads to more maintained turf.  This increases costs which is them passed along to the consumer. Golf becomes more expensive.  Similarly, it takes longer to traverse a course that is 500 yards longer than the shorter course.  I suggest that the increase in time increases as the skil of the player decreases.  Hence p[ace of play problems increase.  If difficulty as opposed to strategy is emphasized, this problem is exascerbated.  So to the extent that ratings drive the trend toward longer courses with a greater degree of difficulty, they may create problems.  But if ratings are geared to consider other factors, they might have a different effect.

Shel,

I think part of the problem is that many do take the rankings quite seriously.  They have real economic consequences in many instances.  It takes a certain level of time, golfing experience, education and travel to gain proper perspective.  And if you're sinking millions into a course and hoping to get new paying customers, one has to consider what moves the needle with the golfing public, even if you personally take the rankings with a grain of salt.  A bit of a Catch-22 situation...

[Jason Thurman]

I think part of the problem is that many do take the rankings quite seriously.

Of course you're right, but who is it a problem for?

A few foolish course owners or memberships might stretch their back tees to 7200 yards because the pros play from similar distances on tv. Others run their greens at speeds their clientele can't putt because "They had the greens running at 13 at the Open!" Others will put flower beds all over the course in the name of beautification. And others will do a multimillion dollar renovation because the course across town got ranked after they did theirs.

Neither televisions, professional golfers, Stimpmeters, major championships, landscaping, nor rankings invented stupid decision making. If the rankings had never been invented, the courses whose members/owners decide to do costly renovations to try and get ranked would just find another rationale for indulging their need to measure something.

I'm with Shel. The rankings are great for sparking interesting discussions. And while they may inspire some men to do very stupid things financially, it's the men themselves who are at fault for that. Not the magazine. If nothing else, they at least make average weekend players pay a little more attention to the quality of the courses they choose.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think part of the problem is that many do take the rankings quite seriously.

Of course you're right, but who is it a problem for?

Superintendents' careers and golfers who want subtle, inexpensive designs?

[Jason Thurman]

Oh come on Mark. You know there are plenty of subtle and relatively inexpensive designs IN THE RANKINGS! Expensive designs with little subtlety are far more a product of the golf-and-real-estate boom than of a list that Golf Digest publishes every now and then.

As for superintendents, why shouldn't they need to perform at a high level to achieve success? If anything, it seems like conditioning started to get much better around the time the rankings were devised. As a professional, I welcome anything that creates progress in my industry even if it means I need to be more well-rounded to thrive in it. And as a golfer, I'm thankful that I get to play on today's conditions instead of the ones in the 1960s.

[Jud_T]

I wonder how much private club dues in the states have gone up relative to inflation over time.  

[Nigel Islam]

Expensive designs with little subtlety are far more a product of the golf-and-real-estate boom than of a list that Golf Digest publishes every now and then.

That is exactly my sentiment on the issue. I think Fazio benefitted far more from the real estate boom than from the fact that he has designed 20% of the Golf Digest rankings. I look at the numbers of courses that Fazio, Nicklaus, Palmer, and the Joneses designed and it just engulfs the numbers of what Doak has designed. Mass production does not equate a better product.

[Peter Pallotta]

J - there was an old commercial (I think for dandruff shampoo) with the tag line "You only get one chance to make a first impression". I think Mark makes a key point -- published rankings and the rating/ranking process have a lot to do with the "one chances" and the "first impressions", so it seems clear to me that every wanna-be course is going to try to put (what it thinks as) its best foot forward in every way possible, from design to maintenance to service to its published photographs, and in every case they'd want that first and one impression to be "wow" (and certainly not "eh" or "blah" or "nice" or "hmm"). And so it seems a pretty safe bet that you're not going to get many quiet, unpretentious, understated, simply maintained and presented and operated golf courses built if/when the model for economic success involves and is so tied to (in theory or in practice) making an intitial ranking/ratings splash.

(Whether or not golfers or some golfers or most golfers acttually want and want to pay for quiet, unpretentious, understated and simply maintained courses is another question.)
P

[Brent Hutto]

I belonged to a private (non-member owned) club that will never be in anyone's Top 100 list. Not sure it would necessarily make a Top 100 list in my state for that matter. Just a mid-market private suburban club in a housing development, built in the early 1990's.

The head pro told me that the goal for maintenance and presentation was simple (if unobtainable). For 365 days a year it should be green, perfect and in its 100% most visually impressive state when viewed from the clubhouse or any of the surrounding homes. If a prospective club member or home buyer showed up on any random day he ought to think the course was beautiful and flawless.

And this is a course that had already been through a couple bankruptcies and was charge a couple hundred bucks a month in dues. There was no way to come even close to that standard but that's the only criterion they gave the superintendent to work with, even with only a moderately liberal maintenance budget.

[BCrosby]

J - there was an old commercial (I think for dandruff shampoo) with the tag line "You only get one chance to make a first impression". I think Mark makes a key point -- published rankings and the rating/ranking process have a lot to do with the "one chances" and the "first impressions", so it seems clear to me that every wanna-be course is going to try to put (what it thinks as) its best foot forward in every way possible, from design to maintenance to service to its published photographs, and in every case they'd want that first and one impression to be "wow" (and certainly not "eh" or "blah" or "nice" or "hmm"). And so it seems a pretty safe bet that you're not going to get many quiet, unpretentious, understated, simply maintained and presented and operated golf courses built if/when the model for economic success involves and is so tied to (in theory or in practice) making an intitial ranking/ratings splash.

P

Agreed Peter. The degree to which a course is photogenic (ocean views, mountain vistas, flashy bunkers, beautiful "framing") distorts where a course is ranked, at least initially.

First impressions really do matter. Heck, for most raters their first impression is the only impression they will ever get of a course.

Some archies are better at playing that game than others. Their courses benefit accordingly.

Add that to any number of other reasons why you should be sceptical about ratings.

Bob

[Jim_Coleman]

    I think rankings have provided a great benefit.  For example, I am quite sure that one of the most significant motivators, if not the most significant motivator, for the "restoration" of Philly Cricket has been that the machers at the club were unhappy with the course's lack of ranking.  As a result, what looks to be a great improvement (at least from the preliminary reviews on this site) has come to pass.  I suspect this has happened many many times throughout the country.  Rankings have driven improved older courses and great new ones.  And who are the beneficiaries of this?  Architects.

[Jud_T]

Jim,

That's fine, and there have certainly been some wonderful restorations in the past decade, but as Tom mentioned often a membership that really just needs a couple hundred grand of bunker work turns into a justification for a multi-million dollar job.  I've seen evidence of that locally.  This money has to come from somewhere, and there's a cost associated with that which may not be apparent on grand re-opening day when everyone's patting themselves on the back.

[Mark Saltzman]

I think part of the problem is that many do take the rankings quite seriously.

Of course you're right, but who is it a problem for?

Superintendents' careers and golfers who want subtle, inexpensive designs?

Mark, what is a subtle design? Can you list a couple of courses that are subtle designs to help me understand what you mean?

[Sean_A]

Rankings aren't helpful or harmful, its what folks do with them or how they view them that really matters.  This is a similar argument about blaming the altering of courses on the long ball.  We all were blessed to be born with brains.  I guess some people would rather not use theirs and instead find it easier to shift blame for their choices onto the ubiquitous "others".  

Ciao

[Chris DeToro]

I think that the idea and theory of rankings is hugely helpful.  Otherwise, we'd have no barometer for what's good and what's average.  That being said, I don't see much merit in the magazine rankings that split hairs between the many great courses that exist.  I'd merely break it down into simple categories: 1) absolute must play at any cost; 2) worth making a trip to; 3) if you happen to be in the area, check it out; and 4) not worth going. 

[Ian Andrew]

I used to like having a list to help me seek the better courses, but I think they eventually became hurtful.

Rankers in recent times have become selfish in their assessments. It's hurting the reputation of courses that were never know for great conditions in the past, but were known for their quality of architecture. People used to understand that for certain courses it was a timing issue and were able to assess what the architecture would play like in the season the course was designed for. All but the wealthiest clubs are seasonal in appearance and playing conditions. That used to be acceptable. But now that's not good enough ... if its not perfect for "their" visit, regardless of the timing, then the course is heavily criticized for not meeting their expectations that day.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian: bingo! Golfers, not just rankers, and I include myself among this lot, are clueless when it comes to understanding the rhythms of climate and the vagaries of weather and how golf courses reflect this.

I think part of the problem is that many do take the rankings quite seriously.

Of course you're right, but who is it a problem for?

Superintendents' careers and golfers who want subtle, inexpensive designs?

Mark, what is a subtle design? Can you list a couple of courses that are subtle designs to help me understand what you mean?

Mark, rather than beat you over the head with my go-to courses in this category (TOC and Ganton) and to cite two general examples: many, many links courses weaving over land that lacks drama and many courses scattered across inland England. There are James Braid courses, just to name one designer, sprinkled all over Scotland that few know yet do the job of providing quality, fun golf far, far better than many courses showing up in magazine lists.

Anyway, since my point is it's hard to find new subtle designs of quality, here a few off the top of my head:
Hidden Creek
Beechtree
Warren
Hope Island

The sad truth is links strategies easily can be ported over to inland-course strategies, as the courses listed above demonstrate, and by doing so easily make a course far more interesting. Sadly this rarely happens. A number of factors explain why but I believe magazine rankings are in no small part to blame; they dictate many golfers' tastes and according to Tom Fazio they also dictate many clients' specific instructions (and / or choice of architects).

The revelation that we've been robbed really only hit me during a weekend spent playing Hope Island (of all places). By all outward appearances it is a bog-standard modern course. Cartball only (complete with cart flyovers bridging highways), water hazards all over the place, GPS carts, etc etc. But that is a course with a lot of ideas just stolen from links courses. Result: a course that produces "pleasurable excitement" round after round after round. It's when I played a course like that that I realized it's no more expensive to build a subtle, interesting and fun course than it is to build what typically gets built.

Jason T: you don't really believe rankings (even the conditioning score in GD) reflect the quality of the super, do you?