Why do we rank? Why do we CARE to rank?

[C. Squier]

Isn't the very idea of averaging to weed out the extreme? The larger the sample size, the more precise and closer to the "truth" the average becomes?

Man, I swear I learned something in all those statistics classes I took. Glad my prof wasn't a member of a private club.

[Jud_T]

CS,

I get the mathematical concept, but some of us are more interested in the extreme at our age and weight than having a hundred inbred sticks tell us that Oakmont is the perfect tournament course for the 20th time in a row.  For 90 percent of the golfing population, that's mere fantasy bedpost notching material and no fun if they could even get on.  I'd rather have one nutjob tell me that I have to see the 15th hole at Harrison Hills and play Painswick sometime in my lifetime.

[Sean_A]

I'd rather have one nutjob tell me that I have to see the 15th hole at Harrison Hills and play Painswick sometime in my lifetime.

I knew it!  Goodale isn't a wing nut, he's nut job!

Ciao

[C. Squier]

There's a reason Robert Parker doesn't rate a bunch of $15 wines. Nobody gives a shit. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of golfers care way more about having 7 lifetime notches on the top 100 list than following up on a golf course recommendation from a toothless caddie.

If you don't think that 90% wouldn't have more fun at Oakmont than playing Harrison Hills, you're off your rocker. Can you really say that your anti ranking stance has nothing to do with your perception that your own club is under appreciated?

[Jud_T]

There's a reason Robert Parker doesn't rate a bunch of $15 wines. Nobody gives a shit. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of golfers care way more about having 7 lifetime notches on the top 100 list than following up on a golf course recommendation from a toothless caddie.

If you don't think that 90% wouldn't have more fun at Oakmont than playing Harrison Hills, you're off your rocker. Can you really say that your anti ranking stance has nothing to do with your perception that your own club is under appreciated?

1.  I believe Robert Parker does have a best value section, which is under $20 (or it used to be when I drank more wine than beer).  Furthermore, I've met him and he's a tool with a serious boner for French wine vs. the new world.  He'd probably fit right in at Digest.

2.  Haven't played Oakmont but I wouldn't be at all surprised if I'd enjoy Harrison Hills more.

3.  I'm perfectly comfortable with where Kingsley is rated and where it isn't, and why this is the case.  It simply proves the point of the weaknesses of averaging out extremes.  I've already made the mistake once of joining a club in part because of it's ranking and don't intend to make the same mistake twice.

4. I'm not anti-ranking per se, but after years of belt notching and business outings at fancy clubs that weren't a lot of fun, I'm more interested in seeking out the interesting off the run course recommended by someone here than whether Whistling Straights, Medinah, Butler, Rich Harvest and Valhalla moved up or down 2 spots this year.

[Matt Frey, PGA]

I'm bumping this. I was speaking to a co-worker today about how many consider golf course architecture a form of art, and I became curious how / why the whole ranking thing started. I am not aware of any art industry magazines ranking paintings, buildings, sculptures, etc., on the regular. Why is golf treated differently? Was it a lobby of courses for prestige, since they are after all businesses, unlike traditional art pieces.

[George Pazin]

I'm bumping this. I was speaking to a co-worker today about how many consider golf course architecture a form of art, and I became curious how / why the whole ranking thing started. I am not aware of any art industry magazines ranking paintings, buildings, sculptures, etc., on the regular. Why is golf treated differently? Was it a lobby of courses for prestige, since they are after all businesses, unlike traditional art pieces.

In sports there are winners and losers. Not so in the other things you mention. I suspect the rankings reflect that, at least in part.


Jud and RJ were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off earlier (to channel another ranker ), there's no way this thread rates higher than a 4.133...


What is the slope and yardage from the tippy tips of this thread?

[James Bennett]

Rankings can be a vehicle for knowledge and communication.

No-one agrees with the final list, but everybody learns a little through the preparation of the list or the reading of the list.

Get a list from 1 to 100, and you can decide whether you are interested in the first 20, second twenty etc, another person wants to focus on the top 10, another person is interested in courses in their locality.
All people test their thoughts of what is important to them against the list, re-evaluate what is important to them and what is good/not so good about the courses they know that are on the list, and start to develop a greater understanding than they had before about golf.

The preparation and discussion is more important than the list order.
I don't care for decimal.point scores though.

James B (Australian rater - always learning)

[Tom_Doak]

Rankings can be a vehicle for knowledge and communication.

No-one agrees with the final list, but everybody learns a little through the preparation of the list or the reading of the list.

Get a list from 1 to 100, and you can decide whether you are interested in the first 20, second twenty etc, another person wants to focus on the top 10, another person is interested in courses in their locality.
All people test their thoughts of what is important to them against the list, re-evaluate what is important to them and what is good/not so good about the courses they know that are on the list, and start to develop a greater understanding than they had before about golf.

The preparation and discussion is more important than the list order.
I don't care for decimal.point scores though.

James B (Australian rater - always learning)

Well said.  The amount of attention paid to courses moving up or down the list [like horse race politics] is just a waste of breath.  However, it is unfathomable [and scary] to me how many great courses express "pride" or "concern" over moving up or down a few notches.

[Jud_T]

I'm bumping this. I was speaking to a co-worker today about how many consider golf course architecture a form of art, and I became curious how / why the whole ranking thing started. I am not aware of any art industry magazines ranking paintings, buildings, sculptures, etc., on the regular. Why is golf treated differently? Was it a lobby of courses for prestige, since they are after all businesses, unlike traditional art pieces.

just a taste:   



http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531


http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/mar/21/the-10-greatest-works-art-ever


http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/5-most-overrated-paintings-of-all-time-6395359


http://www.architecturebeast.com/top-50-modern-house-designs-ever-built/


http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/greatest-sculptures-ever.htm


https://beckchris.wordpress.com/visual-arts/best-works-of-art-of-all-time-the-critics-picks/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10663434/12-of-the-greatest-ballerinas-of-all-time.html


http://www.classicfm.com/instruments/piano/best-pianists-ever/#u3cxUYqUZwPMqZKI.97


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/19/100-essential-jazz-albums


People like lists...

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think it is part of the natural way you converse with anyone about anything. When you meet someone new you talk about what you do, where you go, what you like, what you don't like. The other person responds with agreement or a counter-agreement or inform you or another you don't know.


Ranking is a more direct route. It shows an opinion or collective opinion. It is open for discussion. For the winners (the high rankers) it brings wealth, for the losers it might destroy.


Trip Advisor, the 1 to 5 stars you get given for food rating will destroy lives and business and ultimately will cause a premature death to someone. If it is fair it is hard to argue with, but when it is a poisoned rating then that matter is very serious and for that reason much greater scrutiny should be required if you give a shit review by the publishers/site owners.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Well said.  The amount of attention paid to courses moving up or down the list [like horse race politics] is just a waste of breath.  However, it is unfathomable [and scary] to me how many great courses express "pride" or "concern" over moving up or down a few notches.
 Tom D: This is a back-handed compliment. What you are not understanding is how important they are.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jud missed Forbes wealthiest cities...Kenilworth a strong #2. Work harder my friend, ABC. ABC indeed.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D: This is a back-handed compliment. What you are not understanding is how important they are.

Adrian:


I don't understand either the "back-handed" part OR the "compliment" part of your response.


I do think I understand better than most the impact of rankings on the golf business:


For architects, they are apparently huge, judging by how many brag about their rankings on their web sites.
 
For developers, they're big, although many developers in the U.S. are perfectly content to erect billboards that flat-out lie about their course being ranked somewhere.  Apparently, they are big enough that in some cases developers will pay "consultants" six-figure fees to try and influence the results of the rankings.


For a daily-fee course, they can be very important.




But the frightening thing to me, as I was saying above, is how famous private clubs that have been considered among the elite courses in America for generations, are bothered when their rankings go down a few places ... bothered enough to consult architects to "fix" a "problem" that is ephemeral.  I do NOT understand why any of those clubs care at all.  Being 25th or 30th in the world does not affect their business one iota.

[Gary Sato]

"Ephemeral"... I had to look that up.



lasting for a very short time.
"fashions are ephemeral"

[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important] synonyms:[/color]transitory[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]transient[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]fleeting[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]passing[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]short-lived[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]momentary[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], [/color]brief[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important],[/color]short[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]; [/t][/color]Certain courses only last a short time on certain panels.  They seemed to be hot at the moment and then fall off.  Example: Jim Enghs course in Colorado called The Sanctuary.  Lots of bells and whistles and when the panelists finally figured it out, off it goes.

[Peter Pallotta]

James B - yes, that was a very good post and for me one of the most compelling rationales for 'rankings' that I've ever read. In fact, the Golf Digest/Golf Magazine lists instantly got more interesting, i.e. "The Top 100 Moderns  - A Rorschach Test"! 

All of a sudden, I'm struck with the desire to quote Lord of the Rings:

"The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it -- white shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise."

Hmm. Interesting. 

It could be the life hereafter -- or it could be Ballyneal

Peter


 

[James Bennett]

Peter

it could also be the wizard's palace in 'The Wizard of Oz'.

That Ballyneal place sure sounds like somewhere to play.  Touches of Ireland and National Velvet spring to mind when the name is mentioned.  A heightening of expectation with the 'Bally' but reality quickly returns with 'neal'.

Ballyliffin always seems over the top to me by comparison.

James B