From the business perspective, a restoration (or renovation) is what Jeff Brauer would call a marketing plan. In most cases, the marketing is being aimed at members and potential members, but at the high end a lot of the marketing is aimed at panelists. And of course Ran is an evangelist for restorations and has stacked the panel with people who agree, so these results are hardly unexpected.
This does not mean that the list will wind up being all Golden Age parkland courses. There are many many unwritten quotas going on in panelists’ heads, which is part of the subjectivity of all this. When St Patrick’s goes into the list and some people opine that it’s my best work, Pacific Dunes and Tara Iti fall a couple of notches, and so do the courses in Ireland which are just hanging onto the bottom of the list.
Remember a year or two ago when I expressed shock that Somerset Hills was rated so high on the list? The ascent of Baltusrol will likely take it down a few pegs, even though that had nothing to do with the quality of the work done at Somerset Hills. Which also, actually, calls into question whether the high ranking of Baltusrol is really all about the quality of the work done there, or whether a lot of this is just a power struggle behind the scenes.
Tom,
While I agree with a few points you make in you previous post, it's difficult to believe the premise of several others.
No question that restorations/renovations are in effect, "marketing plans." Every club has to keep their facilities contemporarily attractive to help recruit new members and retain current ones. Some do it by renovating clubhouses, pools or other parts of facilities. Unanimously, historically significant courses do it for those aforementioned reasons along with the perception that their venues remain important, and frequently to protect and market their competitive availability. I hardly think it is done solely to "market to panelists." I know for certain that was the case at Winged Foot and LACC, and believe it's little different at Oakland Hills or Baltusrol.
It is borderline laughable that you think Ran "stacked the panel" with people who simply endorse his "evangelical for restorations" thoughts. Amongst the more recent panelists I've met or talked to haven't at all exhibited that kind of bias nor any level of excitement other than to see fresh takes on courses they haven't seen in a while. Furthermore, I've only known Ran to encourage us to get out to see new places wherever they are. To the best of my knowledge, he's never put restorations/renovations above seeing something new.
Nor have I ever noticed any "
many, many unwritten quotas" amongst the panelists I know. I'm sure you are partially correct that some portion of 107 individuals do have something approximating such a thing, but it's most likely far less present than you suggest. You might even give yourself a little credit, understanding that many of your published tomes have enlightened and effectively de-biased so many who critically assess and vote on a course.
Lastly, having both Somerset Hills and Baltusrol in my backyard (and knowing senior governance at both), it's conspiratorial poppycock to believe there is even a vestige of any "power struggle behind the scenes" related to voting for, playing, joining, or simply appreciating either place. The "quality of work" at both places was absolutely necessary and has proved exceptional for both courses. The only possible scenario for any "power struggle" might rest with inherent internal business conflicts that have zero to do with either club.
PS..My vote on Baltusrol was certainly considerably higher than in past years, although I'm not at all sure it would fall inside the top 30 US (which a 57th on the World list would insinuate). It is finally more interesting with more strategic optionality and firm and fun. Kudos to the Gil, Greg and the club.