Golf course “influencers”

[Cal Carlisle]

Are rankings and ratings now really just an output driven by numerous social media “influencers”?

Were our “best” golf courses always decided this way? There just used to be a bunch of really good courses: We didn’t get what we are supposed to like rammed down our throat by a collective who pretend to know more than everyone else…. Or did we? Just in a more subtle, slow way?

Over the last 30 years of doing it for GD my tastes have changed. I look back at some of the scores I made thirty years ago and cringe.

Tommy,
I’m curious as to what some of your cringeworthy scores were. I do feel that tastes change with time. Whether it’s food, wine, comedy, music…..whatever. Things change.

[David Kelly]

There are far more social media influencers that celebrate getting blind drunk by the fourth hole at the local Fazio and driving golf carts full speed into the nearest bunker than there are influencers promoting Durness. They certainly have more followers, at least. So I don’t think you have much to worry about.

Yep, and I'd like to wring the neck of the first "influencer" who though blasting music from a golf cart while on the course was a great idea.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Isn't this site the original golf architecture influencer??


Is it not still an influencer?



Would the interest in architecture be the same without here?


Would frilly bunkers have become the new norm without it?


It was easy back in the day. There were the three mags/ratings and a limited amount of panelists so it was a tight group without a lot of outside influence. And beyond those lists, other courses had little to no recognition. Now they can be easily promoted and a buzz created so people want to see them and then go in with a positive perspective so by the time they hit the first tee, the course is already winning....

[Mike Hendren]

All I know is that if my fellow Volunteer Peyton Manning is part owner it must be brilliant.  Thanks to Peytee you can forget about Blantons as well. 

[Thomas Dai]

Slight aside maybe, but the number of talkings heads/influencers at The Open seems to have massively increased this year.
Atb

[Mark Smolens]

My kind of influencer:  Claire Hogle’s ‘kind of crazy’ rise in the golf influencer world (nypost.com)

[Peter Pallotta]

Slight aside maybe, but the number of talkings heads/influencers at The Open seems to have massively increased this year.
Atb

Ally apologized for his frustrations in starting this thread, but there was no need, as I can well understand his perspective. He knows more about the art and craft of gca than 99.9% of the people in the world -- and that's not me flattering him, it's simply a natural function-result of his loving it and studying it and making it his vocation and life's work. (If any of us amateur dilettantes have ever acted as if we "knew better" than the professionals around here, from Ally to Jeff B etc, we were being foolish -- as I know I certainly was.) So as the number of talking heads-influencers continues to grow exponentially, and with that the amount of superficial and second-hand and trite/conventional and simplistic palaver passing itself off as expert opinion, it's no wonder Ally gets frustrated. I think Tom D does too -- but he hides it better, and plus he is getting too old and successful to care!   
(Just kidding)

[V_Halyard]

Are rankings and ratings now really just an output driven by numerous social media “influencers”?

Were our “best” golf courses always decided this way? There just used to be a bunch of really good courses: We didn’t get what we are supposed to like rammed down our throat by a collective who pretend to know more than everyone else…. Or did we? Just in a more subtle, slow way?

The Crosby "Clam Bake" and every "Skins Game" were today's equivalent of tourism and Sunday AMN real estate shows.
Today's Social Media posts and course reviews are updated versions of the imagery.
The difference is that the Clam Bake never mentioned Alister Mackenzie by name as much as (if ever) the name of the real estate developer or architect of the development.
 

[Ben Malach]

I think the real challenge with influencers is the same challenges that we have faced before with any sort of media. The simplest and most reductive take is the one that will rule the day.


The only upside currently is that there is a large space and hunger for longer-form content in the form of podcasts and youtube videos. Never before has it been so easy to spend an hour with someone discussing golf and the attributes of the game. the issue comes in how this is promoted and how the platforms work to do so.


This leads to clickbait titles on youtube, overly reductive takes and images on Instagram and with podcasts that are run by existing media being promoted over better-run independent ones.


This is not a problem unique to golf but I think the impact it's having is already being felt in positive and negative ways. On the bright side, Rory was using "influencer" content to prep for a major at Southern Hills. On the dark side, there are a lot of accounts like Foreplay and the ilk that promote the most negative aspects of golf.


So it's a real challenge and it's one we have to figure out in real-time. The best thing that we can do is to watch and promote content that shows the game in the best light. While at the same time privately messaging and engaging in criticism of the content we don't. This is the one real benefit of the modern influencer landscape is that it is flexible and ever-changing. So hopefully we can do our best to promote the content we love and adapt the content that is negative.


Check out:


Fried Egg


No Laying Up


Cookie Jar


Links From The Road


Evalu18


Ru Macdonald


add others that are doing great work to promote a deeper understanding of golf.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the real challenge with influencers is the same challenges that we have faced before with any sort of media. The simplest and most reductive take is the one that will rule the day.


The only upside currently is that there is a large space and hunger for longer-form content in the form of podcasts and youtube videos. Never before has it been so easy to spend an hour with someone discussing golf and the attributes of the game. the issue comes in how this is promoted and how the platforms work to do so.


This leads to clickbait titles on youtube, overly reductive takes and images on Instagram and with podcasts that are run by existing media being promoted over better-run independent ones.


This is not a problem unique to golf but I think the impact it's having is already being felt in positive and negative ways. On the bright side, Rory was using "influencer" content to prep for a major at Southern Hills. On the dark side, there are a lot of accounts like Foreplay and the ilk that promote the most negative aspects of golf.


So it's a real challenge and it's one we have to figure out in real-time. The best thing that we can do is to watch and promote content that shows the game in the best light. While at the same time privately messaging and engaging in criticism of the content we don't. This is the one real benefit of the modern influencer landscape is that it is flexible and ever-changing. So hopefully we can do our best to promote the content we love and adapt the content that is negative.


Check out:


Fried Egg


No Laying Up


Cookie Jar


Links From The Road


Evalu18


Ru Macdonald


add others that are doing great work to promote a deeper understanding of golf.

+1

[Steve Kennedy]

Are rankings and ratings now really just an output driven by numerous social media “influencers”?

Were our “best” golf courses always decided this way? There just used to be a bunch of really good courses: We didn’t get what we are supposed to like rammed down our throat by a collective who pretend to know more than everyone else…. Or did we? Just in a more subtle, slow way?

This is for sure an interesting topic to consider... I feel like some "influencers" actually do a good job of objectively evaluating courses and helping people get a deeper understanding of good architecture (I think Fried Egg does this well), while others are more focused on their content and driving clicks than on the actual course. 

But prior to social media, and this is likely obvious to those on this site, the "traditional" rating methodologies were always very flawed.  Golf Monthly's rankings evaluate "quality of test and design (35%), conditioning and presentation (30%), visual appeal both internally and externally (15%), the club's facilities (10%) and the visitor experience (10%)." What does "both internally and externally" even mean for a golf course???  How do the "facilities" (clubhouse? bathrooms? halfway house?) and "visitor experience" (valet service?) directly impact the actual ranking of the course?  Similarly, Golf Digest used to look at "ambience and aesthetics" as part of their methodology.

There are still negatives with social media, but least now we have some more options for who to get our course reviews and analysis from, whether it be someone like No Laying Up or Fried Egg, or looking through Doak's Guides that focus purely on course design (and not on the "bells and whistles" that some clubs provide that Golf Digest and the like seem to give weight to for some reason)

[Sean_A]

I think the real challenge with influencers is the same challenges that we have faced before with any sort of media. The simplest and most reductive take is the one that will rule the day.


The only upside currently is that there is a large space and hunger for longer-form content in the form of podcasts and youtube videos. Never before has it been so easy to spend an hour with someone discussing golf and the attributes of the game. the issue comes in how this is promoted and how the platforms work to do so.


This leads to clickbait titles on youtube, overly reductive takes and images on Instagram and with podcasts that are run by existing media being promoted over better-run independent ones.


This is not a problem unique to golf but I think the impact it's having is already being felt in positive and negative ways. On the bright side, Rory was using "influencer" content to prep for a major at Southern Hills. On the dark side, there are a lot of accounts like Foreplay and the ilk that promote the most negative aspects of golf.


So it's a real challenge and it's one we have to figure out in real-time. The best thing that we can do is to watch and promote content that shows the game in the best light. While at the same time privately messaging and engaging in criticism of the content we don't. This is the one real benefit of the modern influencer landscape is that it is flexible and ever-changing. So hopefully we can do our best to promote the content we love and adapt the content that is negative.


Check out:


Fried Egg


No Laying Up


Cookie Jar


Links From The Road


Evalu18


Ru Macdonald


add others that are doing great work to promote a deeper understanding of golf.

For me, #1 by a country mile is Feed the Ball. Since Derek started to work for GD the output has been vastly reduced and on some level its a shame.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Do any of the above blogs cast the net wider than golden age architects, classic courses and modern minimalism?


That’s a genuine question. I don’t know.

[DFarron]

It's kinda always been that way.  Before social media, it was TV . . . tournament courses that appeared on TV every year were very prominent in the rankings.  Why else would places like Firestone, Butler National, LaCosta and Torrey Pines have been on there?


Not sure that was either subtle or slow, but it was a definite factor.

Personally I like Firestone a lot, better than many that are ranked highly on many lists.


I love “linksy” courses but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Parkland courses can be very fun and provide a beautiful background for golf.

[Thomas Dai]

Do any of the above blogs cast the net wider than golden age architects, classic courses and modern minimalism?
That’s a genuine question. I don’t know.

Not sure about the above but look-up Hairy Golfer and Smithy on YouTube and you’ll find videos on many under the usual radar U.K. courses including some pretty obscure ones.
It’s worth bearing in mind that some influencers have commercial links to various parts of the golf business or are attempting to gravitate in such a direction. No slight of them though, they put their time and effort in and folks gotta make a buck somehow.
Atb

[Steve Kennedy]

It's kinda always been that way.  Before social media, it was TV . . . tournament courses that appeared on TV every year were very prominent in the rankings.  Why else would places like Firestone, Butler National, LaCosta and Torrey Pines have been on there?


Not sure that was either subtle or slow, but it was a definite factor.

Personally I like Firestone a lot, better than many that are ranked highly on many lists.


I love “linksy” courses but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Parkland courses can be very fun and provide a beautiful background for golf.

I think the founder of this site would counter that the pendulum has not swung too far the other way, based on his article from late last year: https://golf.com/travel/parkland-golf-resurgence-top-100-courses-world/


(again, for what "rankings" are worth   )

[Peter Pallotta]

Do any of the above blogs cast the net wider than golden age architects, classic courses and modern minimalism?
That’s a genuine question. I don’t know.

From the pen of humorist Fran Lebowitz: "Original thought is much like Original Sin -- both happened a very long time ago, to people you couldn't possibly have met."

Now, Fran has lived in NYC for half a century, smoked two packs a day for at least that long, does nothing but read books and write, and hasn't stepped on a golf course in her life -- but she still might've just answered your question perfectly!

[Mike Hendren]

No one has been more influential on my take on golf architecture than Sean Arble.  What a treat it was to lose a close match to him atp beloved Huntercombe.  We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his reviews of genuine gems.


Thank you Sean.



Mike

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's kinda always been that way.  Before social media, it was TV . . . tournament courses that appeared on TV every year were very prominent in the rankings.  Why else would places like Firestone, Butler National, LaCosta and Torrey Pines have been on there?


Not sure that was either subtle or slow, but it was a definite factor.

Personally I like Firestone a lot, better than many that are ranked highly on many lists.


I love “linksy” courses but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Parkland courses can be very fun and provide a beautiful background for golf.

I think the founder of this site would counter that the pendulum has not swung too far the other way, based on his article from late last year: https://golf.com/travel/parkland-golf-resurgence-top-100-courses-world/


(again, for what "rankings" are worth   )

Steve, that article ticks almost all three of the boxes I asked about above (classic courses, golden age architects, modern minimalists). It is hardly a celebration of modern parkland golf.


Now, part of the problem is that not many new courses are getting built so there’s far less to talk about. But part of the problem remains that there is an agenda to completely eradicate the period of 1945 to 1995. Some of that is understandable!


Someone should start a blog where they are not allowed to discuss any courses older than 1945 designed by the top-20 ODG’s and aren’t allowed to mention the words Keiser, Doak, Coore, Hanse or restoration. There would be loads of really interesting stuff to talk about. A lot of the golf might not be quite as “great” and it may not follow the zeitgeist but it would certainly be refreshing to listen to intelligent discussion about courses built by less heralded architects, even well known ones. The reason we don’t have one of those blogs is exactly the reason I started this thread. (See also Peter’s Fran Lebowitz quote). It’s not actually to do with “quality”. Everyone is just repeating the same message.


EDIT: Note that it is just as likely that this is my issue, my perception. I haven’t dug very deeply and it could be just the circles I move in…. But perception is reality etc… etc….


ADDITIONAL EDIT: Note that I also realise that Ran and others need to get the message out there just to get people talking about architecture in any shape or form…. and in general that is having a very positive - if slightly sycophantic - effect.

[Mike Sweeney]

No one has been more influential on my take on golf architecture than Sean Arble.  What a treat it was to lose a close match to him atp beloved Huntercombe.  We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his reviews of genuine gems.

Thank you Sean.

Mike

Maybe the best Bookmark in Golf, for me - https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sean-arbles-united-kingdom-course-tours-2/


My wife really wants to do a "The Beatles Tour" of London and Liverpool, and I hope to knock off a few on Sean's list in person rather than on here.


Nefyn, one of many, rang a bell, for me:


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67656.0.html

[Phil Carlucci]

It seems most of the entities being discussed in this thread fall more under the umbrella of modern, non-traditional media outlets than "influencers."  The Fried Egg, for example, is far beyond influencer -- they produce a steady stream of professional written, audio and video content about golf, focusing on its architecture and history.  Just because an entity has a strong social media presence doesn't classify it merely as an influencer.  You can probably make the case that the success and the following of these outlets has paved the way for the success of the influencers.


I'm not sure of the textbook definition, or if one even exists, but I think the classic "influencer" is someone or some group that influences others simply by using a product.  (Anyone in this forum with young children and a YouTube Kids account knows how powerful and quite frankly bizarre the influencer effect can be.)  As far as golf goes, the top-tier influencer bounces around from course to club, foreign and domestic, public and private, taking pics, tagging sponsors, and not producing much else that is meant for repeat consumption or reflection.  The mid- to low-tier influencer does the same on a smaller scale in a more defined area or genre.  Some of them have a legitimate interest in the course and that day's round of golf; some are interested in being goofballs.  If I'm wrong on any of that, feel free to correct me.

All in all, I think the influencer effect on golf has been more positive than negative.  A good portion of it is obnoxious and self-serving, but overall I think it's been a benefit.  At least here on a local level, 15 years ago half the courses on Long Island barely had a functioning website.  Five years ago the majority barely had functioning social media accounts and lacked even the most rudimentary understanding of how to promote themselves to the local golfing community.  The influencer effect has forced them to sort of get on board and get with the times faster than I could have imagined 2-3 years ago.  The pandemic played a part in that as well.

[Peter Sayegh]

There just used to be a bunch of really good courses: We didn’t get what we are supposed to like rammed down our throat by a collective who pretend to know more than everyone else…. Or did we? Just in a more subtle, slow way?

Before the internet became influential, my golfing "bible" was a yellow-bindered "guide" that suggested nice places to play. It was a sturdy book-maybe three inches thick. I cannot recall its publisher or title but it rarely let me down in its recommendations. I can assure you it did not mention Shinnecock or Seminole.

No one has been more influential on my take on golf architecture than Sean Arble. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his reviews of genuine gems.
Thank you Sean.
Mike

I'll second your sentiments Mike. I'm convinced when I finally make the journey, the "Arble List" will provide me more enjoyment than most "must plays."

[David Kelly]

Now, part of the problem is that not many new courses are getting built so there’s far less to talk about. But part of the problem remains that there is an agenda to completely eradicate the period of 1945 to 1995. Some of that is understandable!

It's not really a problem here since the purpose of the website was a reaction and to act as a counter to the type of golf architecture practiced from 1945 - 95 as stated on this website's home page:


3. 1949-1995:[/size] Length and difficulty became prized attributes, at the expense of variety and optionality. With heavy machinery readily available, architects had the unprecedented ability to bend the land to their will. Many such manufactured courses enjoyed immense visual impact but often lacked charm. In addition, such courses proved expensive to maintain. Only a handful of courses from this dark period are profiled, mostly those by Pete Dye who emerged as a hero. [/color]

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree, David. This website has a stated agenda / preference. It’s a good one, it instigated it and it was done from a place of knowledge.


So let’s acknowledge that agenda / preference and realise that there are people out there just repeating it in their sleep without any critical analysis or thinking.


I’m finding myself kicking against it just to provide a different voice, even though I am mostly aligned with the basis of what this website promotes.

[Tom_Doak]

Someone should start a blog where they are not allowed to discuss any courses older than 1945 designed by the top-20 ODG’s and aren’t allowed to mention the words Keiser, Doak, Coore, Hanse or restoration. There would be loads of really interesting stuff to talk about. A lot of the golf might not be quite as “great” and it may not follow the zeitgeist but it would certainly be refreshing to listen to intelligent discussion about courses built by less heralded architects, even well known ones. The reason we don’t have one of those blogs is exactly the reason I started this thread. (See also Peter’s Fran Lebowitz quote). It’s not actually to do with “quality”. Everyone is just repeating the same message.


EDIT: Note that it is just as likely that this is my issue, my perception. I haven’t dug very deeply and it could be just the circles I move in…. But perception is reality etc… etc….

Ally:


Maybe you should do this yourself.


But I suspect what would happen is that you'd just wind up with a small circle of other people that everyone was sycophantic about.  Thirty years ago it was Fazio, Dye and Nicklaus.  A hundred and twenty years ago it was Vardon, Braid and Taylor, the original Great Triumvirate.


At least, that's the way many developers think, so that's the way the business goes.  There is no doubt that others are doing fine work, but they don't get to do enough of it, volume-wise, unless they get to the big three.  Maybe that will change now as the business gets busier.