My wish for a ranking system

[Sean_A]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me.
Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.
Ciao

Sean, that was what I was thinking. If it's nebulous, disregard it.
Many course evaluations in the last 20 years have shown it impacts one's esteem for a course.

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

Thanks Ally.
I made no mention of "great courses" just a criterion of judging any/all I think is anitiquated.
I may be removed from the DG forever, but I didn't walk a golf course till I was 37.
Your post reminds me of the subtlties I may have missed but not my overall impressions of a particular playing ground.

Peter

Nebulous? Which criteria is concrete…objective? I understand that some folks into rankings detest the idea of subjective criteria. Imo, that is all there is. If the walk carries no weight for you that’s ok, but for me it’s important.

Ciao

Again Sean, I agree with you, re subjective/objective rankings.

But I will always argue that "walkability" as a criterion for ranking courses is one that would be lost on the majority of most (US) golfers.
Even as a young, hale and hardy golfer, I grew up playing mandatory cart courses. Green to tee transitions was not something I had the (dis)advantage of knowing/realizing or assessing at the time.


I've been blessed to play Pinehurst #2 about twenty times now.
I've never raved about how walkable it is.

Perhaps I am taking a wider view where walking is the norm and expected. In any case, of the top US courses I have seen, walking was at least an option. Because many cart riders don’t appreciate the walk doesn’t disqualify the importance of the walk. It may also be true that I value the walk more than most. I see the walk as a critical part of a good routing. However, as all things are subjective, I understand your objection to walking criteria.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

It is completely legitimate as viewing golf as a game that is about the shot and the next shot such that a cart accomplishes that objective. I also consider some difficult to walk courses as great; Primland and St Andrews Beach would be examples. However, I would suggest that golf is most appreciated as encompassing more than moving from shot to shot, and architecture that enables walking should be viewed as worthy of special note.


It strikes me as telling that the courses most properly well regarded in the UK&I and Australia do not permit carts absent a medical necessity. I do not believe that to be merely or primarily a matter of tradition. (I also would note that those courses tend to play faster than US cart dominated courses).


Ira

[Dave Doxey]

Why rank courses at all?  What purpose do rankings serve?

[mike_malone]

Why rank courses at all?  What purpose do rankings serve?

This is ok but I think that golfers want to express their feelings about courses and assess their views against others.


Here in Philly I see several courses that one should aspire to play because they are great or very good. I just don’t think it matters which is 6 or 9.

[Craig Sweet]

I don't want any rankings at all.  What's the point? 99% of golfers look at access and costs and have little idea where a course ranks much less the architectural significance.  If they can't get on it, or can't afford it, they aren't going to play it.  So, for whom are the rankings for other than a small group of (mostly) men in the biz?

[Jesse Kodadek]

I don't want any rankings at all.  What's the point? 99% of golfers look at access and costs and have little idea where a course ranks much less the architectural significance.  If they can't get on it, or can't afford it, they aren't going to play it.  So, for whom are the rankings for other than a small group of (mostly) men in the biz?

Craig, your question about the point of rankings could probably be rephrased as "Who cares if a golf course is even good?"


Well, some of us do. Like you (I think), I live in Montana and therefore have pretty limited options for great local golf. I definitely do not work "in the biz." The club where I play most of my golf is fine and always in good shape but no one will ever consider it a "great" golf course in the context of golf architecture, and it will never show up in any Top 100 (or Top 300) ranking, unless we are talking about Montana, in which case it has a fighting chance to break the top 20.


So, when I have the good fortune to be able to travel to take time away from my family and my job to play golf, I want to play courses that are good, and maybe even great. That is at least one reason why ratings matter--because it helps to make sure that there is at least a fighting chance I am spending my time wisely.

[mike_malone]

Jesse,


You would be able to read the rationale for the ranking to help you decide where to go based upon n your preferences.

[PCCraig]

The only rankings that work are when an individual lays out his/her own criteria and then provides their own list.


That's why Tom Doak's Confidential Guide and Ran's 147 Custodians work so well. They are trusted voices in golf, are clear in their like/dislikes, and they share their lists accordingly.


In the age of clickbait and sketchy ethics, the magazine lists don't resonate at the same level as they did 20 years ago.