Who would suffer most?

[jeffwarne]

If there were no annual formal published golf course ratings.
(This would of course not exclude individual informal personal rankings by individual authors.)
The magazines,the golfing public,the developers of new courses,established private courses,or the raters themselves.

In my opinion it has  fueled an arms race of eye candy,unrealistic conditioning expectations,politics ,"signature holes",and a keeping up with the Jones's mindset.

Not a slam on raters as many of them are highly knowledgeable,concientious,dedicated,and faithful stewards of the game.

[Joel_Stewart]

Interesting question.  I would guess resorts, some architects and certain housing developments.

[cary lichtenstein]

Golfers are a funny bred. Obsession is not an uncommon trait.

Some are obsessed with equipment, some with lessons, others with memorabilia, others with practicing, and still others with architecture.

The various lists provide a readily available source for the golfing public to obtain information that may be helpful in their quest to play the better courses.

I for one, use the lists for my initial outline for a proposed trip.

I think everyone loses if we did not have the lists. I do not think there is anyting wrong with eye candy, signature holes, etc. Let the best course with the best holes win.

I even suggest that it inspires architects, whether they are willing to admit it, to do better work, because there are so many eyes watching and ready to slam their work.

That's my take on this

[Phil_the_Author]

No one would suffer.. why would they?

A few would be demanding ratings and inevitably it would be provided.

During the beginning of the 20th century, his reading public often wrote to Tillinghast asking him who he thought were ther best golfers and what were the best courses, even asking him to rank them.

He wrote an article titled, "Times Top Ten" in which he ranked the greatest golfers (in his opinion) who ever payed. Despite repeatedly being asked, and in specific during his trip to California and Mexico in 1933, he wriote that he refused to rank courses or provide criticism in a public forum of hos fellow architects. He didn't feel it proper that he should do it.

Where golf courses are concerned, rankings and crab grass will always be found.  

[Brad Klein]

Interesting question. I think all of the ratings derive from an interest in explaining and educating golfers. The also take on other, larger commercial purposes in terms of how folks utilize them, but that's certainly not the intent. And yes, they become competitive, esp. among the aggrieved architects, clubs and publicists.

For all the criticism these ratings get on this Website, I get the feeling it's in the genre of a topic that people "love to hate."

[Tom_Doak]

Architects would suffer the most, in terms of the pocketbook.

Rankings are a form of free advertising, and the architects who do the best at them can convince clients that those rankings are worth higher design fees.

[mike_beene]

Rating and comparing are complicated components of human nature.We all do it,if not with golf courses with something else.Without trying we rate people by what they wear,where they live and hopefully by the contents of their character.If no magazine existed we would still have our own ratings.

[A.G._Crockett]

I fail to see the upside for anyone if there were no ratings.  Developers and architects are motivated to try to make a product that will "rank", golfers get an idea of where to go to see excellence (at least by some measure in the eyes of someone), and wonks like us have endless fodder for discussion.

Last weekend, I detoured through Valdosta, GA on the way to the coast for the sole purpose of playing Kinderlou Forest, the new Love course that has been well-ranked and reviewed.  Without those rankings, I might well not have been aware of the course, certainly would have been less motivated to go, and would have missed the chance to see a great piece of work.

We would all suffer.

[TEPaul]

I would submit this interesting fact about modern golf course rankings.

The original modern era magazine ranking started out (in the 1950s or 1960s?) being called "The 200 Toughest Courses in the World"!

Do you know what generally constituted difficulty (toughness)? Raw length did!  

Obviously the clever RTJ realized one easy way to get his courses on the "200 Toughest Courses in the World" was to simply build them longer than most others!  

Then the "200 Toughest Courses in the World" magazine ranking morphed into "The 100 BEST Courses in the World". I guess they realized someone had sort of pulled a fast one on them with their former rankings and what it was called.

But the stage was already set. What did that do to courses like Pre-Ww2 courses that were a lot shorter? What do you think it did?

I guess at that point to somehow correct the falacy of their ways they started to divide the lists into "classic" and "modern" or to go to other compensating criteria like "tradition" or "ambiance" or "experience" or some other bullshit!

Magazine rankings are there to "educate" the golfing public in arhitecture?? Give me a break! Most of the golfing public apparently don't even want the education.

[Tom_Doak]

For those who "fail to see the upside for anyone" if there were no rankings ... the upside would be for golfers on every good course in America.  If it weren't for rankings, I dare say that new courses would cost an average of half a million dollars less to build, and they would therefore cost a bit less to play as well.

The other beneficiaries of ranking-less architecture would be the dead guys, whose good works would not have to suffer the indignity of heavy-handed restorations.

[ForkaB]

I think this website would suffer significantly.  Without the rankings to guide our discussions and travel plans we'd have to spend most of our time talking about golf course architecture.  I think there would be a lot of drop outs, were this to be the case......