Course rankings have been good for golf

[Tommy Williamsen]

At the risk of sticking my head in a blender, I begin this thread with some fear and apprehension.

 The shortcomings of magazine course rankings have been well documented.  I don’t need to restate them here as they will naturally come up on this thread.  There have been, however, some positive results as well.  Obviously, there are no hard facts to substantiate these opinions.  Nonetheless, they seem true.  
1.   Courses like Crystal Downs and Somerset Hills have been given their due recognition.
2.   Young or little known architect’s careers have been helped by their ranking success:  ie. Mike Strantz, Tom Doak, Jim Engh, Steve Smyers, and Mike Devries.  
3.   Many courses have discovered their architectural roots and have taken steps to restore, with varying success, the original intentions of the architect of origin, be it bunker restoration, green site renovation etc.
4.   Many “ordinary” golfers have “discovered” shot value, course balance, and the names of golf architects.
5.   In the past ten years there have been many many books published on golf course architecture.  This is due in no small part to the heightened awareness of golf course architecture.
6.   I wonder if Bethpage Black would have been restored and used as an Open venue, if it were not for the Tillinghast connection and the publicity garnered by his other Open courses.

OK, we can have at it.

[ForkaB]

I fully agree, Tommy.  Sorry.......

[cary lichtenstein]

Tommy:

What did I miss re: Mike Strantz???/

Has anything of his ever been highly ranked by anybody???

[Bill Gayne]

Royal New Kent was once a top 100 U.S. course and Stonehouse was Golf Digest's top new course.

You can also add to the list that the rankings have allowed developers/club operators to jack-up green fees and make a lot of money. Good news from the developers perspective.

[Phil Benedict]

I wonder if Bethpage Black would have been restored and used as an Open venue, if it were not for the Tillinghast connection and the publicity garnered by his other Open courses.

Maybe the Tillinghast connection helped but David Fay was familiar with Bethpage from childhood and George Zahringer put the idea in his head to play a USGA event there.  Would it have made any difference if Joe Smith was the architect?  

[wsmorrison]

"Maybe the Tillinghast connection helped but David Fay was familiar with Bethpage from childhood and George Zahringer put the idea in his head to play a USGA event there.  

Would it have made any difference if Joe Smith was the architect?"

Or Joe Burbeck for that matter  

[Mike Hoak]

Strantz got a great deal of publicity from winning best new public in back-to-back years with Stonehouse and Royal New Kent.

[Phil Benedict]

Wayne,

I couldn't remember Burbeck's name; otherwise I would have used it rather than Smith.

[TEPaul]

tommy boy, you're probably right on all counts but just for mentioning the subject of ranking I want you to put your head in the blender anyway, set it to the puree setting and then hit the high speed button.

[Brad Tufts]

I don't think they are the end all, but they stimulate discussion on golf course architecture...which is what we all wish there was more of right?

[Tommy Williamsen]

TEPaul, the power went out in my house.

[Mark_Fine]

Some love them, some hate them, some could care less, so be it.  I don’t have time to get in a long discussion about rankings, but I will share one quick story.  I had a discussion one day with a guy who said that ranking the top courses was a complete waste of time and that they served no purpose.  I named about 30 or 40 courses like Merion, PV, Olympic, The National,…and asked him if these are all great courses and quite certainly some of the best in the country?  He said, of course they are but everyone knows that.  I asked him how “everybody” knows that?  He thought about it and that was the end of the discussion  

I hate to say it, but the average golfer doesn’t hear about these courses and start discussions on them with their regular foursome by logging on to Golf Club Atlas.  

[Brian Cenci]

I think rankings are a good way to let people know a general idea or "quality" of a course.  In my opinion it's way too biased toward peoples likes or dislikes to generalize it on one scale though.  It also provides a good outlet for debate.    

I do feel as though it gives some courses the green light to jack up greens fees or pump up membership.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

I pay no attention to the rankings but it does beg the question?

Without rankings how do the raters know what courses they "need" to rate?

[Jim Nugent]

You can also add to the list that the rankings have allowed developers/club operators to jack-up green fees and make a lot of money. Good news from the developers perspective.

I thought I've read here several times that golf course developers are not making much, if any, money at all.  

[Andrew Thomson]

courses should be rated, not ranked

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, the power went out in my house."

tommy;

Great repartee.

Bravo.

[cary lichtenstein]

Me thinks the rating and ranking do serve a purpose.

How else is someone who loves golf courses and new challenges, begin to plan a golf trip.

If you go just by the advertisements in golf magazines, you would miss alot. "He with the biggest adv budget wins that one"

I use them as a starter when planning a golf trip, try to do my investigation further.

For example, I'm in Williamsburg, Virginia right now and eclected to play only Stonehouse and Royal New Kent.

[Jim_Kennedy]

tommy,
Rankings are good for the business of golf.
They have helped to make the game more expensive.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jim, you sure are right on that count.  I played one public course that had just opened.  After it won the bests new upscale public course, they doubled their greens fees.

On the other hand a club, to which I belong, went from needing members to having a waiting list because it was ranked tenth in the state.  Fees have not changed.

[Kevin Pallier]

Tommy

They mean more to some than others and they can represent a good guide for people to form their own opinions.

I prefer those where individual panelists rankings are published as I believe it provides greater transparency.