[Mark Chaplin]

About 5 years ago I visited a world top 20 club, but on one day could not secure a tee time on either course because they were both closed due to a corporate day. I was a reciprocal member as well.

[TEPaul]

JeffW:

The fact that PV was that crowded back then did not have to do with magazine rankings. It had to do with other things involving the administration of the club at that time. It basically got too exessive for too many members and the RPY was consequently reduced to a lower number at which it remains to this day.

[jeffwarne]

TEPaul,
I figured that was the case. My anecdotal evidence was from years ago.

But did the rankings create the demand?
I know plenty of corporate (shall we say not good guys) who have made it a point to play PV as a notch on their belt.
My guess is these same guys will flock to Merion after .the US Open. (because most that I'm referring to haven't heard of it yet)

I guess it's just me, but if I was a member of such a club as PV, I'd want to share it only with people who appreciate it for the golf, cameraderie, and golf course.

Kind've like Palmetto is (was?) now (and hopefully stays that way-although I've already heard they redid the proshop during the "renovation")

[TEPaul]

"But did the rankings create the demand?"

Jeff:

I don't think so but I could be wrong. I do not know when PV first became the #1 course on the list but I believe in golf circles the course had always been considered the best in the country and perhaps in the world.

I think the high RPY back then was both the choice of the club's administration at that time as well as some increased visibilty from the Walker Cup held there not long before the year you're talking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I like the ratings and care about them to the extent that ratings memorialize well thought-out changes to course archtiecture.

It would seem the Plainfields, and Fenways of the world should be happy and either continue down the same path with thier consulting architect or seek to not make any other changes.

Corey,

I think that's an excellent point.

I also believe that the ratings/rankings serve as a stabilizing influence, preventing over zealous green committees and Boards from putting their fingerprints on the golf course.

The light of public scrutiny, coupled with an internal membership sensitivity to the ratings/rankings almost insures that any work to the golf course will not be taken lightly and will be well thought out.

Certainly, there are exceptions to the rule, and I think those exceptions are courses that host PGA/Major events.

I believe, in the pre-60's category, that the ratings/rankings are an impediment to altering and disfiguring the golf course in the name of modernization.

I also believe they may serve as a catalyst that encourages restoration work.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()