Do clubs care about rankings?

[Nathaniel Amrine]

At Grand Haven the entire marketing for the course revolves around their top 50 public course ranking in Golf Digest, 11 times...



between 1970-1990.


Odd stuff, but when you can put that onto a business card, billboard, magazine article, or sweatshirt - people come play your course. Interesting - but it works!

[Lou_Duran]

Do members have egos?  How many Buicks do you see at Riviera or Dallas National?

I am not pointing any fingers, but I've heard of very exclusive clubs with a no rater policy that selectively allow some raters to play the course.  Go figure!

[JMorgan]

Golf Digest rankings?

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think I have something to offer here. I make records (music). One of the albums I made (long ago) is often rated in 'Top 100' lists, sometimes higher than othertimes, and sometimes it has fallen under the ranking radar.. Like Tom, I'm, not sure that this record is necessarily my best record.. and do care? Well.. one knows that the criteria involved and the rating is imprecise and fickle.. but as Wilde said 'The only thing worse than being talked about is not being taked about' or was that Whistler??

[JMorgan]

Is that Rattlesnakes, Lloyd?  Do you care more about what Rolling Stone says than, say, Mojo, or other publications?

Just curious:  are there certain publications or websites that matter more in terms of "approval" for course architects?  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Is that Rattlesnakes, Lloyd?  Do you care more about what Rolling Stone says than, say, Mojo, or other publications?

Just curious:  are there certain publications or websites that matter more in terms of "approval" for course architects?  

James - unfortunately, in music, the publications change from year to year, and I cannot be bothered to keep up with it, so I'm basicaly with Wilde/ Whistler - better to be on the list than not, but take the whole thing with a pinch of salt...

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

A good analogy.  So then, here is the operative question:

Would you go back and rewrite some of that album so it could get ranked higher in the top 100?  Or, would the record label get someone else to do it?

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd:

A good analogy.  So then, here is the operative question:

Would you go back and rewrite some of that album so it could get ranked higher in the top 100?  Or, would the record label get someone else to do it?

'Remix', is the term used to decribe The modification the artist's work without his involvement. Fortunately, my contacts prevent this type of thing without my permission, mostly... Remastering is another thing, almost akin to trying to restore the new digital media to the original intent - see the Ross tees at Pine Needles - a  very sucessfull remastering IMHO. We recently remastered Rattlesnakes, AND THIS SHOULD BE NOTED HERE,  we had to think hard, and debate to agree what aspects of the original 'design' we really wanted to preserve... at the time we just made it, an that was that, we knew no better - what was great (or not) about it was not something we even considered...

[JMorgan]

'Remix', is the term used to decribe The modification the artist's work without his involvement. Fortunately, my contacts prevent this type of thing without my permission, mostly... Remastering is another thing, almost akin to trying to restore the new digital media to the original intent - see the Ross tees at Pine Needles - a  very sucessfull remastering IMHO. We recently remastered Rattlesnakes, AND THIS SHOULD BE NOTED HERE,  we had to think hard, and debate to agree what aspects of the original 'design' we really wanted to preserve... at the time we just made it, an that was that, we knew no better - what was great (or not) about it was not something we even considered...

An even better analogy, Lloyd.  

Tom, do you think you would "remaster" any of your early works?

Lloyd, if you could remaster your entire catalog of work, would you?  And was there a point at which you decided to go back and make those changes to the album?

[Brad Klein]

Who cares about rankings?

In my experience, almost all of the courses do. The ones that say they don't care generally tend to be courses that have faded out of prestige rankings and now, in a fit of pique, have banned raters, kind of like shutting the barn gate after the horses have escaped. In a few rare cases, they are well established and highly ranked and close off access, in effect solidifying their position as highly ranked while pretending not to be bothered.

A few modern private golf courses say they don't care and don't let raters on, but I suspect it's because that way they cannot be disappointed in whatever ratings they would have gotten and they can lay claim to "would have been top-100 but we're really not interested." (In the case of Erin Hills, which is not eligible for Golf Digest, they probably will be able to cash in on the assumption that they would have made it, if they had been eligible. I guess we'll know better on that when Golfweek comes out with its ratings. P.S., I am grateful for a prominent architect for this observation about Erin Hills; he can claim credit for it publicly if he wants to, but I thank him here)

For real estate courses, ratings mean exposure that help generate leads for lot sales. For resorts, ratings can help steer some initial interest by visitors, though it's the quality of the property that they see on the visit (not the ratings) that will determine whether they come back.

Private membership clubs and daily-fee courses are the same way. In a highly competitive, overbuilt market with everyone vying for attention, a national ranking by any major, recognized list is another piece of publicity and attention-getting that can have a marginal difference in drawing first-timers. But the effect soon gives way to the actual (perceived) quality of the property, and that's ultimately what determines success. But ratings help and clubs also see it as a measure of prestige.

[Mike_Young]

I think courses discussed on this website probably care about ratings but the 16800 clubs left out there only care about making it work.....if they think a rating will help that goal then yes they care...but I don't think most do.

[Tim Copeland]

Which rankings do they care about??

There seems to be about 20 different "rankings"

[Doug Ralston]

Four courses in the 'Signature Series' have been ranked by GD. They place the rankings on the site. In Kentucky, such a ranking is gold. Courses few even knew about suddenly get 'a play', and viola! Those courses were big money losers at first ..... now they are making cash! Thanks to Golf Digest. Ranking = publicity = $$$.

On the other hand; the Honors Course in Ootlewah, TN is probably one of the least interested clubs. They want to be 'exclusive' and prefer no one notice them at all, I think. An upscale Private like that has 'other priorities'.

Doug

Doug

[Kevin Pallier]

Interesting question and I believe it depends on a combination of the makeup of the club and the type of course in question.

I qualify my post from an angle by mentioning that I am a rater for a number of different golfing publications. Many committee / club members read rankings and actively talk about them to me others don't seem as interested - everyone is different.

Two private access courses in Australia openly choose not to be ranked though they have participated in such rankings systems in the past. Some private access committee members that I have come across in my time as a rater are passionate about them and some others have been ambivalent. I suppose it also could be a factor as to whether they use them or not ?

Many public access / resort courses seem to use rankings primarily as marketing tools in an attempt to garner play from the public. I would also suggest some private access clubs use them as marketing tools in the interests of selling memberships. Those associated with housing estates also use them to try and sell houses. Each is to their own.

[Bob_Huntley]

I wonder if Jasper Johns, Picasso, Monet and others in the Pantheon  gave a fiddlers twist where they were ranked?

How on earth can one decide a rating between a Bach Cantata, a Mozart Opera or a Beethoven late String Quartet?

I think the whole rating or ranking business is fraught with imprecise measurements and sometimes with pre-conceived notions of what is expected.

I say a pox on all rankings of golf courses. Play the goddammed courses and enjoythe game for what it is, a game of golf.


Bob

[Anthony Butler]

I think I have something to offer here. I make records (music). One of the albums I made (long ago) is often rated in 'Top 100' lists, sometimes higher than othertimes, and sometimes it has fallen under the ranking radar.. Like Tom, I'm, not sure that this record is necessarily my best record.. and do care? Well.. one knows that the criteria involved and the rating is imprecise and fickle.. but as Wilde said 'The only thing worse than being talked about is not being taked about' or was that Whistler??

Lloyd, there's very little you can do to improve the ranking of your record once it has been released... it's all up to the personal likes and dislikes of the raters.

A golf course on the other hand...

I would agree with Shane's point, courses like Barnbougle, Kidnappers, St. Andrews, Moonah National etc have entered the national and international rankings at a high places after perhaps 40 years in which no new course cracked the Top 10 in Australia. Tom and others have literally put the cat amongst the pigeons and some of the clubs affected are no longer thinking with their rational minds, hence the odd RFP forwarded to Tom Doak. (If he names the state, I will take a crack at the course. )

In my own industry (advertising) you see this kind of thing often... a company will come out with a campaign and it moves the needle with consumers, and the competition will turn themselves inside out trying to match this... sometimes at the risk of destroying the brand equity they have already built up...

So far the rankings have been kind to my course for the last decade, but the club is still doing what it can to address some problems that have cropped in some mostly laudatory reviews published over the years. It seems more likely that rational improvements would be made to a course during this period, rather than when the raters are preferring the sexy blonde on the coast...

[Dan Kelly]

I say a pox on all rankings of golf courses. Play the goddammed courses and enjoy the game for what it is, a game of golf.

To quote a great American, Gabby Johnson, and his "authentic frontier gibberish": Rarrrughhhh!

[John Kavanaugh]

Lloyd, there's very little you can do to improve the ranking of your record once it has been released... it's all up to the personal likes and dislikes of the raters.

It never hurts to swallow the barrel of a shotgun..

[Anthony Butler]

I would also suggest some private access clubs use them as marketing tools in the interests of selling memberships.

If you are referring to the five private clubs in Australia ranked in the top 100 in the world, the average time on the waiting list is approximately 12 years, so there is very little immediate effect on the membership. It does quite a lot for the amount you can charge for renting the course out once a week. I would imagine most UK and US Top 100 clubs that take this kind of business are in a fairly similar situation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if Jasper Johns, Picasso, Monet and others in the Pantheon  gave a fiddlers twist where they were ranked?

How on earth can one decide a rating between a Bach Cantata, a Mozart Opera or a Beethoven late String Quartet?

I think the whole rating or ranking business is fraught with imprecise measurements and sometimes with pre-conceived notions of what is expected.

I say a pox on all rankings of golf courses. Play the goddammed courses and enjoythe game for what it is, a game of golf.


Bob

I don't go back that far, but was reading a Lennon bio, and he said they were always concerned with what the Stones were doing et al.  

Rankings are like mountain climbing, where they climb it because "its there."  Since they are there, everyone would prefer to be on them than not.

I would say the typical offical version is that they "are above the fray." Unofficially they live and die with them.

Of course, its easier to influence a few hundred raters than the record industry influencing millions of teenagers to buy records.  Courses have tried to wine and dine the fewer numbers of raters, and make changes based on what they think the raters like.

However, each club is different, and is also made up of hundreds of individuals.  Its hard to speak for all of them on one thread......

[Joe Hancock]

.. but as Wilde said 'The only thing worse than being talked about is not being taked about' or was that Whistler??

According to Monty Python, I think Wilde also said "Your Majesty is like a big jam doughnut with creme on top"....or was that Whistler?

Joe

[Anthony Butler]

Lloyd, there's very little you can do to improve the ranking of your record once it has been released... it's all up to the personal likes and dislikes of the raters.

It never hurts to swallow the barrel of a shotgun..

Nice, John...  so that's where you go to after the Mets put 12 on your precious Cardinals...

In terms of golf rankings, are you saying that once a few of our favorite architects sshuffle off this mortal coil Top 10 status awaits?

[John Kavanaugh]

Anthony,

I've been there before and don't dare go again.

[RJ_Daley]

Here here, oh wise sage of the pennisula.

I find it interesting that two artists, Doak and Cole have noodled around with this issue to the limitted extent that they have posted thoughts here.  But, I would really like to see these two artists, and other artists at the peak of their endeavors have a lengthy and thoughtful discussion on this subject; who cares about rankings and to what end?

Without question, both these gents here wish to make a living and need to sell their talent to a market of people that range from those that like there stuff because they just like it, to those that know their fields of play (music and game) in depth, and choose to buy, or praise their work as critical acclaim.  

But I suspect that they, as the artists who produce the medium that we enjoy, have a far different take or value to be placed on rankings of their respective crafts than the owners  or memberships of the golf courses (private or public) or the labels of record companies.  Truly, the commercial side of the equation will always be more willing to tamper with the original art to remodel (or re-mix or re-master)for the sake of making the art more palatable, playable, or in sinc with the current technology, taste, or conditions of the market.

Doing some digital work to make a piece more marketable (I'm way over my head in music biz tech and terminology here) to enhance, boost, alter to current musical palate on the instrumentality/sound side is one thing... but what if something was done to alter Mr. Cole's lyrics?      What if the words were altered in tone, inflection, pronuciation, etc., to reflect a newer and trendy culture or vernacular?  That would be wholesale rape, IMHO.

And so that might be similar with alterations of golf designs to gain new market, I think.  If present day archie goes to a classic, highly acclaimed/ historically respected course to boost the tonal, instumentality quality of a course (clear overgrown corridors, bring out green edges, redo bunker edges and drainage, etc) to make it more relavant to play within means of new tech maintenance equip and new grasses - to play as good and better than the original in a tech sense, without destroying the character and soul of a course, that might be something like they are discussing with re-mixing and all that.  

But, if an archie goes to change bunker positions or eliminate or add some, lengthen tees greatly, soften greens, etc., that is like changing the lyrics, it seems to me.  

If clubs care that much about rankings, because it is a commercial pursuit, that they would rape the lyrics, then rankings are driving the great evil of golf course architecture in the resto-remodel arena.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

I think I have something to offer here. I make records (music). One of the albums I made (long ago) is often rated in 'Top 100' lists, sometimes higher than othertimes, and sometimes it has fallen under the ranking radar.. Like Tom,

This is a great thread, it brings together Top 100 courses with my days caddying at Newport CC listening to Bob Marley at The Wharf Deli.  

Lloyd,

Please tell me this was your song/album that you produced!

----------

Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music!
Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music!
Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music!
Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music!

Hey, Mister Music, sure sounds good to me!
I can't refuse it: what to be got to be.
Feel like dancing, dance 'cause we are free;
Feel like dancing, come dance with me!

Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music!
Roots, rock, reggae, yeah! Dis a reggae music!
Play I some music: dis a reggae music!
Play I some music: dis a reggae music!

Play I on the R&B - wo-oh! Want all my people to see:
We're bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread!
Play I on the R&B; want all my people to see:
We bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread!

Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music! Uh-uh!
Roots, rock, reggae, ee-mi duba! Dis a reggae music!
Play I some music: (dis a reggae music!)
Play I some music: (dis a reggae music!)
---
/Saxophone solo/
(Dis a reggae music!)
(Dis a reggae music!)
---
Play I on the R&B; I want all my people to see: (doo-doo-doo-doo!)
We bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread!
(doo-doo-doo-doo!)
Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music!
Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music!
(Dis a reggae music!)
(Dis a reggae music!)