The latest GD rankings and what they could mean

[David Stamm]

I just wanted to express some thoughts I have after seeing the latest rankings from GD. There were a few courses that have dropped off the list after undergoing resto's and some of these weren't rated beforehand so their ranking was short lived. My concern is that members will be questioning whether they did the right thing when they were ranked before, and for those that got a taste of being ranked after a resto that they will attempt to do more to regain their spot. I realize some of these courses probably haven't had enough raters make it out to their course so soon after restoration (Valley Club and Colonial for example), but the perception will be there regardless, IMO. Are these legit concerns?

[Rob Rigg]

If your club cares about being ranked then absolutely!

This is one of the dangers of the rankings.

It is possible that members will decide on going down a reno path that is more ranking friendly than golfer friendly based on what has occurred.

Were the courses that have dropped restored to their original designs or restored in a manner that really made them tougher?

If original restoration is dropping courses from the top 100 that used to be there, it is a sad day for gca.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

If a club is considering a restoration or even a renovation, then it would seem that the thing to do would be to hire Fazio. After all, look what he did for ANGC.

[David Stamm]

If a club is considering a restoration or even a renovation, then it would seem that the thing to do would be to hire Fazio. After all, look what he did for ANGC.

Steve, stop saying such things!

[Bill_McBride]

David, my impression of the Valley Club of Montecito membershp is they could care less.

I could be wrong, my membership sample is pretty small, but I don't think so.

I personally think it's stupid beyond belief to include some of the courses that are included and not the Valley Club, but that's just me being all rational and logical again. 

[David Stamm]

David, my impression of the Valley Club of Montecito membershp is they could care less.

I could be wrong, my membership sample is pretty small, but I don't think so.

I personally think it's stupid beyond belief to include some of the courses that are included and not the Valley Club, but that's just me being all rational and logical again. 

I agree about the exclusion, Bill. VC is that special to me. And I hope you're right about them not caring about the ranking.

[Brian Cenci]

I think for the most part clubs and membership care.  There are the rare exceptions and a few clubs that I would guess could probably could care less (Honors Course (for sure) & Wolf Run would probably be samples of some I've played that I would guess they don't care).  But, for the most part I think courses care. 

I played a few years ago with a member at a very prominent club.  Before we even teed off he spouted off how they were ranked currently #15 by GD and #14 by Golf Magazine (don't quote me on the rankings) and how he felt that wasn't good enough and that they wanted to be back in the top 10 in both magazines (he was on one of the golf course committees or something too).  So, I think some courses care a lot and obviously some courses play off the rankings.  How many "#top 10 in the State" billboards or slogans do you see for courses (mostly publics).  You go on many websites for private courses and many have a link that says "accolades" or "awards" and has a listing of all of their printed accomplishments.

I just hope courses don't tinker with things to try and make raters happy.  Raters have their own opinions across the board and what may please 5 or 10 may really displease another 1 or 2. 

[Adam Clayman]

Bill has it right that any informed member should care less what some magazine says about their course. If the member is happy golfing there who cars? If membership drive is based on a rating they are concerned about the wrong aspects not the gca.

[mike_malone]

 With respect to GD's state rankings I believe clubs should not do anything to try to effect them. Their rankings are too volatile and arbitrary to figure out what to do. By comparison, GW's classic ranking with its focus on adherence to original design intent gives a club a straightforward and consistent guideline for changes to the course.

   The volatility of the GD rankings has gone on for years such that I now ignore them.

[Matt_Ward]

David S:

Any sane membership needs to divorce themselves from the ratings and continue with their plans to improve their course. I have seen too many courses look at the ratings as some sort of final blessing on what's been done and should they not appear take it to mean that internal workings at that respective club have failed to be recognized.

However ...

When people swear that ratings don't mean a thing -- I know from a variety of instances that all people / clubs do enjoy the fanfare that attention of the kind involved with ratings can bring. There is pride in having one's club be recognized -- to say that it means nothing at all would be a stretch.

The problem most clubs / members don't get is that often times the work they have done will be reflected in FUTURE ratings and there is a lag time between an existing rating and one 3-4 years down the road. Many clubs don't have the wherewithal to make their plans noteworthy or open to public view -- hence the awareness level of what is being done can take some time for it to work it's way through the pipeline of various raters scattered in the fashion you see today.

[Tom_Doak]

There are people at The Valley Club who will care about losing their ranking, if the course does not return to the list in two years' time.  But, thankfully, it isn't the driving force in anything they do.

[Tags:]

Tags: