The result of course rankings

[Ted Sturges]

My father held a subscription to Golf Digest Magazine, so as a young boy I read that rag cover to cover each month.  My early interest in golf course architecture was fed by reviewing the early "top 100 courses" lists.  In those first few years of publishing those lists, it could be argued that the lists were a positive for GD readers, as the lists perhaps served to encourage GD readers to learn more about the courses that made this list.  In the years since, have these lists been "good" for golf, or bad? 

For example, have these lists caused golf course maintenance budgets to rise over the years in an effort to emulate the courses on the top 100 lists?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Has this resulted in higher membership and green fees? Do more flower beds and chemicals/water that make courses greener make for better golf?  Courses in the UK don't seem to worry about these things as much as clubs and courses in the US do.

I was surprised this summer when playing a course rated in the top 25 in the US with a member of that club when he told me that the green committee at his club made decisions about their course with these rankings clearly in mind (I was shocked that members at a club like that would care what a magazine panelist thought about their course). 

What is the overall result of these course rankings....and have these results been "good" or "bad" for golf?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Like anything it is a mixture of good and bad.  It motivates a club to try to improve and gives a way to measure - I wouldn't be surprised if some clubs don't have rankings built into the objectives of their GM so that he gets a higher bonus for improving their rating.  But it also leads clubs to do silly things too, which you are implying.

You're surprised that members care about ratings - you don't think they want to be able to brag to their buddies that "my club is ranked high than yours"?

Don't forget that rankings can also be a good marketing tool which is important in this day when clubs are having trouble filling their membership rosters.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted - thanks, it's a question that holds unusual interest for me, though I can't explain why. The 'dynamics' involved in ratings is a subject worthy of its own thread (or three), but on your specific question, it reminds me of the old parable/fable:

"A man named Sei Weng owned a beautiful mare which was praised far and wide. One day this beautiful horse disappeared. The people of his village offered sympathy to Sei Weng for his great misfortune. Sei Weng said simply, 'That's the way it is'. A few days later the lost mare returned, followed by a beautiful wild stallion. The village congratulated Sei Weng for his good fortune. He said, 'That's the way it is'. Some time later, Sei Weng's only son, while riding the stallion, fell off and broke his leg. The village people once again expressed their sympathy at Sei Weng's misfortune. Sei Weng again said, 'That's the way it is'. Soon thereafter, war broke out and all the young men of the village except Sei Weng's lame son were drafted, and were killed in battle. The village people were amazed as Sei Weng's good luck. His son was the only young man left alive in the village. But Sei Weng kept his same attitude: despite all the turmoil, gains and losses, he gave the same reply, 'That's the way it is'."

Which is my way of saying, I don't know what the results of course rankings are.  If I was as wise as Sei Weng, I'd say "That's the way it is".  Since I'm not as wise as Sei Weng, I'll say: thank goodness many folks either don't pay much attention to rankings, or, if they do, have just enough time/interest/money to only occasionally act on the information -- and most of the time play at and support and are happy with the good and decent and modest courses in their own neighbourhoods instead.  That's good I think, because if not those 'neighbourhood' courses that are the lifeblood of the game and of public golf would soon be gone.

Peter  

[Jud_T]

Ted,

It's a mixed bag.  Certainly Digest has helped foister the notion that difficulty equals good architecture, not a good thing in my book.  On the flip side, rankings can help get courses which had been previously overlooked, like Crystal Downs and Lawsonia, noticed by a national audience.  Frankly, people like making lists and selling magazines, so they're a necessary evil.  Best bet is to do our part to help make them as good as possible.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you think rankings are bad all you need to do is see how being a rater has brought so much joy into the life of a dedicated golfer like Paul Thomas.  There is nary a course in the country that has not been blessed by his smile and love of the game.  I was even lucky enough to be paired with Paul one day at my club quite by mistake.  I was told it was Paul Turner.  Despite the obvious scuttlebutts Paul and I have had in the internet world we had an amazing day that brought us closer and perhaps even better people for the experience.  I only use Paul as one example because of his prolific posting and desire to educate us on his many travels.  

I know Paul is not alone as Golfweek in particular has been wise to allow many more golfers into the fold.  I have personally played courses I would have never seen if not for my many friendships with raters who have taken me on their reviews.  One smile, one uplifted heart, one golfer educated to a new viewpoint or venue is worth any cost the rankings may have had to the game.

I love rankings, I love raters and I especially love being a member of a highly ranked course.  It's all good.

[Ted Sturges]

You're surprised that members care about ratings - you don't think they want to be able to brag to their buddies that "my club is ranked high than yours"?

Don't forget that rankings can also be a good marketing tool which is important in this day when clubs are having trouble filling their membership rosters.

Actually...yes...I am surprised.  I just can't imagine for example a Fishers Island Club member bragging to a member of Trump (insert course name here) that his course is ranked higher by Golf Digest.  I can't imagine that the Fishers Island member would care one bit about that.  And...I don't think Fishers Island is concerned with "filling their membership roster".     It is my belief that upper tier clubs like that are in a different category and don't have as much concern about those things as the clubs jockeying to make it into the top 100.

TS

[David Davis]

As a rater and ranker of courses I'd agree 100% that all ranking and ratings are used to sell magazines, websites, services or something else. I think it's a huge challenge to differentiate between various types of courses and compare them. I love links golf, am very much a purist and would almost always choose a links course over a perfectly manicured forest course.

As an American living in Europe for the last 20 years I often wonder how US-centric the rankings of Golf Digest and Golf Magazine are for example, even though I myself love to read them and find out the results and even wait in high anticipation of the various new rankings. Yes I too love being a member of a course that gets rated on a list, whatever that list may be. What I love more is traveling around and playing top courses and architecturally significant courses and deciding for myself if I share the perception of others and trying to figure out why.

Last week I was in Spain playing several of their top ranked courses and I understand how important rankings and ratings are for them as the economy is tough and with out green fees from tourists all the courses are suffering. Another example is Bandon Dunes Resort in my home state of Oregon. Take away rankings and perhaps not enough people would of heard about it to make it such a huge success. I could be wrong but either way I'm grateful it's been created for us and we found out about it. The same goes for the new Trump course. I love the fact that this businessman cares about rankings and wants to create a legacy for all of us to enjoy and dream of playing/returning to play. We are extremely fortunate now doubt.

IMO rankings yes are highly subjective and even unreliable in many instances as we never know what's happening behind the scenes and half the time we aren't clear on what the exact criteria has been. But take the mean average of all of them that exist, play the courses yourself and figure out what feels right for you. Your top or my top will be even better than anything published because that's our personal truth.

Plus how much fun is it to discuss and debate all this stuff. I love it!

[Wade Whitehead]

One result is that courses advertise things like "Top 25 Mid-Atlantic Public Under $50 Northern Quadrant Even-Numbered Address Reader's Choice Travel Guide 2007."

WW

[Wayne_Kozun]

Maybe Fishers Island or Shinnecock doesn't have to worry about their rankings but I know other courses do.  Here in Canada it was helpful to have my club, Scarboro, ranked in the top 100 in the country as it helps to attract new members and/or increase the value of a membership at the club.  Even though the rececsession was quite mild here in Toronto compared to the US the private golf club market has changed dramatically in the last five years.  There are now very few courses with waiting lists and some courses are in financial trouble and/or gone through financial reorganizations.  Many of the clubs have terrible demographics and are really struggling to attract new members.  Having a high rating really helps.

I also now members of The National Golf Club of Canada who are quite proud that their course is usually ranked as #1.

[jeffwarne]

While it may be good for individual clubs to attract members,at a cost to clubs who lose them,
it's hard for me to see how it's "good for golf"
Not saying it's bad for golf, although the arms races it could fuel would be bad for driving up the cost of the game.
Also, the photo op ornamental grasses (see rough threads)and rsistance to scoring features,  certainly slow the game down, as well as the courses opting for a Top 100 experience (see Top Experience thread)certainly drive costs up
It's not like more people pick up the game because of rankings.

[JESII]

I would love to see/participate in a debate along the lines of...

"Golf Magazine Rankings versus Equipment Technology" - which has added more, or detracted less, from the game of golf and its players?

[John Kavanaugh]

While it may be good for individual clubs to attract members,at a cost to clubs who lose them,
it's hard for me to see how it's "good for golf"
Not saying it's bad for golf, although the arms races it could fuel would be bad for driving up the cost of the game.
Also, the photo op ornamental grasses (see rough threads)and rsistance to scoring features,  certainly slow the game down, as well as the courses opting for a Top 100 experience (see Top Experience thread)certainly drive costs up
It's not like more people pick up the game because of rankings.

Can you imagine the good that would be done if the approximate 2000 current raters of Digest and Golfweek pledged to become a member of a private course no less than 100 miles from their primary residence.  Of course most raters are already members of national clubs so the effort may be more symbolic than financially rewarding.

[JESII]

Really?

What's the verdict?

[John Kavanaugh]

Really?

What's the verdict?

More or less that the game is going to hell 

I would love to hear one single detriment to the game through the ranking of golf courses.  Every argument I ever made in the past has been revealed to be false.

[JESII]

I think they've been a major factor in driving up unecessary maintenance practices...and overall cost with it.

People seem to look at the course across town which is ranked higher as only being so because it's better manicured.

[Peter Pallotta]

And they foster the root of all sin, which is pride.

Not to say there's anything wrong with that; but I'd note that technology, on the other hand, only fosters vanity, which is a more modest and almost child-like failing.


Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

I think they've been a major factor in driving up unecessary maintenance practices...and overall cost with it.

People seem to look at the course across town which is ranked higher as only being so because it's better manicured.

You are making the assumption that both raters and members are ignorant.  A common mistake I have made in the past.

Please give an example where this is even possible.  Does Lehigh have prettier flowers than Rolling Green.  Are the members of Rolling Green really that stupid?  Well, maybe that's a bad example.

[henrye]

You're surprised that members care about ratings - you don't think they want to be able to brag to their buddies that "my club is ranked high than yours"?

Don't forget that rankings can also be a good marketing tool which is important in this day when clubs are having trouble filling their membership rosters.

Actually...yes...I am surprised.  I just can't imagine for example a Fishers Island Club member bragging to a member of Trump (insert course name here) that his course is ranked higher by Golf Digest.  I can't imagine that the Fishers Island member would care one bit about that.  And...I don't think Fishers Island is concerned with "filling their membership roster".     It is my belief that upper tier clubs like that are in a different category and don't have as much concern about those things as the clubs jockeying to make it into the top 100.

TS

Ted, you'd be wrong about Fishers.  I recently had dinner with a couple, who cottage there and are members and are quite proud and vocal about their course being so highly rated.

[Mike Hendren]

From my experience there are more than a few rich folk who indeed enjoy sitting around talking about how great it is to be great. 

It's good to be Bogey, but that's a conversation killer.

Mike

[Ted Sturges]

Thanks for the clarity on that HenryE.  I would never have guessed that.  

To John Kavanaugh:

I believe the one single detriment to the game rankings have contributed to would be the cost to play the game.  Maintenance budgets at US courses often end up anywhere between 500k and 2 million. I think it can easily be argued that this "keep up with the Joneses" mentaility, which increases the cost to play this game, has been affected by course rankings (I would be interested to hear your argument to the contrary).

Maintaining courses more like they do in the UK (firm and fast and less green) simply costs less.  One could also argue that those playing conditions make for better golf, and a better way to present the architecture.  I'm not certain of the year the "embedded ball rule" was added to the rules of golf, but I have a feeling it was motivated by the USGA rather than the R & A folks.  In all the rounds of golf I've played in the UK, I don't ever recall having my ball "embed" in a closely mown area.  

I do think rankings have had several positive impacts (many of which have been mentioned above).  I'm just thinking big picture here and wondering if the overall contribution is positive or negative...and I'm still on the fence.

TS

[Mac Plumart]

I think the rankings/ratings could be great for the game if used and run appropriately.  And for this to happen it comes down to the panelist and their motivations and the criteria for judging courses.

You can still have the criteria for routing, quality of the holes, etc.  But I think you need something like sustainability.  Tom Doak mentions in the Confidential Guide that he reviews courses with an almost disgregard to maintenance standards.  Many people's taste in golf courses aren't a perfect fit with Tom's, but on this issue I think he is getting really close to being spot on.  And what I mean by that is I don't think maintenance standards should be overlooked, rather they should be judge differently and this new standard should result in sustainable maintenance practices...which more times than not line up with great golf.

Take a lush, green, and prettied up golf course.  Most likely there is too much water and fertilizer being used which bloats maintenance budgets AND doesn't yield great golf conditions.  The plugged lie rule is mentioned and good golf usually means fast and firm.  Of course, every environment and climate has different standards for what is do-able and what makes for the best golf...but I think you see where I'm going.

So, if a rating system can keep the golf courses in line with the appropriate maintenance criteria and ping those that are not being sustainable, natural, and/or in keeping with quality of being ideally suited for good golf...then they could be great.  I remember playing North Berwick, Muirfield very distinctly and how brown they were...but the golf was great.  Yeamans Hall is another great example.  Rivermont isn't as lush and green as other Atlanta courses, but the course is fast and firm and great.  Most people view the brown of Rivermont as a negative compared to other higher profile Atlanta based courses...but the playing of golf on that courses turf is flat out better than these other Atlanta courses I'm mentioning.

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ted,

I'm sure we are both equally aware of Wolf Run, Crooked Stick and Victoria National.  In the last ten years the three clubs have battled various ranking lists for best in Indiana, if not the region if you include Valhalla and the courses at French Lick.  Please name one line item that increased at any of the above clubs maintenance budgets in an attempt to out do the competition in the name of rankings.

I do believe Valhalla was the first of the courses to buy greenside fans.  I remember because that was the first time I said that greenside fans represent lazy architecture and should automatically disqualify a course for any top 100 list.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the rankings/ratings could be great for the game if used and run appropriately.  And for this to happen it comes down to the panelist and their motivations and the criteria for judging courses.

You can still have the criteria for routing, quality of the holes, etc.  But I think you need something like sustainability.  Tom Doak mentions in the Confidential Guide that he reviews courses with an almost disgregard to maintenance standards.  Many people's taste in golf courses aren't a perfect fit with Tom's, but on this issue I think he is getting really close to being spot on.  And what I mean by that is I don't think maintenance standards should be overlooked, rather they should be judge differently and this new standard should result in sustainable maintenance practices...which more times than not line up with great golf.

Take a lush, green, and prettied up golf course.  Most likely there is too much water and fertilizer being used which bloats maintenance budgets AND doesn't yield great golf conditions.  The plugged lie rule is mentioned and good golf usually means fast and firm.  Of course, every environment and climate has different standards for what is do-able and what makes for the best golf...but I think you see where I'm going.

So, if a rating system can keep the golf courses in line with the appropriate maintenance criteria and ping those that are not being sustainable, natural, and/or in keeping with quality of being ideally suited for good golf...then they could be great.  I remember playing North Berwick, Muirfield very distinctly and how brown they were...but the golf was great.  Yeamans Hall is another great example.  Rivermont isn't as lush and green as other Atlanta courses, but the course is fast and firm and great.  Most people view the brown of Rivermont as a negative compared to other higher profile Atlanta based courses...but the playing of golf on that courses turf is flat out better than these other Atlanta courses I'm mentioning.

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

Great post and definitely something I think you should put to Brad Klein

Brian,

What exactly do you think Dr. Klein can do with Mac's post?  You can not possible expect Golfweek to throw out every rater who does not vote how he is told.  Can you imagine trying to have a family, spend over 100 days a year on the road and babysit 800 raters.  Golfweek has already pioneered rater training.  From what I can tell they excessively screen panelists for past experience and ethics.  Brad Klein should spend his valuable time telling his raters how to do a better job, not visa versa.

As far as this brown thing goes, raters have lives too.  They must travel and rate 12 months out of the year which leads to visits during varying weather conditions and seasons.  Sure, some courses play the weather perfect two to three months a year but you can't expect a rater to wait till that perfect moment.  Damn at that rate they would be lucky to see 10 new courses a year at a much higher expense to their already stressed out travel budgets.

[Ted Sturges]

Ted,

I'm sure we are both equally aware of Wolf Run, Crooked Stick and Victoria National.  In the last ten years the three clubs have battled various ranking lists for best in Indiana, if not the region if you include Valhalla and the courses at French Lick.  Please name one line item that increased at any of the above clubs maintenance budgets in an attempt to out do the competition in the name of rankings.

The sub air systems for the greens at Victoria National (you just asked for one).

TS

[Ted Sturges]

Gotta run...but if you could be a great set of criteria and dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf...then you could improve ther rating and influence the world of golf in a postive manner.

Mac,  "dedicated raters who understand what makes for great golf"...I don't believe there is much evidence that this exists.  There are literally hundreds of course raters out there today (too many of whom are in hot pursuit of free golf).  I think you told me that you were a rater for one of the magazines (I truly can't remember which one).  Do you even think that 50% of the people on the panel you are on "understand what makes for great golf?".

TS