The point of rankings

[Dan King]

I'm trying to be more open minded. I sort of get why some people need a cell phone at the golf course so that is some progress.

I really don't get rankings. To me it is no more than a way to sell magazines. But there are plenty of the rest of you that are really into it. Why?

I'd also be curious if they are just rankings geared toward rankers. If you think the ranking of golf courses serves a purpose, it would be helpful to know if you yourself are a ranker.

I'd also like to know if you rank other things in your life? Anybody have a wanking ranking?

Cheers,
Dan King

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
 --Marcus Aurelius

[David_Elvins]

I really don't get rankings. To me it is no more than a way to sell magazines. But there are plenty of the rest of you that are really into it. Why?

Wouldn't say that i am really into it but I do it.  I like it because:

-It is good motivation to play more courses.
-It encourages me to think about the courses and analyse their architecture. 
-It is a good starting point for discussion. 
-Reading other people's rankings is a good starting point for what planning trips and working out which courses I would want to play and enjoy. 

[Kalen Braley]

Zaggat and Urbanspoon rank the best restuarants.
Writers rank the best college football teams.
Forbes rank the best places to live
Consumer Reports rank the best cars.
The govt ranks our population density and how much money we make.
PC Magazine ranks computer software and hardware.
Hell, some even rank thier ex's


I guess mankind just loves to organize and compare things as they see fit.  I don't think golf courses are any different, even though I will agree if theses course lists didn't sell magazines, we probably wouldn't have any "main stream" lists....just personal lists like we do here on GCA.com.

[John Kavanaugh]

Dan,

I know several raters whose lives would be destroyed if they lost their privileges. I've seen jobs lost, marriages gone and families sacrificed. Rating mirrors religion.  Name one thing you either hate or love about religion and substitute ratings...it's interchangeable.

I do believe that like religion, ratings help more people than they harm...mostly ignorant people, but what the hell, no good reason to fight it.

[Michael Whitaker]

Dan - what's wrong with selling magazines? If rankings sell more magazines doesn't that mean people are interested in the rankings enough to boost sales? What's wrong with that?

[John Kavanaugh]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Hell, some even rank thier ex's[/li][/list]

A buddy of mine has a simplified method of ranking his - he lists them as Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 3.  

Dan,
Not  a ranker. Nothing much to add that hasn't been said already, but I like them because they save me from wasting valuable time in trying to figure out what's the best course on the planet.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Anyone curious about the male need to fit subjective things into ranking lists could do a lot worse than read Hi Fidelity by Nick Hornby.


I like to think it,s adolescent and I,ve grown out of it.

[Michael Whitaker]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

On what do you base that statement? Your intimate knowledge of magazine business operations?

If rankings didn't sell more magazines the advertisers wouldn't purchase the ads. Companies don't spend ad money without a reasonable potential for return on investment. If rankings articles didn't result in increased sales for the magazines (circulation and ad sales) they wouldn't do them. iI's just business, JK.

[John Kirk]

To rate is to debate and to educate.

Sorry, I never grew out of a compulsion to rank and rate things.

Did you know that this year, Mike Trout of the California Angels currently has the highest OPS, adjusted for ball park differences, for a player 21 or under, in the history of baseball?  He's the second coming of Mickey Mantle.  Nice article on Trout in this week's SI.

[Dan King]

David_Elvins writes:
-It is good motivation to play more courses.
-It encourages me to think about the courses and analyse their architecture.

I assume you mean these two things as a ranker. I don't see how either of these apply to a consumer of rankings.

-It is a good starting point for discussion.

In what way?  My experience with casual golfers is it stops discussion.

-Reading other people's rankings is a good starting point for what planning trips and working out which courses I would want to play and enjoy.  

I could see this maybe being a positive a generation or so ago. But now when planning a trip wouldn't you rather talk to people you know? Doesn't a group like this mean ranking, if they ever had usefulness, no longer matter?

When I first took a trip to Scotland with some friends, they all wanted to go to ranked courses. I used The Confidential Guide to decide what to play because I liked Doak's opinion of many of the courses I had already played. Isn't that better, discussing a trip with people you trust rather than some crazy point system?

Kalen Braley writes:
Zaggat and Urbanspoon rank the best restuarants.

I see a big difference between ranking and ratings. A number tells you nothing, just some sort of calculation from folks you don't know. Michelin uses ratings, the rest use rankings. Sure seems to me a rating tells me much more than a ranking. Ranking get to tied up in minutiae and fails to say why something is good. I've found rating generally give more discussion of the object, not relying on numbers.

John Kavanaugh writes:
I do believe that like religion, ratings help more people than they harm...mostly ignorant people, but what the hell, no good reason to fight it.

Not a very compelling reason to get into ranking.

Michael Whitaker writes:
Dan - what's wrong with selling magazines? If rankings sell more magazines doesn't that mean people are interested in the rankings enough to boost sales? What's wrong with that?

I got no interest in selling magazines.

Cheers,
Dan King

Number 10 is Rush Limbaugh's book and No. 8 is a book on menopause, so I'm somewhere between the right wing and the change of life.
 --Peter Jacobsen (on his book "Buried Lies" being No. 9 on the Washington Post best seller list)

[Sean_A]

I'm trying to be more open minded. I sort of get why some people need a cell phone at the golf course so that is some progress.

I really don't get rankings. To me it is no more than a way to sell magazines. But there are plenty of the rest of you that are really into it. Why?

I'd also be curious if they are just rankings geared toward rankers. If you think the ranking of golf courses serves a purpose, it would be helpful to know if you yourself are a ranker.

I'd also like to know if you rank other things in your life? Anybody have a wanking ranking?

Cheers,
Dan King

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
 --Marcus Aurelius

Rankings gets me to compare and contrast courses.  That ultimately helps me figure out where I want to play.  Calling a course #1 or #100 is inconsequential for my purposes.

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Besides Dan, Tom Doak with his Confidential Guide, and Golf Club Atlas with all its opinionated knuckleheads, has had a profound impact on the national rankings of golf courses.  The lists look better every year.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan - Here's my take: I think rankings exist because there have always been people who need to rank things; rankings exist to serve the interests of rankers. The point of of rankings is to satisfy a desire for community, and to alleviate loneliness; a purely subjective experience is unverifiable (and thus scary), but rankings coat that experience in a patina of objectivity and the solidity of collectivism. Also, they sell magazines, and we get to waste our time in un-ending discussions, and also belt-notch and complain...so it's all good

[John Kirk]

Some golf courses yield shots of greater variety and interest than others.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

On what do you base that statement? Your intimate knowledge of magazine business operations?

If rankings didn't sell more magazines the advertisers wouldn't purchase the ads. Companies don't spend ad money without a reasonable potential for return on investment. If rankings articles didn't result in increased sales for the magazines (circulation and ad sales) they wouldn't do them. iI's just business, JK.

Mike,

Digest only has their rating issue once every two years.  Golfweek does not sell magazines, they give them away. Do you honestly believe that one magazine subscription in the world would be cancelled if rankings were abolished.  Rater subscriptions excluded.

[Garland Bayley]

What's an OPS?

[Mark Steffey]

-It is a good starting point for discussion. 

i have had the great pleasure of playing with a number of raters.  i always want to bring up rankings, especially in new england as i feel some courses get overlooked and some ride on their past laurels.  however..... .... most if not all of these conversations end with, "i'd need to check my notes"  

"oh, ok.....  so what did you think of lunch?"

[Dan King]

Sean Arble writes:
Rankings gets me to compare and contrast courses.  That ultimately helps me figure out where I want to play.  Calling a course #1 or #100 is inconsequential for my purposes.

I think that is sort of my point. Ratings with commentary serves a purpose. Which course is No. 11 and which is No. 12 is damaging to the game, IMHO.

John Kirk writes:
Besides Dan, Tom Doak with his Confidential Guide, and Golf Club Atlas with all its opinionated knuckleheads, has had a profound impact on the national rankings of golf courses.  The lists look better every year.

In what way? Why does one list look better than another, and what is better about the most recent list?

Some golf courses yield shots of greater variety and interest than others.

I agree. But I sure don't see ranking as answering that issue.

Cheers,
Dan King

The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart.
 --Helen Keller

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

I think you make a good distinction between rankings and ratings.

I personally like the rating system, and use my own interpretation of the 10 point Doak Scale to rate the courses I've played in my xls.  But I must admit, at that point, its really hard not to sort those courses by rating number (1-10) to then get my rankings list.  So if anything, the "ranking" list is just an artifact or symptom of sorting the "rated" courses.

P.S.  I think Golf Digest had a good idea with the 1-5 stars concept.  But the problem is when every course is either a 4, 4.5, or 5, the "rating" system became pretty much worthless.

[Peter Pallotta]

Here's another thought: if I see photos and descriptions of a course like Canterbury, and my mind and heart tell me that it would be a joy to play and a wholly satisfying experience, why would/should I ever concern myself with how it 'ranks'? And if I should allow myself to become concerned, and if on my one trip to England I didn't play it because I decided to play a number of courses all "ranked" above it, wouldn't that amount to a kind of self-betrayal, a sacrifice of self on the alter of public opinion?  Call me nuts, but part of me believes it would be exactly and precisely that kind of betrayal.  I know, I know - it's only golf.  But I have a suspicion that at the deepest levels, we don't tend to compartmentalize all that much, i.e. if we lose ourselves here, we lose ourselves there. we lose ourselves everywhere.

Peter

PS - great quote Dan from Helen Keller. Damn straight, sister, damn straight!

[John Kirk]

OPS is an acronym for "On-base percentage plus slugging percentage."

Dan serving up a belt high fastball...

The rankings now include more courses that yield shots of greater variety and interest.  But that's also because there are more American courses with superior playing surfaces (fescue) and agronomic practices (dry and firm).  Perhaps I'm in a minority who believes the best new courses have raised the bar of golf enjoyment.

[Garland Bayley]

Oh, you mean the OBPPSP.

[Mark Steffey]

Oh, you mean the OBPPSP.

don't forget to * (adjust for the ballparks you play in and get said OBPPSP)

[Kalen Braley]

I think we need to clarify one very important concept before this thread gets too much deeper into thought/commentary.

And that is, its an impossible task to objectively say one course is better than another one, especially when you are talking about the quality of courses found in a "top 100" list.

For example, I've played Rock Creek, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes...all of which are extremely fine courses in my opinion.  But as to determining which one is "better" is a subjective process.  I've "rated" all of them with the same number (9), but trying to "rank" them is purely a matter of personal opinion.  For me, I like the coast/ocean, so I've rated PD the highest of the three, but I couldn't possibly argue against anyone who ranks either Rock Creek or Ballyneal higher....thats completely valid as well.

So the only thing we can do by having a "rankings list" it to get a consensus view with multiple data points to figure out on average across several hundred golfers, which courses are preffered by most and which ones aren't.

The intrinsic value of that list at that point, is really up to the individual.