The point of rankings

[Dan King]

John Kirk writes:
OPS is an acronym for "On-base percentage plus slugging percentage."

I get that. Ranking numbers makes some sense. We know 6 is a higher number than 5 and a lower number than 7. Not a big deal. However, does it have any real meaning. Is 6 a better number than 5?

Cheers,
Dan King

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
 --Henry David Thoreau

[John Kirk]

Hi Dan,

I don't see much difference between ranking courses with a number, or suggesting a list of courses that you enjoy playing, except that the first is defining which ones he/she likes best.  But it's educational to discuss what one does not like as well.

I've expounded on this subject in detail, about being a born critic, with a lifelong desire to evaluate things.

"Ranking numbers makes some sense. We know 6 is a higher number than 5 and a lower number than 7. Not a big deal. However, does it have any real meaning. Is 6 a better number than 5?"

In the case of baseball or golf playing performance, it is important.  Great baseball statisticians, who study player performance, revolutionized the game.  Same with golf, to perhaps a lesser extent.

But we're dealing with analyzing golf courses, a subject that appears almost purely subjective.  But if it were purely subjective, how come some courses are universally well-liked?  Some things work, and some things don't, and through this hyper analysis, the art of building them is improving.

[David Kelly]

Oh, you mean the OBPPSP.

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

OPS just adds the two numbers together.

OPS+  adjusts them for league and ballpark.

Trout's OPS+ is 179 which means his OPS is 79% higher than the league average.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Some things work, and some things don't, and through this hyper analysis, the art of building them is improving."

This could have a thread of its own. That's well and clearly said, John, and you may be right, and at times I agree with you/that sentiment. But mostly, I don't believe things work that way, not great things at least.  An art, any art, improves not because of hyper analysis by the collective/outside agencies, but because there are born here and there, then and now, artists/creators who are so very good at what they do that they in turn shape that very collective.  As far as I know, there was no hyper-analysis of 16th century play-writing when Shakespeare burst unto the scene (in fact, if there had been, he would've been accused of doing many things "wrong").  Any hyper analysis in the 40s and 50s seems to have had zero affect on Marlon Brando, when he revolutionized acting. As you know, there was no such thing as "jazz theory" when Louis Armstrong basically invented the language of jazz and the soloist's art. The great artist and the great art/craft comes first, and creates the very parameters within which we then discuss that craft.

Peter

[Bill Seitz]

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.

Would that this were completely true, John.  Alas, the team that Alex Miller and I call our favorite is no longer the California Angels, but rather the Los Angeles Angels.......ofanaheim.  

And for those who care, OPS+ is 100*(OBP/league OBP + SLG/league SLG - 1), where 100 is league average.  As mentioned, it's adjusted for ballparks, but not position.  Trout, of course, is doing this while also playing gold glove caliber defense in center, and has legitimately robbed at least three homers this year, in addition to the 25 he's hit.  He's also completely lapping the field in Wins Above Replacement, which is pretty astonishing, since it's a counting stat, and he missed the first month of the season.  If he keeps this pace up, he'll put up about the 40th best offensive season in baseball history, despite missing the first month.  Had he not missed that month, he'd be in line for about the 13th best.  Oh, and he just turned 21. 

[Kirk Moon]

Quantitative rankings of golf courses is pretty hard to defend.  There are certainly some objective criteria that one can choose to evaluate courses, but there are many subjective qualities that are essentially impossible to quantify in a meaningful and reproducible manner. 

Arguing over whether Pine Valley is "better" than Cypress Point is a relatively fruitless endeavor.  Something akin to arguing whether Alinea is better than PerSe.  Or Beethoven's Fifth is better than Mozart's 41st. 

I certainly understand the desire (and need) for humans to rank things, but if we are going to do it, wouldn't it make more sense to admit that it isn't possible to do it in any way that actually arrives at "the truth" and fall back on the basic idea that it IS possible to slot things of many types into fairly broad categories of "quality" that most informed people can agree on.

Something ilke the Doak scale, or a variant of it, makes sense to me and is actually "information that you can use", since it suggests action based upon the ranking of the course.  The numerical rankings in Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, Golf Week, and the rest don't.   They are the "US News and World Report" rankings of golf.  Nice try, but more or less meaningless at the level of granularity implied by the "data" presented. 

Given the above considerations, my only conclusion is that the rankings offered up by the major publications are little more than a marketing tool used to drive page views and bring in advertising revenue. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Please don't ignore the revenues the magazines receive from the raters themselves. At Golfweek I would estimate this number exceeds subscription revenue.

[Bart Bradley]

If rankings do anything to increase paid golf rounds or to increase demand for membership for the highly rated courses, then the rankings serve to encourage and promote better architecture.  The rankings reward good work and accordingly, make the likelihood that future courses will have more compelling architecture.

I would argue that the courses would not invite rater visits unless they perceived some benefit from being listed on the ratings lists.  Many courses use the list to market their course/membership. 

Bart

[John Kavanaugh]

If rankings do anything to increase paid golf rounds or to increase demand for membership for the highly rated courses, then the rankings serve to encourage and promote better architecture.  The rankings reward good work and accordingly, make the likelihood that future courses will have more compelling architecture.

I would argue that the courses would not invite rater visits unless they perceived some benefit from being listed on the ratings lists.  Many courses use the list to market their course/membership. 

Bart

Bart,

Do you believe Ballyhack would have sold a single additional membership if Golfweek had voted them top 50 Modern?  Are Canyata or Rich Harvest Links better courses because Digest thinks so?  You deal with the golfing public in your side business.  Are they all really that stupid that they need to be told where to join?  To play once I get but to join is another matter.

Given the state of the game please don't try to sell me on the fact the the people marketing the game know what they are doing. Marketing by ratings is a textbook failure.

[Jason Thurman]

It's nice to point out obvious facts, like "golf course quality is entirely subjective" and "if someone has the opinion that Spanish Bay is better than Pebble Beach, their view is no less valid than anyone else's opinion." This all leads to a basic realization that rankings are subjective and meaningless and we're all existential equals and quality is just an illusion.

But that leads to really boring conversations.

It's much more fun to debate the best courses (or restaurants, or albums, or tv shows, or anything else). Rankings are just a small part of satisfying our appetite for analyzing quality and trying to persuade others to agree with us.

[Greg Holland]

Perhaps the Rankings help foster interest in great design/GCA.  As an example, as I was just getting serious about golf, I played a course that I thought was really interesting (Caledonia).  It was -- at the time -- clearly the best course I had played.  After that trip, I started thinking about what I liked about the course and why.  That lead me to look up the course designer and learn more about him.  In reading more about Caledonia and Strantz, I learned it was ranked in the top 100, which lead me to look more closely at the rankings (which until that time were nothing more than something I glanced at but paid little attention too), and then start reading more about the highly ranked courses.  Searching for Caledonia and Pine Valley on the web is how I found this site, which led to my collection of GCA books, my constant review of this site, and so on, and so on.  

For someone that has not played 100s of courses, the lists also provide a relaive way to compare the few really good courses that you have played and are ranked to the very best courses, and to the many others you have played that are not

P.S.  I am not a rater.  

[Tom Yost]

I have to think about this more.  Tonight I'm busy sorting my record collection autobiographically.

[Frank M]

The point of rankings are to rank. It is human nature to "rank" things. If you are hungry and have three options, a peach, orange, and apple lets say, you are going to choose based on preference, which inevitably leads to a "ranking."

[John Kavanaugh]

One of the pleasures of ownership is that it disqualifies you from ranking.  People only rank what they do not have. This is why I do not rank the things I love.  Why should I or anyone else be made to or be told that they settled. Why not live in a world with the very best and be happy for those others who may also be so lucky. Rankers never win.

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
Please don't ignore the revenues the magazines receive from the raters themselves. At Golfweek I would estimate this number exceeds subscription revenue.

Do the rankers pay to be rankers?

Bart Bradley writes:
If rankings do anything to increase paid golf rounds or to increase demand for membership for the highly rated courses, then the rankings serve to encourage and promote better architecture.  The rankings reward good work and accordingly, make the likelihood that future courses will have more compelling architecture.

Why would this be better than ratings? I think, and I believe history as proved it true, getting courses to compete for spots makes courses do some really stupid things -- just to move up a few spots.

I think there is a very good reason when deciding about fine dining, Michelin is respected and Yelp isn't.

I would argue that the courses would not invite rater visits unless they perceived some benefit from being listed on the ratings lists.  Many courses use the list to market their course/membership. 

I'm not a golf course.

Frank Mastroianni writes:
The point of rankings are to rank.

Good news. All the ranking I have seen rank.

I personally don't understand the infatuation with figuring out why we rank things...especially golf courses. They are there for you to accept or decline simple as that. If you don't get it or agree with it, then don't read or acknowledge them.

I mostly do. I'm just asking some questions. I've always thought rankings were silly. I can see why golfers compete, but think golf courses competing against each other is harmful to the sport.

It is human nature to "rank" things. If you are hungry and have three options...a peach, orange, and apple lets say...you are going to choose based on preference which inevitably leads to a "ranking."

I can understand that. What I don't understand why when faced with a choice between a peach, orange, or apple you would go to some magazine about fruit and go by what a bunch of strangers feel about fruit.

Cheers,
Dan King

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

[Ally Mcintosh]

As a consumer, I like to use them to perhaps highlight courses that I know little about. And I find it fun to spot trends - groupthink or otherwise - that start to appear.

As a ranker for a magazine with a panel of 12, I do it primarily to up my profile in the business... Although it has got me to travel where I might not have previously... I also do it because I like the two day round-table rant & argument that the panel members have as we collate the final list.... It's therapeutic.

The magazine does it because it earns them money in advertising revenue (although it's amazing how many put the cart before the horse and believe courses only get rated if they advertise). It also sells magazines.

The clubs like it if they make it in to the 100. They hate it if they don't. They like going up. They hate going down. We treat it seriously primarily because we know we can have an effect on the clubs revenues by where we place them. Other than that, it's a bit of fun.

I rate nothing else in my life. I generally dislike that kind of order.

[David Davis]

Being involved in ranking and reviewing it's clear by this thread what an important and valid topic it is. I have years of experience in international publishing and advertising. Do rankings sell ads, damn right they do. Do they sell magazines, increase viewer stats, page impressions, unique visitors, viral marketing effect, the answer is simple YES, YES and YES. However, that's clearly not all, they also greatly increase tourism if we are talking about golf courses. I'm certain if we apply the Trump or Bandon effect to some middle of nowhere golf course that doesn't get any publicity and everyone on GCA starts talking about it, tells their friends and colleagues it's the #1 hidden gem we could generate considerable revenue for such a facility? Any arguments?

Granted rankings are less important for the top private clubs - Augusta, PV, CP I doubt give a hoot. However, start looking outside of your own little (or big in the case of the US) box and you will quickly see how vital these things are. Courses in Spain can not survive without tourism from Europe, US, UK and Ireland among others. PGA de Catalunya, the #1 rated course in Spain does not have a local membership, are rankings and ratings important to them? Life or death importance in fact.

There is no need for them to be perfect (plus it's impossible anyway), of course they are not, as they are subjective to many points however, I've never heard anyone planning a trip to The Netherlands for example that wanted to golf and didn't care where they end up. After all most things being equal you will pay pretty close to the same green fee, give or take $50 at any of the 200 courses. Without ranking and review information you would most likely be severely disappointed. Although I welcome anyone to try that, in fact, try it in any country in the world for the most part. US is no different.

If you are a fan of GCA you are already far more critical and involved in reviewing, ranking and rating than you might want to admit (in case you don't think these things are relevant or serve any purpose whatsoever). IMO if you have an opinion or develop one about a course then guess what, you are already busy with the process before you can stop yourself.

Rankings and ratings serve many purposes, while it may be fun to just find your way into town and then randomly and spontaneously pick out the first restaurant to come along, after you try it a few times and get disappointed it only makes sense to check Michelin (depending on what you are looking for of course). However, if you have no concern for the money you give out, no respect for your own time (or wasted time) and no intention of doing everything you can to ensure you get the maximum enjoyment of the precious free time then by all means don't bother with rankings, ratings, reviews or opinions.

Borrowing Ally's approach, as a consumer I want to make the best and most informed decisions, so I research rankings, reviews and opinions. For items like electronics, computers, cars etc I feel no need to run out and get the #1 ranked product all things being considered, just one that satisfies the purpose and value I associate with it's relevant need for me. Therefore it will usually have some price, quality balance. As a consumer of golf or restaurants I choose to pick the ones that will give me the best chance of experiencing something special, valuable and memorable, something fun and exciting, especially when traveling as I may never be back to this place. The great thing is I'm 42 and since I started doing this, I've never been let down, not once. Have I paid too much (in someone's opinion) for a dinner or a green fee? Probably. However, if I stop golfing and dining for enjoyment today, I will stop knowing that I certainly benefited from rankings, ratings and reviews and they saved me from wasting a lot of my time on inferior products, services and destinations. On the other side, just maybe they also cheated me out of some special experiences of "hidden gems" of some kind. But then again Maybe NOT!

[Sean_A]

Of course, probably the best ranking I have sever seen is the product of this website, albeit in an unofficial capacity.  It was fascinating to see what nearly made top 100 and what would have if enough people had seen the courses.  But most of all, it was clear that GCA opinion and opinion of the ranking world is not so different as many would believe. 

Newbies may be interested in this thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42368.0.html

Ciao

[David Davis]

Of course, probably the best ranking I have sever seen is the product of this website, albeit in an unofficial capacity.  It was fascinating to see what nearly made top 100 and what would have if enough people had seen the courses.  But most of all, it was clear that GCA opinion and opinion of the ranking world is not so different as many would believe. 

Newbies may be interested in this thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42368.0.html

Ciao

Sean, that's pretty interesting actually. Some quick points on your link to the old thread:

- curious the geographic/nationality breakdown of the so called experts?
- noticed at least at first and second glance that there was not one single course from continental Europe on the list. I might of missed, one...
- what was the ranking criteria for the expert judges?

[Sean_A]

David

If I recall, all the courses listed on the major magazine rankings were included in a ballot.  There was a process for additional courses to be added to the ballot and some were, but I don't believe any of these add ins made the top 100.  Voting was open to all GCAers. 

I think there were a few continental courses that would have made the top 100 if enough guys had visited.  I think a minimum of 10 votes was necessary to be included in the final rankings.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

I think rankings are a good STARTING point for learning about architecture and one's own preferences.  After a while one realizes that if you prefer a difficult challenge you might gravitate to Digest while if you prefer fun and quirk you might prefer Golfweek, Links or GCA.   But to still be a slave to bedpost notching the highest ranked courses after having a reasonably wide experience of courses shows a lack of character IMO.  Even the Doak scale has it's limitations as I'm sure Tom would agree.  I know from experience that I'm more likely to enjoy one of his favorite Links courses that he gave a 6 to than a stern tournament test that he gave a 7 or even an 8 to.

[Mike Sweeney]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

Here is the online data for US traffic as ranked by Quantcast:

Golf Week #6239 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

Golf Week Rankings #67,613 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweekrankings.com

Golf Club Atlas #71,516 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfclubatlas.com

Rater for me, for fun, but not for websites/magazines.

[David_Tepper]

"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."

Tony Muldoon -

Even though the setting was changed from England to the U.S., High Fidelity is on my "Top 5" list of all-time favorite movies.

In fact, I saw it again (for the 5th or 6th time) on the plane flying from San Francisco to London just two weeks ago.

DT

[David Cronheim]

Some of the previous posts have hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, rating serve these purposes:

1) Sell Magazines - a friend at one of these publications told me issues with ranking sell a significant percentage more copies than those without, so clearly they're tapping into some form of human curiousity

2) Debate/Conversation - ratings are worth all the crap some on this forum give them if for no other reason than they get people talking about golf course architecture. I find the best in state rankings by GD to be the most useful. Comparing Augusta and Cypress is just an exercise in what that particular set of panelists happens to like better, but at the state level, generally there's enough of a range to have an excellent debate about the qualitative merits of a course. All of this chatter helps grow the game and people's appreciation of architecture

3) Guide Public Opinion - My fiancee is getting a PhD in Art History. When I look at a painting, I can say "Wow that's great" or "meh, not my thing" but I fully recognize that I lack an appreciation for the subtleties of the works. When she takes the time to explain those to me, my understanding of and appreciation for art in general is improved. The same is true for golf courses. While we may disagree that course A should be higher than course B, having a group of (generally) well-traveled golfers help vet courses can steer the public's perception. This is particularly true for rankings of public courses. Recognizing top public courses as such helps drive business to those courses with architectural merit, helping them to survive. That's a big benefit.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

Here is the online data for US traffic as ranked by Quantcast:

Golf Week #6239 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

Golf Week Rankings #67,613 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweekrankings.com

Golf Club Atlas #71,516 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfclubatlas.com

Rater for me, for fun, but not for websites/magazines.

Mike,

Thank you for showing hard proof that ratings do not sell magazines or even increase page views.  After reviewing both Golfweek and Digest it appears that equipment sells Digest and tournaments sell Golfweek.

Please everyone take a look at the Golfweek numbers.  You will see zero spike when the Rankings were posted in March.  What you do see are spikes during the majors and a blip before Christmas.  Same for Digest except the Christmas issue is off the charts.

http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

It is also fun to search the city where you live and see how many cookies are being had.

Oh, btw:  I thought you were a founding member of the Links rating staff.