Rankings - Harmful/Helpful

[Phil Lipper]

Tom Doak's response on the Pete Dye discussion got me thinking. How harmful are top 100 lists to golf and golf course design? It seems there is a badge of honor to playing the top 100 and many of those that play these courses are playing them just because of the list. I also think many great courses that arent on the top 100 get ignored by the general public because of the list.

[Tim Martin]

Phil-The bulk of the courses on the Top 100 list are private and so most of the general public are not going to see them anyway. Maybe you could expound on the premise that these "lists" hurt golf course design. Thanks.

[Phil Lipper]

Phil-The bulk of the courses on the Top 100 list are private and so most of the general public are not going to see them anyway. Maybe you could expound on the premise that these "lists" hurt golf course design. Thanks.

Its not about the general public is about the serious golfing general public. We all know people that spend a tremendous amount of time getting to play various top 100's just beacuse they are on a list. They don't want to play it for the experience or to compare one Raynor design to another, its about checking off a box.

As far as the design question, there are many courses that will never get a tour event nor do they have any interest but the membership spends money to increase length because they are slipping in the rating.
When you look at the majority of new courses they designed longer to attract the attention of golf digests best new list. Very few people set out to create a great 6,700 yard course anymore, length attracts attention on lists.

[Garland Bayley]

...Very few people set out to create a great 6,700 yard course anymore, length attracts attention on lists.

Wouldn't that be very few clients set out to create great 6700 yard courses? At least on this forum, it seems that most architects add in the length at the client's request, not because they think it will make the course great and attract attention.

[Tom_Doak]

Excuse me for paraphrasing the discussion on Monday night but I don't have a transcript.

Tom Fazio expressed the opinion that along with several other factors, the top-100 rankings had a huge impact on architecture over the past 20-30 years, encouraging architects and developers to go for the brass ring.  He did not attach an exact number to it, but started to say that in the era of building 250 new courses a year, there were many many projects that spent extra millions trying to win an award.

Rees Jones chimed in that GOLF DIGEST's Resistance to Scoring category was the #1 factor in clubs wanting to make their courses longer and longer, which adds to the cost of the game and the time it takes to play.

I added that since the conference was about "restoration," it was important to note that the rankings were also driving the restoration industry, for good and bad.  It has generated a lot more interest in the profession, but it is only in the last few years that a course needing to replace the sand in its bunkers justified a million-dollar restoration project, that often morphs into multi-millions on new irrigation and new greens and new everything.

I also mentioned that it is frightening to me that some of the iconic clubs in America, where we consult, had mentioned rankings as an area of concern.  Who, of all people, was most upset when Shadow Creek made the GOLF DIGEST top 10?  It was the president of Seminole.

[Jason Thurman]

As far as the design question, there are many courses that will never get a tour event nor do they have any interest but the membership spends money to increase length because they are slipping in the rating.
When you look at the majority of new courses they designed longer to attract the attention of golf digests best new list. Very few people set out to create a great 6,700 yard course anymore, length attracts attention on lists.

Do you really believe that? Maybe my area of the country is different, but the majority of courses I've seen built in the last 20 years near me are under 7000 yards from the back tees. I can also think of PLENTY of heralded, list-making courses from the last 20 years that are under 7000 yards as well, as I'm sure most of the guys on this site can.

If anything, the courses on the lists that have stretched their back tees have done so because they have the means to do so and they continue to remain relevant and attract strong players and, in some cases, higher level tournaments. Can you name examples of courses that were slipping in the rankings, added new back tees, and immediately climbed back up? Do you believe that Cypress Point is doomed to start falling out of its lofty spot in the near future?

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, your post makes a lot of sense to me. But for whom is it a bad thing if wealthy memberships want to undertake a project that makes their course better while costing their elite membership a gigantic assessment?

[Brett Wiesley]

We all know to some extent rankings drive some architecture.  I just hope the drive is to emulate some of the finer quality designs, those that have stood the test of time.  I find the rankings, and people who are raters to have 2 main biases:  1.  Famous course 2.  New Course.  Once you peel some of these things away you are left with some quality designs that make their way in, and thus stay, whereas some of the new glamour courses gradually fall off.  Due to the famous factor, many of the top 10's and beyond will never bump out.  

It always makes me wonder why some of our newer courses have not made it higher in the rankings, and why some are there.  Is the Alotian Club that great of a course, or is it just so private?  Will it fall the way of Sage Valley.  Black Rock??  And then why isn't Cal Club or Pasatiempo even out of the top 100.

I have many deep thoughts about rankings, but in the end, they keep us talking.

[Nigel Islam]

We all know to some extent rankings drive some architecture.  I just hope the drive is to emulate some of the finer quality designs, those that have stood the test of time.  I find the rankings, and people who are raters to have 2 main biases:  1.  Famous course 2.  New Course.  Once you peel some of these things away you are left with some quality designs that make their way in, and thus stay, whereas some of the new glamour courses gradually fall off.  Due to the famous factor, many of the top 10's and beyond will never bump out.  

It always makes me wonder why some of our newer courses have not made it higher in the rankings, and why some are there.  Is the Alotian Club that great of a course, or is it just so private?  Will it fall the way of Sage Valley.  Black Rock??  And then why isn't Cal Club or Pasatiempo even out of the top 100.

I have many deep thoughts about rankings, but in the end, they keep us talking.

It depends on which ranking you are looking at. Both Cal Club and Pasatiempo are out of the GD rankings. The Alotian Club doesn't even make the top 200 on Golf Week's list.

[Matthew Petersen]

As far as the design question, there are many courses that will never get a tour event nor do they have any interest but the membership spends money to increase length because they are slipping in the rating.
When you look at the majority of new courses they designed longer to attract the attention of golf digests best new list. Very few people set out to create a great 6,700 yard course anymore, length attracts attention on lists.

Do you really believe that? Maybe my area of the country is different, but the majority of courses I've seen built in the last 20 years near me are under 7000 yards from the back tees. I can also think of PLENTY of heralded, list-making courses from the last 20 years that are under 7000 yards as well, as I'm sure most of the guys on this site can.

If anything, the courses on the lists that have stretched their back tees have done so because they have the means to do so and they continue to remain relevant and attract strong players and, in some cases, higher level tournaments. Can you name examples of courses that were slipping in the rankings, added new back tees, and immediately climbed back up? Do you believe that Cypress Point is doomed to start falling out of its lofty spot in the near future?

I think it must depend greatly on the area. I'm sure I missed some, but here's a list of notable courses in Arizona that have opened up over the past 15 years ...

Aguila Golf Course, 1999 (Gary Panks) - 7076
Blackstone, 2005 (Jim Engh) - 7089
Coldwater, 2000 (Forrest Richardson) - 6758
Copper Canyon, 2007 (Schmidt/Curley) - 6845
The Duke at Rancho Eldorado, 2003 (David Druzisky) - 7011
Golf Club at Estrella, 1999 (Jack Nicklaus II) - 7139
Gallery Golf Club (South), 2003 (Fought/Lehman) - 7468
Papago Golf Course, 1963/2008 renovation (William Bell/Billy Fuller) - 7333 (I believe it was previously just shy of 7000)
Poston Butte, 2007 (Gary Panks) - 7282
Quintero, 2000 (Rees Jones) - 7208
Raven Golf Club at Verrado, 2004 (Fought/Lehman) - 7258
Southern Dunes, 2002 (Brian Curley) - 7517
Sundance, 2003 (Greg Nash) - 6944
Trilogy at Vistancia, 2004 (Gary Panks) - 7259
Vista Verde, 2006 (Ken Kavanaugh) - 7229
WeKoPa (Saguaro), 2008 (Coore/Crenshaw) - 6966

Almost everything is over 7000 yards, even community (even retirement community!) courses that will never express any interest in hosting a tournament. Heck, I didn't even mention Dove Mountain which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7800.

Sure, it's the desert, the ball probably goes a bit farther, but ... whew, that's still a lot of 7200+ yard golf courses. That's a lot of golf course for anyone, anywhere.

[Phil Lipper]

The RTG trail at Ross Bridges in Birmingham is over 8,000 from the back. IMHO the only reason someone is asked to design a course that long is for publicity

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, we can all name a few outliers like that. But two courses in Birmingham and suburban Indianapolis don't make a trend.

You also asserted that courses lengthen themselves to move up in the rankings. The only course that's been over 8000 yards that I can name that has been ranked is Erin Hills, but it only showed up on the lists after they SHORTENED the back tees to 7823. And while that number is still huge, it's basically irrelevant since Erin Hills isn't intended to be played from that yardage so much as the back tees are intended to give the course great elasticity to allow holes to play very differently from one day to the next.

Matthew, I don't define 75% as "almost all," but it is obviously a majority. Then again, the only courses on the list that I've heard of as someone from outside the state are WeKoPa (under 7000) and Papago, so I still have a hard time seeing this argument that courses are stretching to ridiculous lengths to move up in the rankings. Are Southern Dunes and Gallery more highly ranked than the others?

I'm just not sure why I should feel personally alarmed that some developers and memberships are spending money setting a plan in place just in case Tiger Woods comes to visit. I'm also not convinced that the world of golf didn't have a lot of poor decision makers in the days before the rankings were invented. I get the impression that people have been stupid and reactionary since the dawn of man, and the rankings aren't to blame for being one more thing that exposes those qualities in some.

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I think the point is that 6500 yards is more than enough for 80+% of the golfing public, including most club members and their families.  It's not only the distance, but the extraneous aesthetic bunkers and OTT conditioning and service.  It's all fine and dandy till the ratings don't hold up and members tire of paying too much money to play a course that's really not that fun, once the flush of trying to keep up with the Joneses and impress friends and business associates wears thin.  And I'm speaking from personal experience...

[John Kavanaugh]

80% of the driving public can not drive safely at the speed limit yet we design our roads for 30% above, thank God.  Let's not start dumbing everything down so the middle class and sub intellects can afford and understand the product. Golf was never meant to be played by the mutually inclusive subset of society that is both poor and uncoordinated.

[JESII]

 Golf was never meant to be played by the mutually inclusive subset of society that is both poor and uncoordinated.

Awesome!

[Tom_Doak]

80% of the driving public can not drive safely at the speed limit yet we design our roads for 30% above, thank God.  Let's not start dumbing everything down so the middle class and sub intellects can afford and understand the product. Golf was never meant to be played by the mutually inclusive subset of society that is both poor and uncoordinated.

Not your best post ever, John.  Roads are over-designed to protect people who are driving faster than they can safely drive.  That would be like shortening courses to protect golfers, not lengthening them.  

I agree that we don't need to "dumb down" courses, but the truth is that the ability of the average golfer is vastly overrated, especially by those in the golf business.  Ran told me the other day that at Southern Pines CC, he and a friend sit on the porch and count the number of players who hit the green in regulation on a 330-yard par-4.  Out of 128 players they've counted, how many do you think have hit the green?  My estimate was a little high, but I was still the lowest of anyone Ran has posed the question to.

[SL_Solow]

This discussion has strayed. Aside from selling books and magazines, ratings are a way to focus interest on architecture, new courses and renovations.  They stimulate discussions such as these.  so long as no one takes them too seriously, they are positive as interest producers and possible educational tools.  However, if the "wrong " lessons are learned and they cause owners, builders architects to try and achieve ratings by emulating trends, they can be destructive.  As for the trend toward longer courses, I think that it is wrong to blame the ratings although they may have some impact.  The changes in equipment which have led to nearly unprecedented increases in distance have led to lenghthening course which desire to remain challenging to top level players.  Since these courses hold tournaments, they often become models for the consuming public.  While I agree with Barney that we need not design to the least common denominator, nonetheless, the increase in length leads to several unfortunate unintended consequences.  Increased length usually leads to more maintained turf.  This increases costs which is them passed along to the consumer. Golf becomes more expensive.  Similarly, it takes longer to traverse a course that is 500 yards longer than the shorter course.  I suggest that the increase in time increases as the skil of the player decreases.  Hence p[ace of play problems increase.  If difficulty as opposed to strategy is emphasized, this problem is exascerbated.  So to the extent that ratings drive the trend toward longer courses with a greater degree of difficulty, they may create problems.  But if ratings are geared to consider other factors, they might have a different effect.

[JESII]

I would guess 34

[Joe Bausch]

I would guess 34

I would go much lower.  20.

[Tom_Doak]

I would guess 34

I would go much lower.  20.

Joe:

I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the low twenties.  Would you have gone as low if I hadn't asked the question in the context I did, though?  Ran reported that most people he's asked, even golf pros, estimated the number at 40% or even higher.

[Joe Bausch]

I would guess 34

I would go much lower.  20.

Joe:

I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the low twenties.  Would you have gone as low if I hadn't asked the question in the context I did, though?  Ran reported that most people he's asked, even golf pros, estimated the number at 40% or even higher.

I've played most of my golf with average golfers.  Even on easy par 4's I would be surprised if 20% of your weekend hackers (this is your average golfer IMO) reach the green in regulation. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

My number is 20% for all holes and I am a 13 handicap.

So I would have guessed a number of about 10% for the average player, but the golfers at Southern Pines are apparently better than average.

Ulrich

[Brent Hutto]

I reach a green like that in regulation about 3 times in 10. So I'd have guessed 40 of 128 as a round number.

[Sean_A]

Ahhh, Tom, I heard this question a long time ago when my father wanted to move up to senior tees.  My approach was to base it on myself, ~50% of that type of hole, then cut it in half - so 25%.  So my guess based on 128 golfers would have been 32.  My father said that during the Invitation at his club, he watched 20 groups come through on #12 at his course, a short par 4.  He counted 14 guys who hit the green.  Thats about 18% and these were all adult males!  He decided it was time to play forward!

Ciao    

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting distinction being made here. I used to read about reaching a green in regulation, not so much about hitting a green in regulation. I tend to judge whether I'm playing the right set of tees mainly by whether I'm reaching the Par 4s in regulation, and that with usually no more than a mid iron. I find achieving that criteria and reaching those greens fairly routine, while I find so many reasons/ways to not actually hit and hold the darn things. That said, I think it again confirms my status as an average golfer: we long ago gave up the - to us - crazy notion of putting for birdie, or at least any more than 3 times a round. Remarkable that so many of us keep at it despite our ineptitude! I think Ran and his friend were being a bit sadistic -- you guys who took up the game at 5 or 7 or 10 years old under a dad or grand-dad's tutelage have no idea of the buffeting and despair those of us who started playing in our mid 30s have to endure!

Peter

PS - SL's post on rankings was, as per usual, a very good one.