Why does "Best New" matter?

[Mike_Young]

It didn't matter when there were 300 each year to choose form and certainly not now.   Golf Digest and such will not even be in print within the year and will all be digital.  So why?

[E P Purmort]

I personally liked reading through the list. It reminded me of several courses that I'd forgotten were being developed. Additionally I went down the rabbit hole on a few new courses that I hadn't done much research on and learned a lot as well as added a few to my must play list.


So, as far as rankings are concerned, I derive zero value from the list. But from a purely informative perspective, I it was worth the time.

[Mike_Young]

I personally liked reading through the list. It reminded me of several courses that I'd forgotten were being developed. Additionally I went down the rabbit hole on a few new courses that I hadn't done much research on and learned a lot as well as added a few to my must play list.


So, as far as rankings are concerned, I derive zero value from the list. But from a purely informative perspective, I it was worth the time.

That's good.  why not just make a list of new courses.  If there are only 5 they could all be bad and the top would the best of the bad.  So just say there were five new courses built...

[E P Purmort]

I agree with you that it is nonsense to rank them. But I tend to fade all rankings.


It's Clickbait, and clickbait works. Same marketing gimmicks; different generation.


I'm guessing that the article was in slideshow format too, which would gain 10x more impressions in that format than it would if it were a one page list of Top 10 New.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I guess it matters to those that want to be considered for the award.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Its matters for the same reasons that rankings matter-pride, marketing, feather in the cap and discussion, to name a few.


I think it mattered a lot more when there was 300 courses because there was more competition.

[Mike_Young]

Its matters for the same reasons that rankings matter-pride, marketing, feather in the cap and discussion, to name a few.


I think it mattered a lot more when there was 300 courses because there was more competition.

Anthony,

If a 450 pound lady with no teeth and balding head enters the Miss America contest from one state and the other states boycott Trump and don't send contestants then I would assume she is Miss America for that year.  You could market that...there will be no feather in the cap and yes, there will be plenty of discussion but in reality it never mattered because there were no more contestants. 

as you say you need a larger base of contestants to have the contest.  Otherwise it is just an advertising gimmick for the magazines. 

PS..sorry about your dog..I know how that goes...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Of course, the cynical you would find all that is wrong with them, but i

t matters because without them, hardly anyone outside this site would be discussing golf course architecture.  Which is always a good thing for golf and our profession.

[jeffwarne]

If a 450 pound lady with no teeth and balding head enters the Miss America contest from one state and the other states boycott

That is a thinnest, sexist, toothist, hairist comment.
Not sure which is worse.
First of all, why would you assume the winner would identify as female?


The real answer is he/she would get pardoned and run for office in California

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


Of course, the cynical you would find all that is wrong with them, but i

t matters because without them, hardly anyone outside this site would be discussing golf course architecture.  Which is always a good thing for golf and our profession.

Jeff,
Cynicism isn't always a bad thing.  You sort of answer my question.  No one cares outside of this site and perhaps "our profession" is not as critical to the overall game as we would like to think.   

[Mark Pritchett]

If you started a thread, it must mean something to you. 


Seriously, does any topic in a golf magazine "matter"?  The magazine has to have content.  I would rather have another "best list" than another "cure your slice tip". 

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


It does and it doesn't.  In the grand scheme of things, nothing really matters.  We're all just walking worm food and most of us will be completely forgotten within a couple of generations.


On a more micro level, even things like who wins the Super Bowl, Premiere League, or the Masters dont really matter....but these things have value because X amount of people are in fact interested and willing to pay money in service to them.


So my only guess is Best New matters to some people, even if its that's a relatively small number. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


My point was it gets non architecture geeks to think about it.  It seems to have gradually spread. What is the biggest reason architects are listed on the scorecard now?  Players ask who the architect is?  Etc.? I submit it started with the Golf Digest Top 100 and Best New rankings.  Before those, I don't think the profession got enough recognition.


Our profession isn't important?  Could you play golf if there were no golf courses? Can there be golf courses that aren't designed?  If not (and in 99% of cases, they need to be designed) then, in a sport where a variety of playing fields is one of the charms, architecture is important.


I agree some adjustments may be required now that we are down from 300 new courses a year to about 13.  But, most magazines have adjusted accordingly and simply write about new courses, not rank them as best to worst. 

[Eric Smith]

If you started a thread, it must mean something to you. 

Thanks to all who donate to this site so that we may continue to receiving *FREE* access to this man's genius!!

[Jim Hoak]

It doesn't mean more or less than any rankings.  Just put there to generate debates that produce some buzz over magazines.  Magazines are obviously a business, not a public service!

[Lou_Duran]

I am reminded of a social event years ago associated with a business relationship.  The host was wearing a shirt with the logo of a well-known private club.  A new course in the area had ascended to the first or second spot in the Texas ranking and I made the huge mistake of making mention.  This resulted in a profanity-laced "I don't give a ----- about the -------- ratings", a 10-minute lecture on why his course was better, and an ending with an invitation (not to play his course- I later learned that he mostly plays by himself), but to re-visit the subject after his club spent over $10 Million in renovations.  I did play his course after the renovation with two well-known longtime members, and though they too noted politely that the rankings weren't important to them either, they both wondered where the money was spent.

I am not sure how widely the "best new" or "best renovation" lists are read, but I think they are of interest to a lot of people whose clubs are being considered.  Certainly there is considerably more interest in knowing who designed the courses and changes than there was many years ago when I began to play golf.  Branding might have a lot to do with it, which, unfortunately, doesn't always bode well for the local architects whose abilities are often at least equivalent, and interest and commitment to the area superior.   

[Mike_Young]

If you started a thread, it must mean something to you. 


Seriously, does any topic in a golf magazine "matter"?  The magazine has to have content.  I would rather have another "best list" than another "cure your slice tip".

I like that...

[Mike_Young]

Let me put it another way.  If there is nobody out there to enter the contest then the contest means nothing IMHO.  In theory if 10 courses were designed and built in the USA next year and one guy spent 75 million to have the best there is and another guy spent $500,000 to just get something on the ground that Bubba could play,  then he would be in the Top 10 Best New.  So I don't think it matters until there are enough candidates to justify.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


Course Ratings are just like seeing a hot woman come in the room when you're out with your wife.


You'll tell her, "I wasn't looking", or "I hadn't noticed"....but every guy is trying to get as many peeks and good looks as possible!...they just can't resist... 

[Peter Pallotta]

I suppose on a macro-level Mike there's no better indicator of trends and consensus opinions,  which for certain developers and industry people (the kind that back 'new ideas' only after they've proven successful) are important.

[Mike_Young]

Kalen,
I'm not talking about ratings like "top 100" etc.  Those list are made of courses from over time.  I'm talking about during a year when almost nothing is built.  If TW builds three next year they will all be in the "best new"...

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
I'm not talking about ratings like "top 100" etc.  Those list are made of courses from over time.  I'm talking about during a year when almost nothing is built.  If TW builds three next year they will all be in the "best new"...

Mike,


I think my analogy still works here...when/if you're surrounded by 2s and 3s, even a 6 or 7 can look like like a ten!!


P.S.  Barney will tell you that's why a nicer looking woman is always willing to hang out with thier lesser looking lady friends at the bar. 

[Garland Bayley]

I would prefer a don't bother with these dogs list.

[V_Halyard]

It didn't matter when there were 300 each year to choose form and certainly not now.   Golf Digest and such will not even be in print within the year and will all be digital.  So why?

Shiny things Mike, we like shiny things.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Let me put it another way.  If there is nobody out there to enter the contest then the contest means nothing IMHO.  In theory if 10 courses were designed and built in the USA next year and one guy spent 75 million to have the best there is and another guy spent $500,000 to just get something on the ground that Bubba could play,  then he would be in the Top 10 Best New.  So I don't think it matters until there are enough candidates to justify.

Mike, I agree with a downward adjustment.   Seems like they started with win, place show, then when the boom hit, added a few public categories and expanded to 10 each. 33 winners (includes Canada) made some sense when 4-600 courses were being built, it totaled 6-9% of all courses.  Now, with 13 opening, maybe 0.6 winners, a la, the best nine within the best course? LOL.


As to the importance, I will admit that with two on the Golf Trip Advisors list (I am consulting on one in Utah) I do "casually" mention current and past Best New, Best in State, Best in Show....no wait.... etc. when I think it will do me some good.  So, Brad, Ron, Matt, etc. are doing us all a big of good in addition to the already pointed out that many courses who get the distinction use it for marketing, too. 


But, you know that.