Generational Taste

[JC Jones]

Every generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fishers Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

[JESII]

From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

Jason, do you think that maybe Fishers did not have enough ballots until 2000? I get your point though.
Tastes have sure changed in the last twenty years. I know mine have. I think we have become more discerning.

[JC Jones]

From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...

Is it really evolution?

[JC Jones]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

Jason, do you think that maybe Fishers did not have enough ballots until 2000? I get your point though.
Tastes have sure changed in the last twenty years. I know mine have. I think we have become more discerning.

Or, less discerning?  Conformity doesn’t necessarily equal discerning...

[Terry Lavin]

A Jones thread, as opposed to a Jones made it dead thread.


I guess tastes HAVE changed. Never say never, I guess! 😷

[JC Jones]

A Jones thread, as opposed to a Jones made it dead thread.


I guess tastes HAVE changed. Never say never, I guess! 😷

 

[Joe Hancock]

Could it be so easy as to answer your question by asking another?; Which generation planted the most trees, and which generation removed the most? Some are enlightened, while others were in the shadows.

[Peter Pallotta]

Edit: on second thought.
P

[JESII]

From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...

Is it really evolution?

Absolutely!


What courses have been bumped for those that have come in? Can you make a case for their return?

[Tom_Doak]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

Jason:


I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.


So, let me explain.   


The two courses that best fit your question are Fishers Island and Crystal Downs.  In both cases, the key to their meteoric rise is the same as it is for many new courses:  small sample size. 


With a new course, the first panelists to visit are those who are that architect's biggest fans.  So, the first time the course has enough votes to be ranked, it achieves its peak ranking; then the naysayers come in, and the ranking falls over time.  This is the fate of nearly all modern courses in the rankings.


The same thing has happened for Fishers Island and Crystal Downs.  For years, they were ignored completely in the rankings.  Fishers was very private and didn't welcome panelists at all; they asked GOLF DIGEST not to include them.  Crystal Downs was just way off the beaten track, and nobody had told anyone they thought it was great, so panelists didn't go.  [The typical scouting report I heard at the best clubs in Detroit on my way there, in 1982:  "I've heard it's good."]  So none of the two-handicap, tough-but-fair crowd of GOLF DIGEST voters had weighed in and voted against them for being short and/or quirky.


Then, suddenly, both shot into the other golf magazine's ranking with its much smaller committee.  And who went to them first to see if they belonged?  The Raynor fans and the MacKenzie fans.  The typical 2-handicap GOLF DIGEST panelist didn't go until the point they were ranked very highly, at which point he's less likely to stick his neck out and disagree, for fear of being judged "outside the normal range" and dropped from the panel.


Small sample size gets you the high ranking.


There are courses in the other magazine's rankings that manage all of this to the nth degree ... they won't let a panelist even stop by unless the place is looking perfect and they can wine and dine them.  But beyond that, they are paying someone $$$ to advise them which panelists will be amenable to giving their course a favorable rating.  That's too sleazy for me, which is why I'm not involved in the rankings anymore.

[JC Jones]

Could it be so easy as to answer your question by asking another?; Which generation planted the most trees, and which generation removed the most? Some are enlightened, while others were in the shadows.

You answered a question about generational taste with the answer of generational taste.  #failsauce

[JC Jones]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

Jason:


I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.


So, let me explain.   


The two courses that best fit your question are Fishers Island and Crystal Downs.  In both cases, the key to their meteoric rise is the same as it is for many new courses:  small sample size. 


With a new course, the first panelists to visit are those who are that architect's biggest fans.  So, the first time the course has enough votes to be ranked, it achieves its peak ranking; then the naysayers come in, and the ranking falls over time.  This is the fate of nearly all modern courses in the rankings.


The same thing has happened for Fishers Island and Crystal Downs.  For years, they were ignored completely in the rankings.  Fishers was very private and didn't welcome panelists at all; they asked GOLF DIGEST not to include them.  Crystal Downs was just way off the beaten track, and nobody had told anyone they thought it was great, so panelists didn't go.  [The typical scouting report I heard at the best clubs in Detroit on my way there, in 1982:  "I've heard it's good."]  So none of the two-handicap, tough-but-fair crowd of GOLF DIGEST voters had weighed in and voted against them for being short and/or quirky.


Then, suddenly, both shot into the other golf magazine's ranking with its much smaller committee.  And who went to them first to see if they belonged?  The Raynor fans and the MacKenzie fans.  The typical 2-handicap GOLF DIGEST panelist didn't go until the point they were ranked very highly, at which point he's less likely to stick his neck out and disagree, for fear of being judged "outside the normal range" and dropped from the panel.


Small sample size gets you the high ranking.


There are courses in the other magazine's rankings that manage all of this to the nth degree ... they won't let a panelist even stop by unless the place is looking perfect and they can wine and dine them.  But beyond that, they are paying someone $$$ to advise them which panelists will be amenable to giving their course a favorable rating.  That's too sleazy for me, which is why I'm not involved in the rankings anymore.

The problem is that your explanation doesn’t work because there were other Mackenzie and MacRaynor courses rated highly before Fishers and the Downs (unrelatedly the latter has gotten much better due to recently implemented maintenance practices  ) so I doubt those fans just started traveling in the late 90s...(esp the Mackenzie folks)


In addition, the anti-golf digest narrative is played out as all rankings (including your own in your books) have head scratchers.


Lastly, I can think of one modern that has climbed the rankings each year (didn’t peak in its first year) and has done so largely by engaging in a sleazy Rater vetting process.


In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.

[Peter Pallotta]

The high-flying 2-handicap-tough- but-fair-crowd just got older, and now as 12 handicappers are all about fun. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But no one has noticed because, as Arbs would say: the retail golfer votes with his pocketbook -- and the very epitome of modern tastes, Mammoth Dunes, has been a smashing success.
P

[JC Jones]

The high-flying 2-handicap-tough- but-fair-crowd just got older, and now as 12 handicappers are all about fun. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But no one has noticed because, as Arbs would say: the retail golfer votes with his pocketbook -- and the very epitome of modern tastes, Mammoth Dunes, has been a smashing success.
P

Huh?  Mammoth Dunes is a smashing success insomuch as the whole resort is.  Most prefer SV to MD.  But, I know that crushes your whole narrative lately so keep on banging the (perceived) anti-trend drum....

[Peter Pallotta]

Stop being so silly, will ya? And maybe drop the smartest guy in the room BS too. Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley, same thing - and to your point, they debuted on the modern top 100 lists for exactly the same reasons and through exactly the same mechanisms that explain & drive the courses you're crowing about jumping up in the rankings. And you of all people should understand that, playing nothing but the best/top lists, including SV.
You asked a question, posters like me are tossing out possible answers (including aging rating panelists going for something different as their skills deteriorate). But if you're already *sure* of the answer, ie *your* answer/agenda, then stop wasting everyone's time.
P

[JC Jones]

Stop being so silly, will ya? And maybe drop the smartest guy in the room BS too. Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley, same thing - and to your point, they debuted on the modern top 100 lists for exactly the same reasons and through exactly the same mechanisms that explain & drive the courses you're crowing about jumping up in the rankings. And you of all people should understand that, playing nothing but the best/top lists, including SV.
P

Mammoth Dunes and Sand Valley are not the same thing but you’d have to play them to know that.  Speaking of, I play and love several courses not in the top 100 but most importantly, I play outside of my own zip code and don’t just spend my time posting on every thread on GCA despite knowledge or real curiosity. 


You haven’t really provided an answer or any real value.  Doak’s answer was interesting but not unworthy of challenge.

[Peter Pallotta]

We all know the reasons why several courses were non-existent on the top 100 lists until GCA came into existence. It's been addressed here many times, by posters much more knowledgeable than me, from a variety of angles over dozens of threads (including my own, wondering & worrying about the modern day power of consensus/uniformity of opinion). And since you're smart and well read, you know those 'answers' better than I do. So what are you actually 'asking'. Sure, I'm banging a drum - because as I often make explicit, I don't like the current (seeming) trend in gca, for a variety of reasons. But you've been beating a drum too lately, and hard, for reasons that I can't make out.
P   

[Tom_Doak]

The problem is the your explanation doesn’t work because there were other Mackenzie and MacRaynor courses rated highly before Fishers and the Downs (unrelatedly the latter has gotten much better due to recently implemented maintenance practices  ) so I doubt those fans just started traveling in the late 90s...(esp the Mackenzie folks)


In addition, the anti-golf digest narrative is played out as all rankings (including your own in your books) have head scratchers.


In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.

I have no idea what courses you are talking about in your last paragraph and I won't try to guess.


I don't think you're understanding my response in your first paragraph.  Sure, there were plenty of Raynor and MacKenzie fans before 1990.  Plus a lot of guys who didn't like their work, because most of those courses are only 6500 yards, and some have crazy greens or blind shots.


Some of the latter had gone to Camargo and Shoreacres and The Valley Club and Pasatiempo before 1990, but none of them had gone to Fishers or to Crystal Downs.  When those courses appeared on the GM list and some GD raters decided to go there, it was the Raynor and MacKenzie fans first, so their average vote was much higher than Shoreacres or The Valley Club where the votes from the non-fans dragged down the averages.  And it's the average vote that counts.  The Raynor fan might be rating Fishers and Shoreacres equal, but if Shoreacres also has some bad votes from non-fans, it doesn't place nearly as high.


I agree with you that all lists have head-scratchers ... probably yours too, except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway.  But I do think the GOLF Magazine list when it went to 100 courses had a lot of influence on the GOLF DIGEST list by the mechanism described above.  Before that there was no way a course was going to rise from nowhere to the top 50 ... their system wouldn't allow it, because they weren't even putting numbers on ballots until 1985.

[Jim Nugent]

In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.

Which courses do you have in mind, i.e. courses that used to sit in the top 100, got bounced recently, but deserve to still be there? 

[John Kirk]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

A.  In general, the golfers of today are right.

1.  Raters are more widely traveled.
2.  Raters are more sophisticated and knowledgeable.
3.  Larger sample size of raters suggests a better overall ranking.

B.  Modern conditioning affects the ratings.  Thoughtful restorations and renovations increases competition for the top 100 spots.

1.  I played Shoreacres last fall.  I had a wonderful time.  The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet.  The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design.  However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning.  If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular.  By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it.  Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993.  And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.

C.  There are a lot of appealing new golf courses.  Many are built in pristine native environments and give the player the elation of playing in the great outdoors.

D.  The principles that we as a group generally embrace — ample width, challenging green sites, strategic bunker placement, minimalist construction, the lack of artificial water hazards (especially ponds), few if any planted trees — in essence, a return to Golden Age construction methods, still apply.  The standard argument that golf course architecture and construction lost its way for decades, perhaps in an effort to create something new, or to maximize profitability, is a legitimate argument that has yet to be seriously refuted.
 
I'll close with a funny scene from the movie "A Hard Day's Night", in which George Harrison visits a "taste maker" who wants his opinion about his newest clothing line.  To the best of my knowledge, Roger Ebert and I are the only two people who think "A Hard Day's Night" is one of the greatest movies every made.  It probably wouldn't even make the GD Top 100.  Huge oversight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk&t
"The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

[JC Jones]

I have no idea what courses you are talking about in your last paragraph and I won't try to guess.


I don't think you're understanding my response in your first paragraph.  Sure, there were plenty of Raynor and MacKenzie fans before 1990.  Plus a lot of guys who didn't like their work, because most of those courses are only 6500 yards, and some have crazy greens or blind shots.


Some of the latter had gone to Camargo and Shoreacres and The Valley Club and Pasatiempo before 1990, but none of them had gone to Fishers or to Crystal Downs.  When those courses appeared on the GM list and some GD raters decided to go there, it was the Raynor and MacKenzie fans first, so their average vote was much higher than Shoreacres or The Valley Club where the votes from the non-fans dragged down the averages.  And it's the average vote that counts.  The Raynor fan might be rating Fishers and Shoreacres equal, but if Shoreacres also has some bad votes from non-fans, it doesn't place nearly as high.


I agree with you that all lists have head-scratchers ... probably yours too, except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway.  But I do think the GOLF Magazine list when it went to 100 courses had a lot of influence on the GOLF DIGEST list by the mechanism described above.  Before that there was no way a course was going to rise from nowhere to the top 50 ... their system wouldn't allow it, because they weren't even putting numbers on ballots until 1985.

I think there can be more reasons why a place like Shoreacres (both prior to and after the recent work and change in maintenance practices, though it is much better since as certain architectural aspects are highlighted by its current state) could be outside the Top 100 than just the total yardage of the course.


In any event, for a guy who claims the rankings of today aren’t as good as some of the rankings of the past (mainly GM) you sure sound like you like the rankings of today quite a bit and even sound like you think they are closer to getting it right than before. 


Nonetheless, since nobody cares about my rankings, can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.

[JC Jones]

Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one.  Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence.  The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.


So, who is right?  The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today?  How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?

A.  In general, the golfers of today are right.

1.  Raters are more widely traveled.
2.  Raters are more sophisticated and knowledgeable.
3.  Larger sample size of raters suggests a better overall ranking.

B.  Modern conditioning affects the ratings.  Thoughtful restorations and renovations increases competition for the top 100 spots.

1.  I played Shoreacres last fall.  I had a wonderful time.  The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet.  The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design.  However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning.  If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular.  By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it.  Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993.  And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.

C.  There are a lot of appealing new golf courses.  Many are built in pristine native environments and give the player the elation of playing in the great outdoors.

D.  The principles that we as a group generally embrace — ample width, challenging green sites, strategic bunker placement, minimalist construction, the lack of artificial water hazards (especially ponds), few if any planted trees — in essence, a return to Golden Age construction methods, still apply.  The standard argument that golf course architecture and construction lost its way for decades, perhaps in an effort to create something new, or to maximize profitability, is a legitimate argument that has yet to be seriously refuted.
 
I'll close with a funny scene from the movie "A Hard Day's Night", in which George Harrison visits a "taste maker" who wants his opinion about his newest clothing line.  To the best of my knowledge, Roger Ebert and I are the only two people who think "A Hard Day's Night" is one of the greatest movies every made.  It probably wouldn't even make the GD Top 100.  Huge oversight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk&t
"The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

I think those are interesting points and I agree that the current state of Shoreacres makes it more fun to play.  Much more so than prior conditions.  But, and perhaps a little to your point, that doesn’t make the relatively uninteresting land more interesting.


I think the assumption here is that I’m trying to rally for the Nicklaus and Fazio and Jones courses of the dark ages.  I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.

[Sean_A]

JC

Generational taste is just that.  What comes around, goes around.  I fully expect to see a backlash against the current trends in my life time....its natural.  Its all well and good for these far flung courses in beautiful settings which cost a bomb to play, get there and stay there, I can't help thinking that its a very wrong PR turn for golf in these times of carbon footprints and energy conservation.  As renovations of old line "city" clubs continue by the same guys building these all world masterpieces, I expect to see these places become more liked and respected; enough to replace some of what currently sits in the top 100. Not that it matters because I think the top 100 will become top 250.  There is nowhere near enough quality differential between a huge percentage of clubs to bother with 100 cut off.  We are already seeing this happen as more and more forgotten courses are rediscovered and properly appreciated.

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.

Specifically which courses?