My wish for a ranking system

[Sean_A]

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

Your comments confuse me.
Many great courses are also great walks. Some great courses are not a great walk.
Ciao

Sean, that was what I was thinking. If it's nebulous, disregard it.
Many course evaluations in the last 20 years have shown it impacts one's esteem for a course.

Mike, if you're looking for new criteria to judge a golf course (ANY golf course), one I would eliminate forever  is "walkability."

To me, it's a romantic ideal of a bygone era and privileged membership.

Walkability may highlight the designer's routing genius but thinking short green-to-tee walks should elevate a course above any other makes no sense to me-especially in modern times.

I think walkability is hugely important. Or maybe I might call it connectivity, perhaps to recognise that some great courses are on much more violent terrain than others, making the walk harder. I need the routing to flow and that includes green to tee transitions.

Thanks Ally.
I made no mention of "great courses" just a criterion of judging any/all I think is anitiquated.
I may be removed from the DG forever, but I didn't walk a golf course till I was 37.
Your post reminds me of the subtlties I may have missed but not my overall impressions of a particular playing ground.

Peter

Nebulous? Which criteria is concrete…objective? I understand that some folks into rankings detest the idea of subjective criteria. Imo, that is all there is. If the walk carries no weight for you that’s ok, but for me it’s important.

Ciao

Again Sean, I agree with you, re subjective/objective rankings.

But I will always argue that "walkability" as a criterion for ranking courses is one that would be lost on the majority of most (US) golfers.
Even as a young, hale and hardy golfer, I grew up playing mandatory cart courses. Green to tee transitions was not something I had the (dis)advantage of knowing/realizing or assessing at the time.


I've been blessed to play Pinehurst #2 about twenty times now.
I've never raved about how walkable it is.

Perhaps I am taking a wider view where walking is the norm and expected. In any case, of the top US courses I have seen, walking was at least an option. Because many cart riders don’t appreciate the walk doesn’t disqualify the importance of the walk. It may also be true that I value the walk more than most. I see the walk as a critical part of a good routing. However, as all things are subjective, I understand your objection to walking criteria.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

It is completely legitimate as viewing golf as a game that is about the shot and the next shot such that a cart accomplishes that objective. I also consider some difficult to walk courses as great; Primland and St Andrews Beach would be examples. However, I would suggest that golf is most appreciated as encompassing more than moving from shot to shot, and architecture that enables walking should be viewed as worthy of special note.


It strikes me as telling that the courses most properly well regarded in the UK&I and Australia do not permit carts absent a medical necessity. I do not believe that to be merely or primarily a matter of tradition. (I also would note that those courses tend to play faster than US cart dominated courses).


Ira

[Dave Doxey]

Why rank courses at all?  What purpose do rankings serve?

[mike_malone]

Why rank courses at all?  What purpose do rankings serve?

This is ok but I think that golfers want to express their feelings about courses and assess their views against others.


Here in Philly I see several courses that one should aspire to play because they are great or very good. I just don’t think it matters which is 6 or 9.

[Craig Sweet]

I don't want any rankings at all.  What's the point? 99% of golfers look at access and costs and have little idea where a course ranks much less the architectural significance.  If they can't get on it, or can't afford it, they aren't going to play it.  So, for whom are the rankings for other than a small group of (mostly) men in the biz?