Making Some Sense of Course Rankings (?)

I have to blunt here…. to me, all the course ratings and rankings out there today have become rather insipid and an exhaustive re-statement of the impossible.  But perhaps, there is another side of these listings to be considered?

It cannot be argued that, in our business, it’s great if your course garners some attention for exposure and marketing purposes.  For the longest time, and perhaps still to some extent, the initial success of a new course relied very heavily on whether it was considered one of the “Best New Courses”, or was on a “Best of” or “Top” list.  But, as I have found, to fall short was not necessarily a poor reflection on the course or the work, either.  Nonetheless, it seems that these all-important rankings have all become so commercialized and watered down and have come under influences that may not always produce the most objective results – which many have long argued.  When one thinks about how a system might be developed to rate courses, it’s not easy.  Let’s face it; it’s tough…no, impossible, to be completely objective!

Looking back we have to thank Golf Digest for the listing of the Great Golf Courses of the World, a book that was released in 1974, and would go on to produce four printings.  In 1982, Golf Digest again released a book, 100 Greatest Golf Courses - and Then Some, a book whose now unbound pages still have a spot on my shelf.  Because of the popularity and the success of the books, Golf Digest Magazine adopted the list concept as an annual re-ranking of courses, taking into account the growing number of popular new courses being built each year.  Obviously, the results were popular with the readership and were spurred on by their effect on business as well.  So much so that others would soon join the game… including Golf Magazine, GolfWeek, Links, etc.  Today there are more “lists” out there than one can begin to absorb…each claiming that it’s approach and ranking system is the better way…. more objective and produces the best, unbiased collection of courses…in their opinion.  And, you have to agree it’s a great way to sell magazines!

As I got started in my career as a golf course architect, I was naturally drawn to these books and lists.  What architect would not in some way aspire to design a course that might find its way in consideration among the best?  The ratings and rankings did help to set lofty goals and visions for not only architects, but also the developers of courses.  As we have witnessed, savvy course owners understood what a windfall might be achieved if his/her course were to attain a top ranking or listing.  What, with the anticipation of anxious patrons, higher green fees and initiations, and all the marketing publicity – all producing massive profits for investors.  Golf community developers got into the mix too, longing for their golf amenities to be fashionable and popular among the wealthy and don the pages of glamorous magazines in hopes of attracting new members and selling off more valuable, high-end real estate.

To me, this is where things started to really change…. when the lists were influenced by the almighty dollar.  I don’t mean to suggest that a ranking could be “bought”, but a new course with a powerful, capable owner could raise quite a stir if need be and attract the raters in droves.  And it also became rather romantic to be a so-called “rater” or “panelist”.  If one had the time, there was a great opportunity to gain rare and otherwise costly access to these great courses (something not otherwise easily done)…. and then be supported by a magazine that valued their opinion of the course to boot – not a bad gig!  It was hard for everyone not to get all caught up in the big race.

Sadly, the lists were not so much about great architecture anymore.  In fact, the way courses were assessed and ranked could even have an effect on how courses were ultimately designed and developed.   Rather than designing for the player’s enjoyment, courses were built to attract and sell.  And, despite the efforts of the authors and magazines, there was indeed pressure to succumb to satisfying too many opinions.  This caused GolfWeek to develop a system that instead features a variety of lists, including Best Modern, Best You Can Play, Best Classic, Best State by State and the Next 100, all in hopes of dissecting the courses in a more objective manner; essentially classifying them into like groups.  Golf Digest also has their America’s Best 100, America’s Best 100 Public and Best Resort breakdowns and has traditionally recognized the “Best New Courses” each year on the private, public and resort side.  Architects regularly sought out this award distinction, banking on a flow of new work opportunities from the publicity.

A number of years ago, there was a very limited release of a book called the Confidential Guide, a collection of a then up-and-coming architect’s assessments of the many courses he had visited.  It is a fascinating account of his favorites (and other not-so fashionable layouts) and with very pointed remarks about why he approved of a course or found disfavor.  Some of his strong criticisms attracted quite a stir, especially among other architects.  He even crafted a rating scale bearing his own name, which has been softly adopted by some architectural enthusiasts.  Aside from the controversy, the book is most unique because it reflects on courses from the perspective of a golf course architect rather than a golf/travel writer or magazine editor.

I’m no expert on the inner workings of any of these rankings, nor do I have any real interest.  Rather, I prefer to leave all the arguing to the pundits and the so-called “architecturally informed”. If I did have a list of favorites, it would likely look much different than most publicized rankings, I suspect… mainly because, over time, I have developed my own personal tastes in courses, architecture and what makes a course really special to play, again, again and again. Having fun is also a big deal to me…and a course having some unusual quirks appeals to my enjoyment of the game and attitude while playing.  For the same reason, those courses may be utterly hated by others… which is fine.

Recently, I saw a list released about the courses that are the “most fun to play”… I don’t recall who created the list – but that was nonetheless and interesting angle (though I did not necessarily agree with a number of the listings).  And more recently, a golf architectural magazine polled the golf course architects of the world to share their ten favorite courses.  Surprisingly, I chose to contribute my list… not a run of the mill grouping, but more of a representative selection of courses that have influenced me on the architectural side, have been most enjoyable to play and have had a profound effect on the growth of my profession.  And according to the rules, one has to have visited the course or played it in order for it to be listed (and preferably not among one’s own work). I suspect, by all the moans and groans on the internet forums, that this cause for yet more great debate over the results and inspire the chat rooms to clamor for yet another “better selection process”.

Frankly, I don’t care all that much anymore about random commentary or opinion regarding the rankings out there.  We’re all entitled our viewpoints – and I certainly have mine - and with good reasons to support my choices, should anyone care.  If there is any good that comes from the rankings, though, I hope it is that more people somehow learn more about golf courses and architecture….perhaps the elements that can make one course better than another. I hope readers will learn to consider more about the making of the course and its purpose…and about function over the more obvious artistic endeavor. But most importantly, how to decide for one’s self why he/she enjoys the game and how the playing field influences the experience.  We’re never going achieve full agreement on how courses are aligned and which are supposedly the best….no more than we will agree on single malt whiskies, barbeque or cars!  But there’s nothing wrong with becoming more educated and informed about what makes golf such a great game to play and how a course inspires our preferences.  So let’s ask better questions and strive for more insightful answers.  Maybe with a little help, our writers can consider this provoking approach.  Thank goodness we enjoy a game that can be enjoyed on courses that have been laid out on so many varied landscapes.

At the end of the day, my work may be ranked - or it may be completely off the radar…I no longer have strong feelings either way.  My main concern is that my clients feel like their course is among their own personal favorites and that I might have had some influence in making them feel that way.  Hopefully I’m well on my way to building my own Top 100 list for that!