Golfers are simply fascinated with golf courses. Why not? Golf courses are located in a variety of beautiful settings throughout the world. We search through periodicals and surf the Internet for dream vacations. We endeavor to gain access on the most famous and elite courses in the country. We also play numerous obscure courses in hope of discovering a hidden gem. Just as golfers tend to conjure the perfect round, we fantasize about the perfect places to play as well. The dream golf course will certainly differ between golfers, and it may well differ for a single golfer on different days. Such intrigue has promoted endless discussion and countless hours of conversations and debates among golfers everywhere.

Many golf architecture and design rating systems provide plenty of fuel for the fire. Just look at the diverse categories and lists: 'Best in State', 'Top 100 in Country', 'Top 100 in World', 'Best Courses by Architect', and 'Best New Courses'. Get the picture! Out of all of these, there are three premiere rating systems: Golf Digest’s '100 Greatest' in the Country, Golf magazine’s Top-100 in the World, and Golfweek’s 'America's Best' which features the Top-100 Classic Designs and Top-100 Modern Designs. These course-ranking systems are very influential and popular, and for all of the hard work and effort which go into their production, flaws and shortcomings are inherent to the process.

The Golf Digest System

Golf Digest operates the oldest golf course rating list in the country as it debuted in 1966. Today, Golf Digest biennially ranks courses based upon the evaluations of 700+ selected raters around the country. Digest undoubtedly maintains enough raters to build a body of opinion about a golf course. The raters are primarily amateur golfers, not architects or professionals, who are knowledgeable and study the game. A low handicap is not required. Eight criteria are examined on a 1–10 scale as follows:

1. Aesthetics
2. Conditioning
3. Design Balance
4. Memorability
5. Resistance to Scoring
6. Shot Values
7. Tradition and Ambience (bonus)
8. Walkability (bonus)
9. Overall

Golf Digest has been criticized for utilizing 'tradition' as a criterion in rating a golf course. Consequently, many raters concentrate on the famous and traditional layouts, those which have hosted a major championship. Other raters focus on prestigious golf clubs, those which are not accessible to the common player. Because of this preoccupation with playing the elite designs, many wonderful courses, among the 18,000+ in our country today, go unnoticed and are not even considered. If 'tradition' was not a criteria, perhaps many other courses would be discovered and gain the status they deserve.

Many famous golf clubs with years of history and tradition do in fact have great golf courses. According to Brad Klein, golf architecture and design editor for Golfweek, many of these courses are also overrated just because they are famous, and 'fame and greatness' have little to do with one another. Klein states, 'just because a course has hosted a major tournament doesn’t endow it with the status of a great layout, though the mistake is often made'. For example, why should the Ocean Course at Kiawah be ranked any higher because The Ryder Cup was held there? Likewise, why should a course, such as Merion, lose its lofty rating simply because major championships have bypassed it for years?

Golf Digest has also been criticized for using 'ambience' as a criterion. Cambridge Dictionary defines 'ambience' as 'the quality of the atmosphere or setting'. Ambience too often distracts the rater from focusing on the elements of pure design. A rater should not be influenced by an immaculate club house, a delicious lunch, or a helpful caddie just as a film critic does not evaluate movies based upon the intimacy of the theatre, the fresh popcorn or the friendly attendant. Geoff Shackelford insists that these amenities are extrinsic to the matter at hand. Ambience, therefore, clearly does not have anything at all to do with a course’s integrity of design. It can certainly compliment the day; however, it is irrelevant in judging architecture. A golf course should not climb the charts simply because they hire a staff as accommodating as Augusta Nationals or construct a locker room as charming as Seminoles.

Ideally, outside influences, such as tradition, prestige, ambience, and amenities should not serve to influence raters. Raters are well rehearsed in being objective in response. Raters fully understand that the substance of the design outweighs the form of its parts. Nevertheless, raters are human and therefore cannot totally separate prejudicial influences. Just as a juries have difficulty disregarding incriminating, inadmissible evidence, raters too are inherently prejudiced by the subjectivities which bookend a round.

Since extrinsic matters, such as 'tradition and ambience', naturally influence many panelists anyway, then why does Golf Digest find it necessary to list them specifically as criterion? By doing so, they are sending the wrong message to architects and clubs across the country. Everyone wants their course to be ranked. Everyone tries to be a part of something special. In an attempt to bolster their recognition and ranking, clubs are attempting to build tradition and create ambience.

Many greens committees have destroyed their original classic designs in attempt to create traditional, championship layouts. Short, distinctive par 4’s have been all but eliminated because of the obsession with length found on championship courses. Lilliputian Donald Ross designs are considered outdated even though they require a tremendous amount of finesse and skill to negotiate. Architects as well are designing 7200-yard courses in hope of attracting a major tournament. Developers are spending extra millions just to compete with neighboring courses which are doing the same. They are presently incorporating unnatural, eye-catching features into golf courses today. They are trusting that raters will remember the glamour and glitz captured by lake fountains, waterfalls, island greens, and outlandish clubhouses above and beyond the strategic value of shotmaking options. Consequently, more new courses are becoming too long, too difficult, too artificial, and too expensive to play and maintain. Furthermore, many laid-back clubs with extension-of-the-home atmospheres have flooded their memberships with a surplus of extras and amenities, the absence of which made the club more appealing to begin with.

In reality, tradition is acquired over time. It cannot be created over night. Similarly, ambience is heightened when it is natural and unforced. All too often, by trying to build tradition and create ambience, clubs have destroyed their own. If the 'tradition and ambience' criterion was replaced with a tree management criterion for instance, perhaps these very same clubs would shift gears and perform measures which would actually benefit their design. At least this criterion would be relevant in evaluating golf architecture instead of the club as a whole.

Golf Digest’s 'walkability' criterion is without controversy as well. Many modern clubs require that all golfers ride carts in an attempt to collect additional revenue. The architects have little, if any, input regarding the golf operations and cart policies of their prior clients. Therefore, why should they be penalized when it comes to course ratings? In a recent press release, Damien Pascuzzo, President of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, asked that raters disregard 'walkability' as a criterion and concentrate on pure design.

Golf Digest has also been criticized for ranking new courses too high. For example, Harbour Town opened for Digest in the Top 10 and presently it occupies the 71^st position in the country. Similarly, Wild Dune’s Links Course debuted in the Top 50, while today it isn’t even worthy of a ranking. The truly great courses get better with time. They are more interesting to play the second and third time than the first. Are the courses at Harbour Town and Wild Dunes the exceptions? Are they actually getting worse? More likely, they were never that fabulous to begin with. Raters are clearly infatuated with the latest design. Raters tend to follow the development of a new design with great anticipation of its opening. These new courses hit the charts at unusually lofty positions because of the early hoopla and hype. Once again, matters unrelated to golf architecture sway and influence panelists.

Golf Digest nevertheless has improved their rating system in many respects. Ron Whitten states, 'We melt down (the system) and refashion it every two years, refining it with each retooling.' Recently, Digest implemented a short stay on new designs before they are eligible for consideration. Perhaps new courses will debut at their appropriate levels after the excitement wears down.

In its youth, Digest raters regarded yardage, slope, and course ratings as the most revealing criteria. Essentially, the list constituted the 'toughest', most difficult courses instead of the 'greatest' designs. Consider that Concord Country Club (7200 yards) in New York and Doral’s Blue Monster (7125 yards) in Florida were both ranked in the top thirty (30) in the country thirty(30) years ago while they are not ranked at all today. Fortunately, the focus has shifted, as length and difficulty alone are not indicative of a great design.

Also, Digest once employed an in-house panel of editors who had the authority to alter their rater’s final results. Recently, the editor’s veto power was abandoned in deference to their raters. Today, the results are a more accurate reflection of public opinion.

At one time, Digest published a list of their panelists. Daily fee courses and especially resorts reportedly cluttered the mailboxes of these panelists with brochures and inducements in an effort to bolster support. As a result, Digest no longer publishes the list.

Golf magazine ranks courses biennially based upon the opinions of 75+ panelists who include many professionals, developers, and architects. These panelists are asked to take into account the following elements: strategic integrity, variety of shot requirements, rhythm of design, location, ambience, tradition, conditioning, and visual appeal. The weighting of these elements is left to the personal preference of each panelist. Courses are simply given an overall grade in the following categories:

A = Top 10 in World

B = Top 10 - 50 in World

C = Top 50 - 100 in World

D = Top 200 in World and Top 100 in US

E = Top 300 in World and Top 200 in US

F = Not Worthy of Future Consideration

The problems with Golf magazine’s rating system are compounded. Not only do they specifically list 'tradition' and 'ambience' as criteria, they are separately listed. The controversy is magnified since panelists are given the flexibility of regarding these elements as the most revealing. No wonder Golf’s top-25 courses have remained exactly the same over the last four years, and movement in the top-50 has been minimal. The overwhelming majority of these courses are of classic origin. In fact, all the courses in Golf’s top-10 predate 1935. Until 'ambience' and 'tradition' are eliminated as criteria, panelists will be partial to classic designs and will struggle to separate the fluff from the architecture.

Golf’s rating system is also open to biases as eighteen panelists are the architects themselves. They include Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Pete Dye, Rees Jones, Tom Doak, and Robert Trent Jones, Jr. Although Golf magazine prohibits architects from voting on their own courses, professional rivalries surely exist and influence the ratings of their chief competitors.

The Golfweek System

Golfweek annually rates courses based upon the evaluation of 175+ raters around the country. Golfweek’s panelists are comprised of a true cross–section of all golfers much like a jury in the judicial system. Although many are purist of the game, a low handicap is not required. Panelists cannot rate a course they haven’t played. Courses are annually evaluated on a 1–10 scale using the following criteria:

1. Ease and Intimacy of Routing
2. Integrity of Original Design(Classic)/ Feature Shaping(Modern)
3. Natural Setting and Overall Land Plan
4. Interest in Green and Chipping Contours
5. Variety and Memorability of Par 3’s
6. Variety and Memorability of Par 4’s
7. Variety and Memorability of Par 5’s
8. Basic Conditioning
9. Landscape and Tree Management
10. 'Walk in the Park' Test
11. Overall (not an average of the above)

Golfweek maintains two distinct lists: The Top 100 Classic Designs and The Top 100 Modern Designs in America. The classic designs are those courses which originated prior to 1960, while the modern designs are those courses which were designed from 1960 to the present.

Golfweek has been scrutinized for making this distinction in their ranking system. Critics claim that all golf courses should be compared for their own virtues regardless of their differences. As soon as one distinction is made, be prepared, for many others will naturally follow. Next, links courses will only be ranked against other links courses, and Tillinghast courses will only be compared to other Tillinghast courses. Where do you draw the line?

What is the rationale for this distinction? Golfweek explains that the classic architects had the flexibility to design courses without the restrictions which modern architects frequently face. Linear holes were not demanded by developers in order to maximize home sites, and no governmental agencies restricted their access to environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands. The most significant of these restrictions started in 1960 when the USGA began mandating specific techniques in the construction of golf courses. Consequently, the art of golf architecture lost many of its freedoms.

Classic courses were designed by the way of the land. The contours of the terrain directed the architects. Simply pushing up native soil was the only earthmoving technique available, and it was essentially performed by hand. Classic designs therefore appear natural. In contrast, modern architects utilize mass-scale earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, dynamite, and laser graders. Due to the advances in construction technology, modern courses frequently appear artificial.

Golfweek explains that classic and modern designs developed under such diverse conditions and circumstances that it would be both difficult and unfair to compare them. How can you compare Shinnecock, which was routed next to the water, to Whistling Straights, which was sculpted into the water? How can you compare Donald Ross’ natural work with the terrain to the vertical shaping and dished-out look of Tom Fazio? Fazio was asked during an interview at Golfweek’s Raters Cup if he studied classic architecture? Fazio replied, 'What is classic architecture?' Apparently, classic architecture is as foreign to Fazio as bulldozers and laser graders would have been to Ross. Therefore, comparing the two would be futile. Classic and Modern designs are like apples and oranges, hence the distinction.

Golfweek does not specifically utilize 'tradition', 'ambience', and 'walkability' as criteria to evaluate. These elements perhaps influence the overall ranking, but at least they are not promoted as integral to the process. All of Golfweek’s guidelines do appear to focus on design integrity.

Other Problems

Just as rating systems have flaws, a few raters within the systems can taint the process. Seldom, raters are motivated by personal agendas. Few rate courses merely to gain free access. Other raters, due to their association with the Donald Ross Society, Friends of Seth Raynor and such, are aficionados of a certain architect and have been accused of limiting their course visits accordingly. Still others may use the system to champion their home course. Perhaps, raters are influenced by subjective matters, such as rainy days, aerified greens, or their own score.

Yet other raters are confined to a certain region and lack the time or the ability to travel the country evaluating courses. Thus, their allegiances are naturally regional as well. What is so perplexing about this is that all rater’s votes are given equal consideration. If ten panelists rate Whiteacre Club in Virginia and ten completely different panelists rate Blackacre Club in California, seemingly the final tally cannot possibly possess any accountability or accuracy unless the same panelists actually play and rate both courses. And if there are ten more completely different panelists who happen to play both Whiteacre and Blackacre, then shouldn’t their vote carry more weight in the overall determinations?

Furthermore, raters probably develop friendships over the years with other raters. They may discuss courses together, travel together, and perhaps work in conjunction with one another. As a result, there is a potential for collusion.

But more often than not, raters take their job seriously. Most raters have every intention of being accurate and objective. Many hours, days, and weeks are consumed with the process, and they should be commended for their diligence and devotion. Their final product creates a great deal of interest in golf architecture. The many lists induce healthy discussions and constructive debates. The systems are always being tweaked for credibility and accuracy. Regardless of the shortcomings, we will always use these lists to determine our dream courses of the day or the destination of our next vacation. The 2002 lists will be available soon!

The End

© Copyright GCA 1999 - 2000. All rights reserved.