A Rank Decision
IN: News | by Grant Dodd | 29 Feb 2008
I know people who love the Academy Award winning movie, “The English Patient”. I know others who think it is the greatest celluloid travesty they have ever had the misfortune to sit through.
The reasons for such polarised stances are quite definitive. The detractors are dismissive of the films’ gooey romanticism and air-brushed pretentiousness, whilst its supporters tend to revel quietly in the superiority of their ability to appreciate its intellectualism.
The issue of objectivity in attempting to ascribe merit to matters pertaining to popular culture is never far away. And, as with films, literature, restaurants, music and any other number of theme’s, opinion on taste rarely converges, so it should come as no surprise that any attempt to define an ordered ranking of Australia’s golf courses will meet disagreement and potential controversy.
As the most widely distributed and read golf magazine in the country, Australian Golf Digest’s biennial Top 100 ranking edition has been the benchmark publication of its type for many years, the final list often framed and displayed proudly on clubhouse walls as a badge of honour. The latest version has just been released, its findings now being digested by a curious and loyal readership.
Golf course rankings are a divisive subject. Total consensus, however desirable, is a pipe dream. Regardless of the noblest intentions, personal taste, prejudice and peripheral influences (like golfing ability) all have the potential to effect the decision making process.
Perceived slights against golf courses where demotion or non-listing occurs are not taken lightly. Club members tend to be proprietorial about their golf course, and have firm opinions on its relative merits. Letters to the editor in the weeks after publication are often signified by indignant tones – and they’re the nice ones.
Nonetheless, the assessment of courses and finding a ranked structure is no easy task. It becomes even harder when one takes into account the raft of new entries that pop up every year, many of which are quality layouts that command attention and a place well up the pecking order. And of course, when a shiny new entrant comes in, someone drops out – a capitalist’s version of social Darwinism, if you will.
To demonstrate just how divided opinions on golf course design can be, I think back to a practice round at the famed New South Wales GC in Sydney during the ANZ Championship in 2002. I played with a highly regarded European Tour player (the event was co-sanctioned), now plying his trade on the USPGA Tour. When the round was over, I asked him what he thought of the course.
His reply? Didn’t like it at all. Too many blind shots. Over rated.
Nonetheless, New South Wales Golf Club has been ranked at No.2 on the Australian Golf Digest rankings for the past two surveys. It is also ranked by the US editions of Golf Digest and Golf Magazine as belonging in the top 50 golf courses in the world. Apparently, a majority of respected judges fail to share my playing partner’s view. This doesn’t invalidate his stance in any way, but again it does serve to demonstrate just how widely divergent opinions can be.
Another example of a course that divides opinion is Huntingdale Golf Club in Melbourne. The home of the Australian Masters has seen a raft of changes over several years, with greens reshaped, fairways contoured and a new drainage system implemented.
The course as it stands today is vastly different than it was ten years ago. Much of the dense undergrowth and ti-tree that once lined both sides of many fairways has been removed. Numerous fairway bunkers have been added, changing strategies from the tee, and the par is now 72 rather than 73.
The most controversial and polarising change for many, however, is with regard to the green designs. The unveiling of a number of new greens for the 1999 Australian Masters bought howls of protest, the most famous being a withering tirade from Craig Parry, who described them as being like “Disneyland”. He was summarily fined by the PGA Tour for his candidness, which then forced the discussion inside the free-speech confines of the locker room, where righteous indignation was allowed full reign.
Such locker room resentment, in hindsight, was out of proportion to the importance of the matter at hand. Perhaps it points to the insularity of golf (and pro golfers), and of an inherent resistance to change. After all, golf has always been a traditional game that has glorified and zealously protected its past.
In the full scheme of things, the emotive opinions of a group of professional golfers is fairly inconsequential. Huntingdale Golf Club does not exist for the Australian Masters, but for the benefit of its members, a large proportion of which are reportedly delighted with the new Huntingdale and more than content with its altered identity.
But where does this leave a judge with such comparisons to draw from? What if you liked the course more in its previous form? Do you disregard what it was, and simply assess what it has become? Do you step aside from personal preference with regard to green design and accept the architect’s new vision? Or do you, after being anointed as judge and critic, simply pass judgment, as per the job description?
These are some of the questions that panel members have to juggle. The Huntingdale example merely provides a case study. There are many others who fit a similar profile, and whose circumstances create similar conundrums. These conundrums find resolution through the application of a ranking number, but rarely to the satisfaction of all.
Oh, and this judge’s assessment of ‘The English Patient’? Well manicured fairways and greens but perhaps a few too many bunkers for my liking.
Grant Dodd is a judge for Australian Golf Digest’s Top 100 course ranking.
Discuss this article in our forums
