"This Could be the Last Time"

[ForkaB]

For those of you that are old enough to remember there once was a rock and roll group called the Rolling Stones that had a song of this name (What's that you say Dr. Katz, they are STILL touring?!!!!!!).

Let's be honest. Many courses we play we play only once or twice and will probably never ever play again, no matter how much we might want to.  Under those circumstances, do we not look at those courses far differently than those courses which we play regularly (our "home" club(s)).  Two reasons for this that I can think of.

1.  At our home clubs we know every blade of grass (and let the super know when just one of them is out of place!) so there is nothing hidden from us, regardless of the quality of the architecture.  "Hazards" that look gnarly to the newbie are just eye candy to us.  Places that may look peaceful to the newcomer are places we avoid like the plague

2.  At the places we visit, we are just beginning to learn about the venue so we spend a lot of our time on the course trying to figure out all the tricks of the architect.  We find some and don't find others.  It is a very different playing experience.

I think that the oft quoted Bobby Jones observation about TOC that the more he played it the more he learned, etc. is true for any course.  What differs is that the better the course the more your learn.  In fact, on great courses you never stop learning.  On not so great courses, you pretty early reach a plateau.

Given this, how can we really know how "great" a course is if we only play it once or twice in our life and may never play it again?

[TEPaul]

I have a long time better ball partner who actually puts the old cliche, "look around because this may be the last time you see this place" into effect.

He tends to remind his invited partners of this at the start of invitationals and also lets them know from time to time how they might be doing in that regard. The harsh thing is he really is serious. If, in his opinion, you don't hack it for some reason it really is the last time you see the place. He's a guy who really does know how to concentrate and perform and the fact is he's had a good number of different partners and it's always struck me that it's a bit unusual how many good  better ball invitationals he's won.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Rich - excellent post.  There is no question that more visits help you better assess and appreciate a course.

I've often thought that this could be applied to the rating game.  Weigh the rater's grade against his number of visits.  For example if you think a course is a 6 out of 10 on your first visit, that should be weighed at 25% reliable.  2 visits - 50% reliable, 3 visits 75% reliable and 4 or more visits 100%.  

JC

[THuckaby2]

This is all well and good, but in all practicality who gets the chance to see these great courses multiple times?  Absent a paid staff of raters that visits every great course four plus times, one takes what one gets.

And that's why one ought not to take ANY ratings very seriously.

Unfortunately though, the world does.

I don't get the point of Rich's post, or at least I just see it as  very obvious - OF COURSE you can't know how great a golf course is just playing it once.  Did you know everything about your wife the first hour you met her?  If you're very lucky you knew right then she was the one you were to marry, but if that hour contained everything you were ever going to learn about her, well...

Same goes for golf courses.  The truly great ones do unfold over time, and just get greater and greater upon repeat playings.  Of course one can't assess this in one visit....

TH

[ForkaB]

Good points, Tom.

Just think about all those women you met before (or even after....) Mrs. Huckaby came along.  How would you "rate" them now?  How "valid" would these "ratings" be if you were employed by Playboy and not Golf Digest?

rich

[THuckaby2]

Well remember Rich, I am not EMPLOYED by any magazine.  I am a volunteer panelist for GD.  Damn I wish I were on their payroll!

Beyond that, the point is none of us "raters" are employed to do such, as much as we would love to be, either for a golf-related magazine or Playboy!

Thus all ratings should be treated with an ocean of salt.  It's unfortunate to me how seriously they are taken....

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich,
I think this is why ANGC was the most common choice on another thread for the course people (myself included) would most like to play.  That course is one that has been so thoroughly reported on and pictured that it overcomes the problem to which you refer.

I got a great piece of advice prior to playing the Ocean Course from a friend who had played there many times.  He advised me to forget a score and not to worry about my golf swing for that one round, and just enjoy where I was and what I was seeing.  I've tried to hold that thought at many "new" courses since, but it's difficult.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Do you pay your green fees out of your pocket when you play a course you rate?  If so, apologies for my intimations of "employment."  If not, you are employed........

[TEPaul]

I think there're a ton of good points attached to Rich's post altough he may not have been thinking of all of them when he posted them.

Of course it's pretty obvious what he says that if you know you may see a course only once--then do make a real effort to really look around.

And I think TomH's point is excellent about rating. I don't put much stock in raters anyway no matter how much they know a golf course but Tom's point that on one visit they'll never get to know it very well anyway--so heed what TomH's says and don't put much stock in rating and ranking and tell anyone who will listen to you not to either.

But there's a larger far more comprehensive point here that I think pertains to this entire discussion group and may fall into the area of restoration, preservation, etc.

That is DO NOT assume you know what's better for a golf club than some of that clubs members do. First of all you do not because you simply do not know the course as well as they do and you likely never will!

So don't act like you do on here or anywhere else!

And frankly there's a more practical aspect to that for you getting to know a course at all. If you act like you automatically know what's better for a course than the membership does not only could Rich's post--"This could be the last time" be true but there may never even be a first time.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

Do you pay green fees every single time you ever play golf?  Do people not host you at various clubs and take care of the guest fees?  The same principle works for rating.  GD makes it very clear to us that we ought to most definitely EXPECT to pay, every "rating" we do.  Now in practicality the clubs don't ask us to pay often, oh yes, we do get comped most of the time.  That being said, in my short year I've also played quite a few courses that I did ratings for where I never mentioned any connection to GD... just paid my fee like anyone else.  In the cases of private clubs where to be able to play at all I HAVE TO arrange it as a GD "rating", most of the time it is comped, yes.  But again, how is this different than a generous host taking care of my guest fees anywhere else?

No, us raters are most definitely not employed by the magazines for whom we contribute data - that is one heck of a stretch you're making to say we are!

TH

ps - very good points by TEP, also.  That all falls under good manners, as well.. does one go to a dinner party and tell the host how and what to cook?  As for the rating game, yeah, I am a part of it... and just understanding how seriously it is taken.  I naively thought it was all in good fun, as it really should be...

[A_Clay_Man]

As any female will tell you, it takes a man 200 times to be told something before it registers. Now, if that's true, and I don't dispute it much, one would need several years of playing any course to know it's full value or lack thereof. I do think there is an inastinctive sense one gets from a course the first time or two around. Subleties, nuances and features that tax the mind and body are what I look for to even be interested in a return visit.

[TEPaul]

Isn't TOC just the best example on earth for this subject? How many significant golfers over eons have had a startlingly negative impression of it the first or second time or maybe much longer into playing it than that--only to fall completely in love with all that it can be or else to become completely fascinated with it after much time in dealing with it or attempting to study it. This very interesting transformation and particularly the wide spectrum of it is evident from this interesting group--all having about the same transformation of reaction and opinion.

1. C.B Macdonald
2. Bobby Jones
3. Jack Nicklaus
4. Tiger Woods

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have found that there are courses that are simply better than others.  These are the easier to rate.  Pacific Dunes is a clear case of this.  I have been back there on several occasions and have seen nothing to change my intial opinion.  

What is more difficult is to rate a more average course.  These sometimes get muddled with condition, Club house design, shoe guy and other amenities.  Constant vigilance is required in order to be unswayed by all of this 'noise'.    

In a perfect world it would be best to be able to spend a few days in different seasons at each course.  This is unworkable of course.  That is why GD has several hundred raters and GW has 175+.  If I can't be at a course in the Spring maybe Jonathon has.  

And in the the final analysis, it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether our rating are perfect.  It is simply too much fun playing the game, making every attempt to help the publishers and developers, and kicking it around with the like of Jonathon, Lou, Brad and the rest.  The golf community is a pretty solid bunch of individuals.  And part of the fun is how seriously we take ourselves.

[henrye]

Rich, I'm not a scratch golfer so the experience may be different for me.  Anytime I play, my strategy is fairly simple.  Try to hit straight to a large safe area, in range.  If I'm over one hundred yards to the pin I just aim for the green.  If I'm closer, I may try to tighten it up a bit.

On my home course I aim for the same safe targets, time and time again.  It's really the same approach I take at a new course, and normally doesn't take a great deal of analysis.  The difference is the time I take enjoying the vistas on a new course.  This is where I tend to spend time, enjoying and analyzing the surroundings, not so much analyzing the nuances and strategic elements of the architecture.

[Slag_Bandoon]

I thought Waylon Jennings wrote it. (Sorry, 'nother version.)

[Tom Doak]

Rich:  I certainly agree that the best courses provide a lot more to learn.  At this point in my career, I'm much more likely to learn something new (or re-learn something important) by going to one of the 50 best courses in the world, even if I've been there ten times before, than by going to see something "new" (whether it was just built or I just hadn't seen it yet).

Links courses generally offer increasing returns because the firmness of the ground and the variety of wind conditions put every bump within 50 yards of a green into play, and most bumps in the fairways, too.  On a typical parkland course most of those features just don't matter, except for the ones in your own "landing area."

However, I think to draw the conclusion that "the more complicated the course, the better" could be a mistake ... a lot of my beef with courses of the 1980's and early 1990's is that there's a lot of extraneous #@%! which has very little to do with the quality of the golf holes.

For those who think this "factor" should be included in course ratings, it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy -- people go back more often to the courses they like in the first place.  Most rankings need just the opposite -- to convince more of their panelists to check out the worthy contenders which are short of votes.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

Thanks for the thoughts, which which I agree.  I don't think that I was trying to say "the more complicated, the better," more like "the more subtle the better."  For example, I think of the 6th at Dornoch, where visually the front right bunker and/or the gorse and bunkers to the left might dominate one's thinking the first few times around, but after some expereince, it is the the simple flat hard pan mid-long right that most influences one's strategy for that hole.

[Michael Whitaker]

TH - Why would you EVER identify yourself as a rater at a non-private golf course. It seems to me the only reason would be the  hope of a free round. As for private clubs, I understand that the GD name gains you access where you might not be admitted otherwise, but I don't see how anyone can be totally unbiased when you are the "guest" of the course you are rating. It should be understood up front that you intend to pay a guest fee.

That's why most restaurant critics do not identify themselves until AFTER they have eaten. Then they can report on the true experience the average customer will receive. My restauranteur friends tell me the only critics who identify themselves beforehand are the ones who are either trying to impress their companions or are fishing for a free meal.

[THuckaby2]

TH - Why would you EVER identify yourself as a rater at a non-private golf course. It seems to me the only reason would be the  hope of a free round. As for private clubs, I understand that the GD name gains you access where you might not be admitted otherwise, but I don't see how anyone can be totally unbiased when you are the "guest" of the course you are rating. It should be understood up front that you intend to pay a guest fee.

That's why most restaurant critics do not identify themselves until AFTER they have eaten. Then they can report on the true experience the average customer will receive. My restauranteur friends tell me the only critics who identify themselves beforehand are the ones who are either trying to impress their companions or are fishing for a free meal.

Michael:

These are very fair points and questions.  Please understand I am fairly new at this "game", so for the ins and outs I just use what I believe is courtesy and common sense, in addition to the rules presecribed by the magazine.  To answer your questions:

1. TH - Why would you EVER identify yourself as a rater at a non-private golf course. It seems to me the only reason would be the  hope of a free round.

Not true.  First, understand that the large majority of the courses to be rated are private.  Of the publics, I have called and identified myself if that was the only way I could get a tee-time - many of these are quite crowded and getting a time is a huge crapshoot (like Rustic Canyon!), so if I know I'm going to be in an area at a very defined time, I just call and tell them I'm from GD, just to make sure I get a time PERIOD, even if this is way ahead of the normal "calling in" time for the general public.  I know I need to play the course, and I can't take the chance on missing out going through the normal crapshoot.  I don't feel much guilt about this!  In any case such situation is really the only time I'd id myself as a rater at a public course, besides maybe after playing if I want to talk to someone about something or make some comment or give praise.  And even in this "getting a tee-time outside the normal ways" case, I'd most definitely expect to pay (and have paid).

2. As for private clubs, I understand that the GD name gains you access where you might not be admitted otherwise, but I don't see how anyone can be totally unbiased when you are the "guest" of the course you are rating. It should be understood up front that you intend to pay a guest fee.

Please understand that it IS understood up front that we intend to pay a guest fee!  That is always the expectation.  Most of the time they decline to take it, no matter what we say.  That's just the way this works.  Then it's incumbent upon the rater not to let the comped guest fee "bias" him, and that's truly not all that hard to do...  I suppose some tiny bias is always going to exist, but what the hell, I never said this is a perfect system, and you will not my wishes above that people not take it too seriously....  

3. That's why most restaurant critics do not identify themselves until AFTER they have eaten. Then they can report on the true experience the average customer will receive. My restauranteur friends tell me the only critics who identify themselves beforehand are the ones who are either trying to impress their companions or are fishing for a free meal.

Unfortunately Michael, these aren't public restaurants and in many cases in order to get in at all, I have to tell them who I am.  You do seem to understand that.  In a perfect world, this wouldn't be the case... but again, the world isn't perfect.  That being said, I have also submitted ratings for plenty of places I did get in via tournaments, guests of members, etc... and you are right, those do tend to give one the most "fair" impression.

TH

[henrye]

Rich.  I'd like to bring this post up again because I think it's relevent in your assessment of what makes a course "great".  In the literature I have read on the subject, great golf courses are ones which are enjoyable to many levels of handicaps.  Your analytical approach to the architecture when playing a new hole/course suggests to me that you are looking through the eyes of a scratch golfer.

When a non-scratch golfer (I include myself in this group) visits a new course and they hit to the safe area within their means and continue to play the round in that manner, they do not look at the course in the same way that you might.  But...they may be enjoying other elements of the course - the views, the serenity of the location, the flow of the fairway and/or green, etc.  In the end, they also might deem the course to be great.  I have certainly played a number of courses many times and others that I deem to be great only a few times and on some occasions only once.  Perhaps a non-scratch golfer is better suited to determine if a course is great if they are only able to access it on limited occasions, while the scratch golfer can only make their assessment after playing the same course numerous times.

Henry E.

[TEPaul]

Henry E;

Rich Goodale does not have an analytical approach to architecture--he has an existentialist approach to architecture. He doesn't think an architect makes any difference--it's only a matter of a hole is a hole is a hole.

Do you know this fundamental in golf architecture GeoffShac talks about called temptation? Really good temptation in architecture makes it. If you can tempt and sucker a player into something hairbrained you've done a good architectural job. Rich is the easiest guy to tempt in the world of golf. He apparently doesn't even notice risks--even if it happens to be the crashing Pacific all around a 230 target. Give Rich a snake-pit risk and a tootsie roll reward and he'll take that risk everytime.

Rich isn't analytical--you have to notice things before you can analyze them. Rich is an existentialist in architecture. If he does notice anything it's totally and existentially outside his purview or else it's existentially absurd.

[ForkaB]

Henry E

You make an important point, which is that we all "see" a hole largely through the prism of our abilities.  I do not think, however, that this necessarily means that players of differring abilities evaluate "greatness" differently.  Lots of relatively poor players (e.g. Dr. MacKenzie) have a great eye for what makes a potentially (based on the ground) good hole great, while many scratch playes, or even elite professionals do not have a clue about this, as many on here are wont to note.....

I'm just a fairly good player (3-7 hcp. over the past 15-20 years).  Trust me, one of the reaosns I believe in the cumulative effect of experience is that I have seen lots of places on my most played golf courses that are tests of the "flexibility" of the design (i.e. places that only a good architect, designing for all players, might have thought about!

Despite what TE Paul says, I very much do look at the architecture of a golf hole, and actually have a reasonably well developed sense of determining good from bad, both aesthetically and functionally.  However, because I do not always hit the ball where I want it to go, only playing a course once gives me only a lmited perspective on what the course can offer, from an experiential sense.  For example, I'd love to see how the second to the 1st at NGLA plays from the fairway, rather than out of the far left bunker......

Tom P, on the other hand, who is a scatch player, is severely deprived in his ability to do comprehensive architectural analysis in that he NEVER hits anything but an absolutely straight shot.  He probably does not even know that there are bunkers at NGLA.