Can you evaluate design if you don't play by the rules...

[Don_Mahaffey]

In the real world golf courses are full of terrible players. I just played Pac Dunes and watched a very nice lady take 5 shots in the greenside bunker on 18 before she tossed her ball out with her hand. I suppose if John K. was there he would have thrown her back in the bunker while preaching about playing by the rules. One one thread we read about the guy slowing up play as he grinds over a 10 footer for triple and here we get a lecture on playing by the rules. You know what, I could care less if people play by the rules as long as they have fun, don't tear up the course and play quickly.

As far as rating a golf course, I'm not a rater, but I can't play and evalute a course at the same time, at least not very well. When I play I notice the course but I like to focus on my game. Afterward, if possible, I like to walk the course and try to learn a little more about why things were done the way they were. Who cares how someone goes about it as long as they get it right and take the time to do an honest job if they're an "official" rater.

[rgkeller]

>>Luckily, Bobby Jones was'nt a rater the first time he played St. Andrews because he hated it.<<

Does anyone think that Jones would have thought better of TOC initially if he had only walked it?

[A.G._Crockett]

I think every one on this site could drive all 18 holes of a golf course, from tee to green, stand on the tee, take in the visuals of the hole, inspect the rough and hazards on both sides of all holes, walk on the greens, feel the slopes,check the depths and location of greenside bunkers and know if he or she thought it was a good or bad golf course (rating)
Then they could play the golf course, naturally using all the rules, and I bet their opinion would be the same.

Luckily, Bobby Jones was'nt a rater the first time he played St. Andrews because he hated it. (low rating)
The more he played it the more he loved and respected it(high
rating)

I not only second this opinion, I'll go one step farther:  I'll wager that there are raters who play a course and allow their opinion of the quality of the architecture of the course be colored by how they hit the ball that day!  If I am focused excessively on my score, then I might not see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

An analogy might be seeing a movie while in a bad mood or after a fight with the spousal unit, and having the judgement of the movie clouded by the external circumstances in which I find myself.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Does anyone think that Jones would have thought better of TOC initially if he had only walked it?


Who knows if he played or just walked it the first time?

[rgkeller]

I think every one on this site could drive all 18 holes of a golf course, from tee to green, stand on the tee, take in the visuals of the hole, inspect the rough and hazards on both sides of all holes, walk on the greens, feel the slopes,check the depths and location of greenside bunkers and know if he or she thought it was a good or bad golf course (rating)
Then they could play the golf course, naturally using all the rules, and I bet their opinion would be the same.

Well, I could not.

The test of a golf course is in the playing and not in the sights.

[JakaB]

Don,

If the lady was qualified to be a rater and she couldn't get out of a bunker in five tries....maybe it is a poorly designed bunker.   What I'm talking about is the complete disregarding of the existence of a hazard..if you call high rough a hazard (some people just call it potential width)..would you think the woman could have gotten a better feel for the course if she never tried to escape from the bunker and simply placed her ball on the green.....

Before you lump your slow play analogy on me....remember I am the guy who hates the overly fast player whose only concern is his 2 hour round at the expense of the recreational 4 hour player.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

rgkeller:

If a golf course does not have visual qualities (sights in your vernacular) it will not have what it takes for the golfer to want to play it. Memorability is everything.
Put another way, if the course is poorly designed and ugly (no visual qualities or aesthetics, there is no incentive for the golfer to play it well, and if he plays there once he will not likely be back.

It is hard to be a rater if you can't visualize.

[Scott_Burroughs]

...admitted that in his travels through the sand hills that he played by his own...at least I can only hope it is his own...local rule of playing lost balls as lateral hazards.

Who said it was MY rule?  Someone else in the group who has frequented the area several times suggested it and said that's what was usually done here.  I don't do this in normal play unless it's impossible to score below the max allowed by ESC.

The rest doesn't really deserve a reply other than if a golfer can't rate a course without being detached from his own lack of ability or his score, than he shouldn't be doing it.

[JakaB]

Scott,

Do you believe in the penalty for lost ball of stroke and distance.   Do you see any difference in a wayward shot that either lands in the water, high fescue not going to find your ball rough, or out of bounds.  Do you think my home course would be a more fun place to play if we instituted a local rule that treated all lost balls like they were in a lateral hazard.  Do you think that might change any strategic options and affect the design intent in any way...or just make everyone happier fellows..

Since I already know your answer....I'll tell you that there are times that it is best to favor a lateral hazard instead of tempting the stroke and distance penalty option....that is why the rules and architects respect the difference....how would have you ever known that if not for this thread..

thank me later..

John

[Scott_Burroughs]

John,

I did not suggest the rules for the day(s) of play.  If I had gone against what was suggested for someone I just met, how does that set the tone for the rest of my trip?  I was about to spend two nights in a cabin with one of them.  These were casual rounds.  Why is this directed at me only?  Why not the others?  I certainly don't want to drag the others into your crap anyways.


In case you'd like to know, here was the situation on both of those holes.  On #6, one of the guys who'd been there before, said my drive was OK and wouldn't make the rough on the other side of the fairway, as we looked directly into the morning sun.  We got up there and couldn't find my ball (one of the other guy's as well).  We weren't about to walk the ~270 yards back to the tee to hit again in a casual round that doesn't mean anything.

On #12, there is a fairway bunker in the left side of the fairway, with fairway to the left of it, and the fairway drops out of sight behind it.  My drive was turned over and went around the fairway bunker to the right and seemed OK.  It turned out the fairway ended abruptly behind the bunker and the rough line went straight back behind it, and so my ball must have gone into it a few yards, but couldn't be found.  Again, not going to go all the way back for a round that doesn't count.

We also couldn't waste too much time, as we had to meet our host at SH by a certain time to each lunch and play the late afternoon round before the sun set.

[Mike_Golden]

I can't remember the last time I read so much crap about nothing.  

We all know the rules.  

We all play by the rules when we are either in a match or in a tournament.  

We know the difference between right and wrong on the golf course

We don't take a free drop when it goes OB or it's lost.

We don't take putts not conceded

We don't hit extra shots (at least I don't, others of you do but would never count that shot instead of the first one you hit)

We don't do anything outside the spirit of the rules.  All of us aren't John VB so we don't know them all (he's taught me several interesting things about some of them) nor do we need to know them all unless we're playing competitive, tournament golf and need to make a ruling for ourselves or a competitor-In all my years of playing golf including the last 15 in competitive, club situations, I've never had an issue with anyone over a rule and I doubt that many of us have either.  Because we're all gentlemen, all honest, all sincere (and I mean this, I'm not joking around-I've played golf with enough of you).

When it's none of the above, if you haven't hit a provisional, for whatever reason, you mark down an 'X' on the scorecard, drop a ball (if you want to, I usually don't and go the next tee) and do whatever you want from there.  Who really cares?  Is marching back to the tee, hitting a provisional and, in all likelihood, making a score that counts as an 'X' anyway going to help cure cancer, find peace in the Middle East, or get Dubya out of the effing White House?

If you're rating a course (and I'm not a rater) I doubt that one or two shots out an entire round is going to affect the overall rating anyway.

End of story.

[JakaB]

Mike,

This is a site about architecture and honoring the game.   If you are playing Sand Hills and don't believe enough in the design of the course to accept a stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball (remember you just take that ball out of your pocket and declare it a provisional....none of this walking back 270yds...I would never do that either) that before you ever hit one shot you change the rules of the game to allow for lateral drops, you should not post on this board.   I'm embarrassed enough to be a part of this freak show without knowing that the people who are fortunate enough to play the great courses in the world are so flipant they call it "casual".....Getting invited to play Sand Hills ain't casual...she deserves better.   You might as well give up all hope in the future of the game if the people on this board don't give a damn....because who else will.   Scott says everyone who plays out there does this.....it just can't be so..it just can't be..

[rgkeller]

rgkeller:

If a golf course does not have visual qualities (sights in your vernacular) it will not have what it takes for the golfer to want to play it. Memorability is everything.
Put another way, if the course is poorly designed and ugly (no visual qualities or aesthetics, there is no incentive for the golfer to play it well, and if he plays there once he will not likely be back.

It is hard to be a rater if you can't visualize.

One can only imagine how low you would rate TOC or Seminole or Carnoustie.

And, by the way, it is impossilbe to be a good player if you can't visualize.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I have several friends who describe participants on this site as "people without lives."  Sometimes I agree; sometimes I don't.  The discussion on this thread is beyond belief.  I'm reading it, and even spending time writing on it, so I suppose I have no life.  But if that's true, John isn't human.  Mike Golden couldn't be more correct.  This is silly!

[JakaB]

Jim,

From what I understand you are a 7 handicap who is not afraid to admit that forced accuracy off of the tee is not a bad thing.....so....let me ask you.   When you stand on the tee at Rolling Green and that little demon in your gut is doing everything he can to make you spray another one in the trees isn't the fact that a poor shot will be penalized influence your state of mind.   Doesn't the threat of failure influence your opinion of the hole, the course and the architects work....Take failure or success out of the equation you might as well play a video game version of the course.   What if a rater came to Rolling Green and decided that they would institute the "tree continuation rule" (that's where you place your ball where you think it would have gone if you had not hit the tree)....would they understand the true nature of the course for the everyday player....Hold the presses...this might actually be a great idea and save the destruction of so many innocent trees.   Flynn's true design may come to light...

Oh and one other thing....as a Pa guy....If or when you ever play Oakmont is it ever "casual"...don't the great courses of the world elevate the experience beyond just a round with the boys...

[Jim_Coleman]

   I can't believe I'm doing this.  I don't cheat.  I don't play with people who cheat for money.  If I'm not competing against a person, I couldn't care less what he does.  Presumably a rater knows something about golf.  Whether he "cheats" or not when rating a course is irrelevant.  I assume he knows what he's doing.
   Also,  I can assure that I am no more willing to "challenge" a lateral water hazard than an out of bounds.  I want to avoid both with equal vigor.  If I hit it in the water or out of bounds, I've made a mistake.  If all out of bounds were considered hazards, my choice of shot would not change.
    Please, don't ask another question.  I must try to maintain my dignity.

[Mike_Golden]

Barney,

I thought the topic of this thread was the ability to evaluate design if you don't play by the rules.  Apparently, this is just another opportunity for you to rant about something you don't like.  And, as usual, you play both sides of the fence;  on this thread Sand Hills is one of the great courses in the world; on another one, Sand Hills is a course whose 'time has passed'.

The only thing that bothers me about people who don't play by the rules is when they claim a score for a hole that is based on a blatant rules violation-like taking a drop from an out of bounds.  I've seen balls lost in the middle of fairways so sometimes leave this open to interpretation but never in a tournament or competitive round.  Other than that it has no bearing on my love for the game or enjoyment of the round or the golf course.

So why don't you stop this nonsense and say what you really believe for once?  If you have a problem with someone being a rater (actually, you have problems with anyone being a rater, and the more you rant about it, the more it shows how much you want to be one) because they are not 'worthy', just say it.  Stop wasting Ran's bandwidth making up excuses to show your jealousy.

[David_Elvins]

John B K,

Great post.  100% agree with you.  THe last time I joined a club, for the first 6 months I played in the evening, hitting a couple of balls around.  When I started playing competition 6 months later, my view of the course totally changed.  The course was so much more penal than I ever realised.  

I am a big fan of Mackenzie and his 12 rules, one of which relates to lost balls.  And I agree with it.  But by not playing by the rules, I could not see how much some courses failed to live up to this value.

[JakaB]

Mike,

You really can't take my comments about Sand Hills out of context so this is what I think...

Sand Hills is not one of the top ten courses in the world....it still is great and currently is close to top 50.   Sand Hills is no longer what it once was in the golfing world...to many other copy cat destinations like Bandon Dunes are being built everyday....It is a great course....but much like the mechanical bull in Urban Cowboy (not my words) it is a great ride but not at the cutting edge of pop culture or fashion as it once was....its time in that world has come and gone.

As for my jealousy of raters....I'll admit I am jealous of the glory days of free golf at top 100 venues....I'll admit that I am jealous of the power that holding the card brings....and I'll also admit that I must enjoy playing the fool on this site more than I want to be a rater because I've pretty much screwed up any chance I ever had of being one(a rater, I've got the fool thing down pat)through many of the comments I've made on this site.

Honestly...the truth of this thread is that if I played my home course where I took every lost ball to be a lateral hazard drop I wouldn't understand the most complex options provided by the architecture......All my 85's would be 79's and I'd be a happy little ignorant fellow....I just don't want people coming to evaluate my course and leave their gut at home.   So...if you want me to say it....here goes.   Scott Burroughs ratings of Wild Horse and Sand Hills should not be allowed in the mix because he did not respect the design enough to stand on the tee knowing if he hit it in the gunch he would not shoot 76 or whatever his goal for that day was......I know I'm not the only person on this board who has one practice tee swing and another gut check swing....I've said it a million times and I'll say it again you can not see or evaluate tee shot options if you take the worst of failures out of the mix..Scott did not evaluate the course anymore than someone who tooled around the place in a cart...so his ratings are moot....sorry.

[A.G._Crockett]

Honestly...the truth of this thread is that if I played my home course where I took every lost ball to be a lateral hazard drop I wouldn't understand the most complex options provided by the architecture......All my 85's would be 79's and I'd be a happy little ignorant fellow....I just don't want people coming to evaluate my course and leave their gut at home.   So...if you want me to say it....here goes.   Scott Burroughs ratings of Wild Horse and Sand Hills should not be allowed in the mix because he did not respect the design enough to stand on the tee knowing if he hit it in the gunch he would not shoot 76 or whatever his goal for that day was......I know I'm not the only person on this board who has one practice tee swing and another gut check swing....I've said it a million times and I'll say it again you can not see or evaluate tee shot options if you take the worst of failures out of the mix..Scott did not evaluate the course anymore than someone who tooled around the place in a cart...so his ratings are moot....sorry.

The key here is the first sentence about your home course.  I have played over 800 rounds on my home course; I know to a 99% certainty when the ball leaves the clubface whether or not it is OB or lost, and know to hit a provisional.

Honestly, how much golf do you have to play before you know that on unfamiliar course you may well find that a ball was lost or OB that you never suspected would be?  We have ALL experienced that, and whether or not I go back to the tee or just drop a ball and play on is totally irrelevant to whether or not I appreciate the tee shot options!  Hell, I just experienced the "worst failures" of the tee shot options by losing my $3.50 golf ball! It is silly to say otherwise.

In fact, by your logic, the rater who always hits the fairway would finish knowing the absolute least about the golf course, wouldn't he?  Wouldn't this be true regardless of what numbers ended up on a scorecard?  

[NAF]

John Kav-

Could you list your top 10 in your best Matt Ward imitation please? That way your cutting edge thinking could be crystalized in written form.. These 10 do not need to be in any particular order, perhaps just your favorite places in the game..

BTW, at a Prairie Dunes outing 2 years ago which included about 6 people from this site we all lost several balls per round in the gunsch which made Sand Hills look kind when you hit them into the prairie grasses.  I'm not sure Maxwell took the gunsch composition and thickness perhaps into his thinking when he designed the course but I'll never know.

[Mike_Golden]

John,

Thanks for being honest, it is much appreciated.

But as far as ratings go, how can you determine that Sand Hills is no longer Top 10 if you've never played it.  In fact, how can you determine anything about a golf course ratings and their accuracy if you haven't played them?  All any of us are capable of doing is rating the golf courses we've actually played.  The purpose of a ratings system is to provide an overall rating based on the population of people (i.e, raters) who have played the golf course and provided an evaluation against specific criteria.  It's based on statistics not group subjectivity.  If you don't agree with the process, then don't pay any attention to the list.

I'll give you my own personal list, based on the ones I have played and only the ones I have played:

Bethpage Black (joint #1)
Cypress Point (joint #1)
The Old Course
Pinehurst #2
Pebble Beach
Bandon Dunes
Lake Merced GC
San Francisco GC
Pasatiempo
Olympic Lake
Talking Stick North
La Quinta Mountain
La Purisima
Bayonet
Spanish Bay
Rustic Canyon
Spyglass Hill
Pine Needles
Gleneagles Queens
Bethpage Red
Poppy Hills
Lehigh Country Club (it would probably be higher but only played it once in early November with lots of leaves on the ground)
La Tourette (it's the first course I played regularly so has to be on the list)


This is my own personal list (at least as I remember them today, and may have omitted one or two), totally based on how I feel about the quality of a golf course as well as my own experiences on each of them.  I don't expect it to match particularly well with the consensus, nor do I care.  I first played Bethpage Black in 1971, played it over 300 times before moving to California in 1985, and always considered it my favorite course in the world before I knew anything about architecture or the world paid any attention to it.  I haven't played nearly as many courses as most of the others on here and while it would be nice to have the opportunities at the end of the day it isn't going to cure cancer if I play Friar's Head, isn't going to achieve peace in the Middle East if I play AGNC, and certainly won't get Dubya out of office if I play Sand Hills since Ben is a good friend of Dubya's

So, if you want to put yourself out on a limb, John, why don't you share with us your personal ratings?

[Scott_Burroughs]

After looking at the rulebook, I inadvertently called "allowing faster players to play through" a Rule, when it's actually in the Etiquette section under Pace of Play:

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group."




Dave, I only care about my approximate scores in that I want to improve as a player, and score is the best indicator of that.  With the two instances of a lost ball at WH and turning in the max ESC allowed scores for those two holes, my score would only have gone up by one anyways.  I didn't know my score until after the round.  I didn't write it down during the round, as I never do unless it's in a tournament.  I tried to quickly recall it during the drive up to SH, and miscounted by one.  77 using agreed-upon rules, 78 using max ESC scores.  

I didn't write down any score at SH the entire time I was there.  I tried to remember everything on the flight home to get estimates.  SH scores don't count, obviously, as the course isn't rated.

Oh, and I already know what John's response to this will be:  "how can you measure your improvement if you don't play by the rules all the time?"  

[JakaB]

You guys have to remember...this was a local rule established before the start of play....not some obscure event that happened on that most sad of times when you lose a ball through some strange twist of fate..

Noel,

Out of respect for Matt Ward I could only list course that I have played...and I don't get out much.  I have never attempted such a list but I will tell you that out of respect for my most recent generous hosts....St. Louis CC is in my personal top 10....and I think I shot 36, 44 to not break 80.....It hurts...It really, really hurts knowing how I choked it home...but I still love the course, so why would anyone want to create their own set of rules to shoot a better score is beyond me...

note: If you don't care about score..you don't invent local rules..

[George Pazin]

Scott -

Don't fret - I personally measure my own progress on this site by the number of times Barney disagrees with me, criticizes me or pokes fun at me.