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

[JakaB]

Mike,

Your post came when I was typing mine....I think that if I had played Bethpage Black it would be my number one also...but I havn't.  I've spent the last few minutes thinking about my personal top ten....and I will tell you the Norwood Hills East is a 6000 yd jewel that makes the grade.   An untouched Stiles that gets little recognition because of the championship West course that hosted the 48 PGA and the recent 2001 US Senior Am...Whenever I'm playing the West I usually can't wait for the round to get over with so I can go at the East.   I love short par 4's and the course starts out with 5 in a row....unusual quirky fun, fun, fun...Thats enough of that kinda talk.   I'll get around to my other 8 some other time...

[Scott_Burroughs]

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.

George,

My progress measure would be an inverse relationship, but unfortunately he drags people into the abyss with him sometimes.  More than sometimes, actually.  But he actually serves up a lot of good stuff, too.  Relevant questions others are afraid to ask.  Quite bi-polar that way.  Or is that schizophrenic?  Not sure.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

George,

My progress measure would be an inverse relationship, but unfortunately he drags people into the abyss with him sometimes.  More than sometimes, actually.  But he actually serves up a lot of good stuff, too.  Relevant questions others are afraid to ask.  Quite bi-polar that way.  Or is that schizophrenic?  Not sure.

It would be schizophrenic, I believe.  Bipolar would most likely refer to the extent to which he enjoyed or was depressed by the whole thing.

[Mike Benham]

John -

It seems to me that you could rephrase your question to ask "Can you evaluate design if you are a crappy golfer?"

Mike

[JakaB]

John -

It seems to me that you could rephrase your question to ask "Can you evaluate design if you are a crappy golfer?"

Mike

I think the same crappy golfer may design a great course but not be sure what it is until he sees a good golfer play it...so I would say no...crappy golfers can not evaluate design but that should not prevent them from being a designer..  

[A.G._Crockett]

[quote link=board=1;threadid=15058;start=50#msg257011 date=1096566209]

I think the same crappy golfer may design a great course but not be sure what it is until he sees a good golfer play it...so I would say no...crappy golfers can not evaluate design but that should not prevent them from being a designer..  

Huh?  Are you serious?  I could design a great course, but couldn't evaluate one?  How?

[JakaB]

AG,

I have little doubt that a blind man could have designed Bandon Dunes but I question if he would know that Pacific is better...

[George Pazin]

I think I sense some sarcasm in Barney's remark - though he could be simply providing himself with an out when someone reminds him that Raynor didn't even play the game at any level of proficiency.

If your sensible remarks haven't convinced him, AG, nothing will.

[John_Cullum]

Goddam I hate being late to this party. The best thread in six weeks and I had to go to a f****ing  CLE seminar. I guess I'll start here:

I played with a rather famous panelist a few years ago who had played the top in the world and the top 100 in the US.  He told me he only plays the course from the middle of the fairway the 1st time he plays a course.  He felt it was the only fair way to evaluate a course.  I sometimes use this advice when I hit the ball way off line.  How can you evaluate a hole if you never see the hole since you are walking far to the side?

Is this how rating works? This is insane. This is definitely not golf. I need to know which panel this rater rates, for extra discounting.

And as far as a rater being unable to rate because he's playing from the woods or paralell fairways all day, what in the hell is he doing rating any golf course for a magazine?  Isn't there some threshold skill level for raters? A PGA pro has to pass a PAT. It isn't that hard, but he must show some level of proficiency.

I enjoy knowing the rules, and learning what I don't know. Hardly a day goes by that I don't read something in the rule book. I don't know them well enough as Shivas noted the other day, but I consider the rules an integral part of the game of golf. If you want to treat lost balls as lateral hazards, you can, but you ain't playing golf if you do. I also believe you can't evaluate your own game if you don't keep score. I learned some years back that nothing improves a rusty game faster than writing down a few 8's on a card.

Now my point here is not to criticize Scott Burroughs for his dalliances at Sand Hills. If he was playing match play, it probably didn't matter because he was going to lose the hole anyway if he took stroke and distance. He just conceded the hole and continued to play it, and that's okay with me, and with the rules as well.

This great thread is why I consider myself a FOB, even if I don't have the bag tag.

[JakaB]

Dave,

I'm saying that if you create a local rule before you ever start playing that interfers with a key defense of the course your rating is moot.

Lets say at Shoreacres you decide before you start that only birdies count....thus making all second putts good.  Do you really think you get a feel for the greensites or the strategy of the course.....I play birdies only alot when I'm in a hurry...It is a great and fun money game but it is no way to evaluate a course.   I bet your salivating just at the thought of playing me $50 a birdie..

[John_Cullum]

I say for rating purposes, some rules are more important than others.

Your situations 1 and 3 are not allowed. The rater must play the stroke as he finds it.

Situation 2 and 5 are okay, the rater can still rate.

Situation 4 is not contrary to the rules. The rater should add 2 strokes to his score, and rate accordingly.

Of course if the rater is playing match play, he can do anything, but if his opponent makes a claim, he loses the hole--but he can still rate it.

[Pete Lavallee]

I think evryone has missed a vey salient point that Barney brought up,

o Should a Golf Course be allowed to red stake an area that never contains water to speed up play?

For example, everyone must remember the playoff at Torrey Pines between Phil and Frank Licklighter; they both dumped numerous tee shots into the canyon on the left of the 17th hole at the South course. They were compelled to walk back to the tee and reload. However if you played this hole during any of the other 51 weeks in the year, you would have crossed red stakes and been allowed to drop at the point of entry, with no distance penalty ( they are taken down for the tournament week). Is this right, should you ignore the stakes and reload? I bet the marshalls would tell you not to; but it is truely a blatant circumvention of the rules, in an effort to "speed up play". Interestingly the SCGA says that when they rate a course they ignore any red stakes that line areas which don't normally contain water, like canyons and areas of tall grass. They say you're cheating yourself, handicap wise, if you don't take the stroke and distance penalty. What say yee?

[John_Cullum]

Shivas, in stroke play if the rater teed off outside the teeing ground on a previous hole, he has to leave the course under the rules. But I'll let him play on and rate away.

[John_Cullum]

Pete L,
The practice of creating phantom lateral hazards is somewhat annoying to me. The rules do allow pretty wide lattitude in defining water hazards, and the area at Torrey Pines would meet the definition even if its dry most of the time. But all too often I see woods marked as a lateral hazard even when they are at the crest of a hill. It pisses me off.

[JakaB]

Dave,

Birdies only takes away every reasonable defense a course has....you don't putt your par putts....you play until birdie is not an option and you pick up and move on.   You play with absolutely no fear.....I know that is not part of your game...but you are only one rater.   Don't you think great architecture intimidates the player and if you take away the intimidation you take away from the course.

Now if you want to say that you don't need to play a course to rate it.....I will not only agree with you on that point...I will agree with you that how you play makes no difference either.   How could how you play make any difference if you eliminate the need to play....I think you may have convinced me..

[George Pazin]

Sarge -

Did you read Scott's explanation? Do you really think his "illegal" drop would have some sort of an impact on his rating of the course? Did anyone even bother to ask Scott what his rating was, or the logic behind it? Come on, Scott followed the practice of his playing partners in an effort to keep play moving along smoothly. Are you seriously telling me that if you were playing a course with someone you know, who told you that your tee shot was safe, you would ignore them and hit a provisional every time, or that you would go back to the tee to reload if you didn't hit the provisional, and further that this would somehow affect one's rating of the course?

Somehow, Jax has us believing that the cost of the production of a course means absolutely zero in regard to the rating of a course, but that Scott's lateral drop is somehow devasting to his rating of the course. Give me a break.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I BELIEVE THAT OFTEN THE BEST WAY TO TRULY EVALUATE A GOLF COURSE, IS TO BE OUT PLAYING ALONE HITTING TWO OR THREE BALLS IN THE PROCESS...CERTAINLY NOT THE PURISTS WAY OF PLAYING BY THE RULES.

BUT TRULY WHO CARES, THE BEAUTY OFA CYPRESS POINT OR A WESTERN GAILES IS CERTAINLY NOT , DEPENDANT UPON THE RULES OF THIS GREAT GAME...PERHAPS YOU COULD EVEN STRETCH TO SAY THAT THE RULES CAN HAMPER THE INTAKE AND EVALUATION.......

[THuckaby2]

Pete - that is the proper way to do ratings.  In NCGA we are instructed to ignore incorrect markings and rate per the real rules of golf.  

Actually I think it's a non-issue for the most part, though.  Many people tend play every lost ball as a lateral anyway, and thus cheat themselves handicap-wise however the course is marked.  And for low 'cappers, however one loses a ball, the vast majority of the time that's gonna lead to the maximum allowed score under ESC... so it has little effect on them.

So if courses want to mark some non-hazards as hazards in an effort to speed up play for the tiny minority of golfers for whom this is gonna determine where they play the next shot, I say god love 'em, let em do it.  The rules sticklers ought to know the rules well enough to ignore the markings and play correctly anyway.

TH

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

HAVING NOW READ MORE OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS COMMENTS OF OTHERS, AS A LOVER OF STROKEPLAY, I CAN ALSO SEE THE REASONING BEHIND THIS TOPIC.

I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO PLAY IN THE CRUMP CUP AT PINE VALLEY..AS MY FIRST EXPERIENCE AT THE HALLOWED LOCALE...IT GAVE ME A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FIRST IMPRESSION THAN IF I WAS PLAYING WITH MY BUDS IN THE WEEKEND GAME...SO PERHAPS MY EARLIER VERDICT SHOULD BE AMMENDED.

BY THE WAY, AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO HATES THE GOLF CHANNEL'S PERSISTANT USE OF THE WORD "TRACK
 TO DESCIBE GOLF COURSES?

GROWING UP IN ENGLAND THAT EXPRESSION WAS ONE OF DISRESPECT, GIVEN TO THOSE COURSES THAT DESERVED SUCH A DESCRIPTION !!!!

[John_Cullum]

George,
I specifically stated that I was not taking Scott to task for his game of sticks and balls at Sandhills.  And I am sure he could get a look at the course by playing his game, but I would say it could have an effect on his rating.

I am all to frequently left scratching my head pondering why I hit the ball pretty good but somehow shot 83. Now I am no rater, but if I was going to assign a rating to the course, something like that may well affect the number.

[Dan Kelly]

I can't even believe this thread has gone to 4 pages. Anyone care to summarize?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Sarge,

You seem fixated on playing a new course as a match, whether it be stroke or match play.  Who said anything about a match going on in these rounds?  There were no matches being played by anyone against anyone in the 5 rounds total at these two courses.

In fact, of the 22 new courses I've played (26 rounds total) going back to mid-September of last year, not one match was played by anyone against anyone.  Eight of the rounds I was alone.  Playing a match actually distracts too much from trying to take in every little detail of a course.

[JakaB]

Dave,

No matter how many balls you play if you exclude a major defense of the course your opinion is moot for your audience that depends on your rating.....major defenses a rater must respect.....not spike marks or even divots or mud...even though that does fall under conditioning..

some examples of major defenses that are not equal on all courses that should be played by the rules...

lateral hazards
water hazards
bunkers
trees
out of bounds
high rough....if you do find it don't tee it up cause all rough ain't equal
greens that are difficult to putt....4 inch putts are not a defense feature but severly sloped greens are..
forced carries

As an example....what if you were one of these guys who doesn't like to play out of bunkers so he just tosses the ball out and plays from the fairway..(my dad) how do you think his rating of Whistling Straits would measure up.  You gotta love playing with Mom and Dad...they just hit their ball from wherever they feel like it...and no more than six times on any one hole.   I don't think they really get a feel for the essence of the course that way.....of course they only breed architects..so what do they know.

[John_Cullum]

So, John, you're taking the position that the rating of a rater who taps down a spike mark and doesn't add 2 or who cleans mud off his ball while playing alone so as to actually have some basis for evaluating how a green reacts to a normal golf shot instead of some knuckleball crap is totally invalid?  Just because he broke a couple fo rules of golf?

Yes I'll say that. Proudly.

Wouldn't part of the raters rating include things like "the greens spike up too easy, or "the fairways seem a bit muddy"? If you just get to ignore little things like that and then some poor bastard like me goes to play there expecting a perfect golf experience, but I wind up with mud on the ball and spikey greens, I am left wondering how the hell did this place get such a great rating.

[John_Cullum]

Scott,
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most groups play match play whether they realize it or not.

So if your foursome truly was playing four ball stroke play, then there were a bunch of Xs on the card. That is not the end of the world, but it's not golf either.

Most people ought to stick to match play, because you basically get to make your own rulings as you go along.