News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JakaB

If we could just have one civil discussion about how a web site pundit who isn't tied to either Golf Digest or Golfweek should identify courses that fit into either the World or the U.S. top 100 it would be a pleasent diversion.   I'm sure that if you are like me your perceived love of golf causes many of your friends with lives to ask you if this or that is a great course...or if it is a new course they may even ask you of its potential top 100 status.   Golf Digest and Golfweek both have formulatic standards....what are some of yours.

A few of my personal top 100 requirements or bonus features...

The course must be walkable by me....a 44 yr old 275 lb pasty white guy....a non-walkable course is a deal breaker when you are talking about top 100...

Bonus points for having hosted a major....ie: tradition I could play any old US Open course any day of the week and love it...

Not to give away the store...what are some of yours....and remember...raters... find another thread...you already have somebody to tell you how to think..
« Last Edit: November 22, 2004, 08:02:03 PM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2004, 09:07:42 PM »
Jaka B,

For me, it's simple.

If, after walking off the 18th green, I want to go straight to the 1st tee, I know it's a winner.

Isn't that the real test of a great golf course ?

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2004, 09:34:00 PM »
Pat,

That is a touch simplistic...I'm sure we could all name 500 courses to fit that bill...it's the narrowing down that gets difficult.   How can any Raynor or Stiles not be a top 100 by that standard...

Patrick_Mucci

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2004, 10:42:07 PM »
Jaka B,

It may sound simplistic, but it's an honest answer and .. the ultimate test.

I don't mean it in the context of just strolling over to the 1st tee because we love to play golf, rather, in the context that we can't wait to play the golf course again because our initial sip has created an unquenchable thirst.

It's my test, and I'm sticking to it. ;D

Phil_the_Author

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2004, 01:47:58 AM »
I want to walk away from the course convinced that every hole is where it should have been. If I find myself wondering if a different gren site would have worked better, or am constantly questioning placements of dog-legs and bunkers, I have to wonder about the quality.

Every hole should present a different set of challenges from the one before.

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2004, 05:48:51 AM »

I don't mean it in the context of just strolling over to the 1st tee because we love to play golf, rather, in the context that we can't wait to play the golf course again because our initial sip has created an unquenchable thirst.


Pat,

I think you have finally explained how 200 top 20 courses can exist at any one time....

Mike_Cirba

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2004, 08:26:59 AM »

Pat,

I think you have finally explained how 200 top 20 courses can exist at any one time....

Only in Tom Fazio's world.   :-X

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2004, 08:37:38 AM »
Mike,

Using Pat's method of course evaluation...can you honestly say that it is not possible for him to have 200 top 20 courses on his must play list.   And if you don't believe that....tell me that you don't think there are 200 people who each have at least one course not on each others list....thus creating 200 top 20 courses.   Even you being redanmans butt boy must not have the same top twenty as he....do you see the pattern..and get the hell off of this thread damnit...

Patrick_Mucci

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2004, 09:09:28 AM »
Jaka B,

No, not really,

It only shows that I have greater discriminating tastes then you credit me with.

The other factor is that I don't give much credence to top 50 or top 100 lists.

Are you going to tell me that course X, ranked 98 is definably better then course Y ranked 99th, or 107, or 121 ?

Do you really believe that courses ranked by a fixed criteria, determined by one party, but evaluated by another, a committee, is the Gospel ?

Is the question of whether Shinnecock is better then Pine Valley and where does Pebble Beach fit in answerable, and, is  it really important ?

I like my test, and I'll give you an example of its workings.

I was staying at a friends house in East Hampton and he had arranged for us to play Maidstone in the morning.  I had never played the golf course previously. We were then going to go back to his house to have a big Bar B-Q  in the afternoon.

We played, and we both played exceptionally well.
As we holed out on # 18, we just looked at each other and walked a few paces to the 1st tee, teed it up, and played another 18.

When we got back to his house, only about 5 hours late,
we were not greeted warmly.
There were no happy faces, glad to see us.
Neither of our girl friends were talking to us.

I looked at them and asked, "Is this the gratitude we get, the thanks we get, for trying to help you make this a great party ?  We searched every store, the entire length and breadth of Long Island, looking for charcoal briquets, and couldn't find any.  And this is how we get rewarded for our efforts.?"

Needless to say there were no smiles or thank you's.
But, there was laughter.  My host and I couldn't contain ourselves any longer.  It was reminiscent of the scene in "Porky's, in the principal's office, when Bulla wanted a lineup to identify a particular feature.

So, what's the point of the story ?

It's the qualitative pressure of the test.
It's knowing the dire consequences of playing another 18, yet, the golf course is so outstanding, its lure so tempting and attractive, that it takes precendent over other compelling demands.  That's a test.

Any schmuck can play another 18, but it takes a real schmuck to play 18 more knowing that there will be Trouble, that's with a capital T, in River City. ;D

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2004, 09:16:40 AM »
Quote
We played, and we both played exceptionally well.
Sheesh Pat, it wasn't the quality of the course, it was that you played well!  ;)  Now that may be the real definition of a great course  ;D
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2004, 09:18:24 AM »
John - GW and GD don't do international lists...

Mike_Cirba

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2004, 09:19:23 AM »
John;

I'll get the hell out of here...you kill me.    ;D

But, your quantitative statistical analytical methodology is not worth shite, man.  If 20 people can like different courses, that's fine and dandy.  It's the overlaps that are important.  It's a poll, imperfect as it may be.  

If the results are meaningless to you, I'd suggest you should ignore it.  

The problem is that you can't.   ;)

Patrick;

Great Story!!  

Perhaps another criteria needs to be added for those of us who try to keep peace with partners/spouses.  

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2004, 09:20:00 AM »
This past week I had the opportunity to cheer loudly, twice during a round.  I was alone and I was walking.

Once .... finding how close I hit a blind shot, walking around the greenside hill I burst into a whahhooo and clap, I was a little embarrased to see the maint guy as I continued further around the bend.  

The other was watching a well played shot funnel off a hillock, rolling towards the pin.  This one was more of an upstretched arms laughing and running like my daughter (2 yrs old) cheer.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2004, 09:21:26 AM by Mike_Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2004, 09:30:21 AM »
Pat,

Your point about how can you tell if 98 is anybetter than 101 translates exaclty to 20 vs 23.....I don't have a personal top 100 and I doubt that you do either considering you like to play a course before you evaluate it.....so when you say a course is great or one of the best in the world....where is the cut off....what does that mean.  Top 10....top 20...top 100 or top 300....see my point.  If you think there are 200 great courses in the country and then you refuse to attempt to relate 20 to 23 or 98 to 101 then what is so wrong with saying there are 200 top 20 courses.    It all seems logical to me on an individual basis....like you said....who cares about what a committee may think...

THuckaby2

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2004, 09:42:36 AM »
John:

As you know, I am a course rating panelist for Golf Digest.

But as you also know, I am a fanatical golf addict.

These are two different things.  When I am called on to do a rating for the magazine, I give the proper numerical values as I see them to the very specific criteria laid out in our rating form.  This gets turned into the magazine and becomes part of the data used to compile the ratings and rankings.

But it is not necessarily what I, Tom Huckaby, fanatical golf addict, derive joy from in a golf course.  I will say that I don't disagree with any of the criteria the magazine uses.  But my personal criteria would add a few.  

So IF this explanation allows me to participate in this thread, well... here goes:

1. I too would, have, and will, go out of my way big time to play courses that have hosted majors.  There's just a certain fun one can have at those, and a certain coolness one feels at those - walking in the footsteps of one's idols - that doesn't happen at courses that haven't hosted these events.  To a lesser degree I also seek out courses that have hosted regular tour events, or USGA amateur events, or other sites where I can walk in the footsteps.  This matters to me, and I find it matters to damn near every other golfer I know as well, or at least those who haven't played so many of these as to lose the thrill.

2. I honestly could care less if a course is walkable by me, a 41 year old overweight guy.  To me it's about the shots.  Allowing a nice walk is a definite positive but it is certainly not a requirement.  But I've only made that point on here about 1000 times already.   ;)

3. I do like nice scenery, always have, always will.  And by that I mean both on the course and looking out from it.  Give me a course by big water and I don't care how bad some might find the "architecture", I'm gonna be pretty happy.  Give me a true links, whether the ocean is in view or not, and I'm gonna be a happy boy as well as the look of those just thrills me for some reason.  I for one don't play with my eyes closed and it continues to amaze me how some people say the views don't matter....

Basically anything else I could say is already covered in the GD criteria, so I suppose I'll stop now.

But if I don't count here, well... I'll delete this post.  Your call, John.

 ;D
 

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2004, 09:47:06 AM »
John:

As you know, I am a course rating panelist for Golf Digest.

But as you also know, I am a fanatical golf addict.

These are two different things.  When I am called on to do a rating for the magazine, I give the proper numerical values as I see them to the very specific criteria laid out in our rating form.  This gets turned into the magazine and becomes part of the data used to compile the ratings and rankings.

But it is not necessarily what I, Tom Huckaby, fanatical golf addict, derive joy from in a golf course.  I will say that I don't disagree with any of the criteria the magazine uses.  But my personal criteria would add a few.  

So IF this explanation allows me to participate in this thread, well... here goes:

1. I too would, have, and will, go out of my way big time to play courses that have hosted majors.  There's just a certain fun one can have at those, and a certain coolness one feels at those - walking in the footsteps of one's idols - that doesn't happen at courses that haven't hosted these events.  To a lesser degree I also seek out courses that have hosted regular tour events, or USGA amateur events, or other sites where I can walk in the footsteps.  This matters to me, and I find it matters to damn near every other golfer I know as well, or at least those who haven't played so many of these as to lose the thrill.

2. I honestly could care less if a course is walkable by me, a 41 year old overweight guy.  To me it's about the shots.  Allowing a nice walk is a definite positive but it is certainly not a requirement.  But I've only made that point on here about 1000 times already.   ;)

3. I do like nice scenery, always have, always will.  And by that I mean both on the course and looking out from it.  Give me a course by big water and I don't care how bad some might find the "architecture", I'm gonna be pretty happy.  Give me a true links, whether the ocean is in view or not, and I'm gonna be a happy boy as well as the look of those just thrills me for some reason.  I for one don't play with my eyes closed and it continues to amaze me how some people say the views don't matter....

Basically anything else I could say is already covered in the GD criteria, so I suppose I'll stop now.

But if I don't count here, well... I'll delete this post.  Your call, John.

 ;D
 

Just try to delete it now....I own it my friend.  I personally am a huge supporter of the tradition and walking points on the Golf Digest list....even though they cost the course I am a member approximately 35 places on the list.....
« Last Edit: November 23, 2004, 09:51:25 AM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2004, 09:50:37 AM »
John

It seems to me that criteria for greatness (ie favorite courses for the most part) is extremely subjective.  I personally only count the course itself as perhaps half the total criteria.  Other criteria include:
1. Beauty
2. The quality of the club, is it historic?
3. The location of the club?  Is the town worth visiting?  A   man must eat and drink.
4. Price, which is rarely mentioned for greatness.

There are several Open courses that I don't think measure up to many lesser known courses.  I would rather play North Berwick than Royal Liverpool, Carnoustie, Portmarnock, Turnberry etc.  I can concede that Turnberry etc. are better courses than N.B., but not greater!

Ciao

Sean

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2004, 09:56:40 AM »
John - GW and GD don't do international lists...

JC,

GD does do international lists.  They rank the best
courses in every country in the world with more than a few
courses:  link here

THuckaby2

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2004, 10:11:01 AM »
JK - you got me, brother!

And yes, I too agree with the tradition and walking criteria that GD uses... as I say walking to me is a positive, but not a requirement... and that's how GD does it.. But my apologies, I have made this more about rating than it is surely intended to be.

OK, I'm gonna add another thing:  I do enjoy pretty cart girls.  My playing partners in Georgia can vouch for that.  It's fun being a fat old married guy and thus having the courage to talk to girls I would have been afraid to approach as a single man.

 ;D ;D ;D


JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2004, 10:13:40 AM »
Huck,

I have trouble calling a course great that has either cart girls or rangers.....they are deal breakers...

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2004, 10:20:34 AM »
Okay KB try this criteria...

1. Beauty of the course and the surrounding enviroment, i.e  does the course fir the terrain and surrounding area?

2.  The flow of the course..it must be walker friendly..or qiute simply it does not flow

3.  Tradition

4.  Originality of design, including any unique quirks that ENHANCE the overall experience.

5.  Cost...marginal concern


6.  Course conditioning, goes toward showing how the club members feel about the game..and the game is all that matters

The ultimate decider for me, is simply will I relish the opportunity to play it again, NOT SIMPLY PLAY IT AGAIN BUT BE EXCITED TO DO SO!!
If I stay awake at night wondering how the course could be improved, it must be good..because usually I know it could be improved.

How many courses fulfill my criteria?
So far about 20 or so..we English can be picky bastards...

THuckaby2

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2004, 10:28:09 AM »
Huck,

I have trouble calling a course great that has either cart girls or rangers.....they are deal breakers...

Those are not deal breakers for me in terms of the fun I have playing golf... but I know what you mean.  In my world normal golf world, each can certainly be a positive.  But when we are getting down to true definitions of greatness... well... the really, really great courses tend to not have either, and for good reason.

So well said, my friend.  You are right.

TH

JakaB

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2004, 11:22:06 AM »
A course that has a locker room for members with a different smaller less appointed locker room for guests...has a deal breaker right there.    If you share your course and not your johns you got some kinda priorities mixed up...

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2004, 11:49:17 AM »
How does the beverage cart girl diminish the greatness of a Redan or Biarritz?  NGLA could put a fleet of beverage cart girls out there and the GCA love-fest with that course would continue unabated.

Come on now.  This thinking is along the lines of the recent Shadow Creek "experience" discussion.  

THuckaby2

Re:A Web Site Pundits Guide to Rating Golf Courses...No Raters Allowed..
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2004, 11:54:54 AM »
How does the beverage cart girl diminish the greatness of a Redan or Biarritz?  NGLA could put a fleet of beverage cart girls out there and the GCA love-fest with that course would continue unabated.

Come on now.  This thinking is along the lines of the recent Shadow Creek "experience" discussion.  

Gary - it's getting toward that type of discussion likely because I stuck my nose in here.

But the point isn't that the presence of cart girls is a negative - hell they are damn near always a positive as they sure were down in Georgia, and as you saw I started out by citing them as a positive.  But JK's succinct post made me rethink this... and I think the point is more that the REALLY REALLY great courses tend to be the old traditional ones at which cart girls just don't appear... they don't need to... one's mind and heart and eyes and soul are so enraptured by the course itself that one might not even notice the cart girls if they did appear.

Another point is the really really really truly great courses don't tend to have carts, or noticeable cart paths...

NGLA is like this.
Shinnecock.
Winged Foot.
Damn near everywhere in the UK and Ireland (although buggies are starting to appear, dammit).
The list can be a long one.

TH

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back