The Rush to Judgment

[Tom_Doak]

I like Brent's idea ... just a separate thread about the "official discussion of" such-and-such a course, where people who haven't seen the course were welcome to read, but not to post, except (maybe) to ask questions.

I'll try to start one in the next few days to see if it works.

Note that I did NOT say anywhere in my post that no one should ever compare one course to another, nor that rankings should be banished from the face of the earth, those were other people's agendas.  The next rankings are going to be pretty big for us; this is the last time I would want to ban them.

[TEPaul]

"Why don't you openly let us know how much you loathe (and suggest that we burn all copies of) The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses and ban use of the Doak scale?  Same thing."

redanman:

Because I don't loathe The Confidential Guide and Doak's Scale (if done by Doak) at all. That's the kind of thing I do like. Tom Doak wrote about the architecture of each course  in and of itself. That's what I think should be done. Much more of that should be done. That gives someone who goes to a course something to relate to. Frankly, reading through The Confidential Guide I pretty much agree with Tom Doak's take on things, particularly my own golf course. Of course if he'd been able to critique every hole of every course he reviewed that would've been ideal to me but obviously that would've been too time consuming---he'd probably still be at it.  

That's not the same thing as a magazine with 800 panelists none of whom seem to understand their own critieria or agree with what the editors or whomever to do it. Plus it's just a progression of numbers with little in the way of course by course architectural discription. What does a student of architecture do with that?

"Wow this 7th hole sure is representative of a #43 course--I sure learned something about architecture here."

That's a waste of time. It's crap.

"TEPAUL, I agree, rankings are silly. Absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I suggested we might as well rank Interstate Highways.
If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why."

Craig:

Precisely, particularly the "why" of it. At least that tells others something they can relata to.  

[tonyt]

I often review golf courses on an Australian website. I know that the review will be at its best if posted within 48 hours of my playing there. So I'd hate for the format, timing, and other elements of my comments to have to conform to some type of formula.

Also, I despise the notion that comments have to come from those who have played a course. Among those who's views on here I've learnt to trust and respect, those that haven't played somewhere and won't know things about it are no less likely to make insightful comment, challenge the comments of those who have or add valuable content to the thread than some people who have played it. So I couldn't disagree more. And at the end of the day, one can choose for themselves how to receive comment from posters based on their experience of the course or lack thereof.

And finally, a single playing of a golf course under certain circumstances can leave almost futile recollection compared with one at other times, or even better, multiple rounds. I am often ready to throw my hands in the air in dispair over the status bestowed upon somebody who has played a course once. Their word is NOT uniformly a lot greater as a result. That said, it shouldn't preclude people from comment (what more can you expect of them if the course is a long way from home?).

So in a nutshell, let all considered comment made in good faith be received with at least the respect it deserves.

[Jack_Marr]

I've enjoyed just about every course I've played, except Bundoran.  I doubt we'll find 10 people here who have played that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Nice idea, not gonna happen!

For what we would gain (perhaps civility) we would lose more - the free form structure of any message board is both its strength and weakness, just as the unpredictability of democratic processes is its strength and weakness.  For better or worse, (in anyones individual opinion) the people will speak.

We could perhaps achieve "better" discussions if someone like Brad Klein or Dan Kelly could post a guide to post editing and some one else could provide some basic rules for etiquette in dialogue.  (I am thinking of the old saw of using "I" statements, like "I didn't care for XXX" rather than "You should know that...." or that "gca should have.....". Its also a good idea to avoid always and never statements.  Things like that.

If followed, we should be able to discuss our favorite topic without too many structural limitations, IHMO>

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  I'm still gonna try it.

Tony:  I disagree with your point about writing a course review within 48 hours after playing it.  A lot of my best reviews in The Confidential Guide weren't written until 3-4 years after I played those courses.  The time lag really helped me be short and to the point in identifying what things made those courses stand out from the crowd, or not.

I could not have written about every hole at that point, I probably couldn't even remember them all by then.  (I certainly can't remember every hole of every course today.)  But it is seldom that every hole on a course is worth talking about ... and if they are, I'll remember them just fine.

To each his own, I guess.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Knock yourself out!

[paul cowley]

 OK....kinda feels like a torch me day, so why not..

  Maybe a limited pool of say around 1500 people could be organized to provide user ratings of courses they have played.

  Maybe they could use a scale something like the Confidential Guide as a means to tally their impressions of a course.

  Maybe these 'scores' could be used to calculate an average score for courses played and posted on a section of a website.

  Maybe there could also be a space for user comments on courses they have posted [kinda like GolfCourse .com].

  Maybe this pool of information could be part of a larger website dedicated to golf design and related topics.

  Maybe courses achieving a consistant high average could be profiled by people within the group and included in a seperate section of the website.

....and then MAYBE this website could have another section within it to discuss the merits, faults, what you like about these or any courses, or who or what you hate or like generally, about anything related to, or totally off topic about golf and life.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Hobbies and professions are two different things and the hobbyist is not going to put the same time, effort, and study into a subject as a dedicated professional. When it comes to critiquing golf courses it's doubtful that many here will ever measure up to a Tom Doak. That's not hero worship, that's just the difference between those of us who enjoy studying golf courses and those who participate here who have dedicated their professional lives to studying and creating golf courses.

The hardest part about being a Superintendent is dealing with folks who don't really understand what I do, but think they know all there is about golf course management. I would guess it's the same in every line of work.

[Brent Hutto]

You know what's the most useful and interesting review of a golf course? A detailed description, in words and not numbers, of what the reviewer liked and did not like about the course, written by someone whose opinion I know how to value.

Whose opinions do I value? Ideally someone who has played and reviewed courses that I have also played. If I know that Mr. Xxxxxxx has certain issues with Cuscowilla that didn't bother me in the least when I played there, I tend to discount any similar complaints that he might have about another course that I haven't seen. If someone else happens to mention liking the elevated or plateau greens at the Ocean Course, well I liked that about it too.

Another source of valued opinions is someone like Tom Doak or Ron Whitten who have written dozens or scores of reviews that I've read. I've got a pretty good idea what ideas of theirs I agree with or not and that makes their review of a course useful (even if my opinion of the same course would be very different).

But the bottom line is that hearing good features praised and disappointing features criticised makes for an informative piece of writing. Seeing a bunch of numbers, whether from an individual or a collection of raters, is pretty much useless and boring from my perspective.

[paul cowley]

...oh and Craig, sorry, but they already do rank Interstates.

...and I'm proud to report that my home state of Georgia ranks #1 , of the states needing the least repair of existing pavement or bridges as well as putting new stuff on line before its a crisis.....

[TEPaul]

"A lot of my best reviews in The Confidential Guide weren't written until 3-4 years after I played those courses.  The time lag really helped me be short and to the point in identifying what things made those courses stand out from the crowd, or not."

TomD:

Yeah, but that's probably because you have almost total visual recall---I've heard that about you from about five different sources---a most handy thing to have, no doubt, for a golf course architect. Talk about the ability to store and then pull back out of the old "mental inventory" all kinds of interesting things both general and specific.

Me, I can't even remember where I was 3-4 years ago.

[TEPaul]

"...and I'm proud to report that my home state of Georgia ranks #1 , of the states needing the least repair of existing pavement or bridges as well as putting new stuff on line before its a crisis....."

Paul:

If my state, Pennsylvania, doesn't rank last I'd be shocked!  

There's always at least 100 miles somewhere on the app 330 mile long Pa Turnpike that's under construction.

[Andy Doyle]

AG:

Good observation r.e. regional interest.  It's not only a big country, it's a big world.  I will have to confess having probably less than passing interest in courses in parts of the country (or world) that I will very likely never come near.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that not too many people would be interested in ducking off I-75 in Valdosta to play a housing development course designed by some Tour pro.  (As an aside - after 3 tries I finally got to play the entire front 9 last Sunday on a trip back from Florida).

I have not had a chance to play Arrowhead Pt., but I have heard/read that there are some really good courses at some of the state parks.  Been too busy lately, but I have a list of places I'm trying to get to - including Cateechee.  I recently had a chance to play all of the Reynold's Plantation courses for the first time: Plantation, Great Waters, The National, The Oconee and Port Armour.  Pretty interesting, but of course, most of the discussion here centers on Cuscowilla.

AD

[paul cowley]

 I'm surprised that there is no interest [either for or against] post #36....maybe its been discussed too much.
 I guess what appeals to me about a GCA user /raters section is the base of knowledgeable people that exist here already.... a section for user /ratings would provide a more structured format where one could easily tally and note their impressions of a course....the DG wouldn't change.
 

[TEPaul]

Paul:

There probably isn't much interest in your post #36 because it makes too much sense.