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.


cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2006, 08:12:37 PM »
I played LaCosta many times before they inserted another 9 after the 3rd or 4th hole and ruined it.

I say if you cannot play it, it is a fiction
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Matt_Sullivan

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2006, 08:51:54 PM »
As previous posters have said, the members at RM play the composite a couple of times a year;  and the purpose of the composite is to keep tournament play on the main padock. Like other posters, I agree that if they rated RMW it would end up in much the same spot on the world rankings as the composite.

In rankings published by Australian magazines, the composite is generally not ranked. The fact that overseas magazines rank the composite suggests a bias in favour of tournament courses and, perhaps, rankers ranking from TV or reputation, not from playing it.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2006, 10:38:37 PM »
Maybe its semantics, but heres another semi crazy idea if you want to rank courses "you can't play." Rank NLE's right in with the ones still standing, a la Lido just for fun.  Hell, if you need to rank em even if you can't play them, why not?

I guess the only problem would be is the mag wouldn't get any advertising dollars.  Still, a separate list of NLE might be fun, but even more fun to see where they might rank if still extant.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2006, 12:46:59 AM »
I wonder how many of the people on the panels have actually played RM Composite, which they rank so highly.

George Blunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2006, 01:24:38 AM »
Pat,

To answer one of your specific questions, in my opinion the ease and initmacy of routing score for RM Composite would be higher than for the West or the East.  

No roads would need to be crossed, and the walk between tees would be pretty much the same.

Regards,

George




Paul_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2006, 04:31:18 AM »
Patrick: a great thread, I agree entirely with your premise.

RMGC West is the best course in Australia and should be the one being rated, not the Composite Course. We all love the latter creation to bits, but let's not forget: it is not a golf course, doesn't actually exist ... and was initially concocted to accomodate the 1959 Canada Cup. I've always been slightly bemused how something that doesn't exist can be rated.

But if the world rating system could be fixed, RM's world rating (as single-course entity) would deserve to improve by 1-2 spots. I'm not implying it should improve its rating because it is better than the Composite Course - crickey, hardly anything is - but rather because it is a bona-fide course being scrutinised. My counter-intuitive hunch is that raters sub-consciously downgrade RM's Composite Course. No shred of evidence: no rater would admit to such!
 
 

ForkaB

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2006, 05:09:50 AM »
The question is a good one and the answer is "no!"--for all the reasons above and more.  In addition, 27-hole courses should be required to designate two 9's for rating purposes.  Also, as suggested above, a 3rd category of courses (Fantasy) should be added to the fray--including Composite, NLE and "Just too, too private, Dahling" courses--to accomodate TCC, RM, Lido, Princes, Nanea, The Institute, etc., etc......

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2006, 06:14:15 AM »
How does a rater/ranker evaluate a course they cannot play unless its during competition?.....or do they just walk the composite holes and make notes while making air swings.  ???
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2006, 12:00:22 PM »
Paul Cowley,

My guess is that they play all three nines and perform an interpolation.

However, you can't play the combination 1st and 2nd hole on one nine during regular play, so, how do they evaluate that hole, and, I would doubt that guests are permited to play when special events are held at the club.

It's also doubtful that they could play the 2nd hole on one nine as a par 3 instead of in its normal form, a par 4.

But, the core of my question is:
How does TCC's score in category # 1, "ease and intimacy of routing" not take a real hit vis a vis the composite golf course ?

And, absent a composite golf course, wouldn't that component of the rating criteria generate a higher score ?

Leaving raters to consider the inclusion of holes # 9, 10 and 12, versus the inserted and altered holes.

I also wonder, if one gerrymandered Ridgewood to cull out the weak holes on a wonderful golf course and insert some stronger holes from one of the nines, would Ridgewood's ranking increase ?

Ridgewood's problem is that there aren't many, if any, weak holes on the West and Center nines, and as such, that's why it deserves a high ranking.

wsmorrison

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2006, 01:52:36 PM »
"How does TCC's score in category # 1, "ease and intimacy of routing" not take a real hit vis a vis the composite golf course ?"

Except for the 100+ yard walk between 9 and 10  and 50+ yard walk between 13 and 14 in TCC composite course, the routing is very intimate and easy with close tees and greens.  1-8 and 14-18 are from the 18-hole course.  I don't think it should be overly-penalized in an objective analysis.  Some deduction, yes.  But there are a lot of courses, especially modern, that have far worse walks green to tee.

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2006, 02:02:26 PM »
Mark,

The configuration of the holes would make it difficult, if not impossible for normal member play because you'd take out all three nines and only have 18 holes, not 27 available to the membership, thus, you'd limit availability, which can't be popular during the heart of the season.

But, again, that's not the issue.

The issue is how do the raters evaluate rating criteria # 1,
"ease and intimacy of routing" on the composite course.

Brad Klein,

What's TCC's score in that category ?

Pat,

I have never played TGC, so I am not going to pretend to comment on its routing.  I think I can answer your question as it relates to score though.  One of the major differences between Gd's rankings and GW's (Where you are getting the 7.97 from) is that the GW score is strictly the average score from the final column (Which is how you rate the course).  It is not an accumulated score from all columns.  Brad explains this in each issue.  Therefore, in theory, a course could get a 1 in Ease of Routing and still score a perfect 10.  In the GD system, this would be impossible as the 1 would affect the total.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 02:03:39 PM by David Wigler »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

TEPaul

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2006, 02:11:25 PM »
"But, return to the core issue, how on earth can TCC get a 7.97 rating if the course fails miserably in catergory
# 1, "ease and intimacy of routing" ?

The composite course is woefully lacking in ease and intimacy of routing, so how does it enjoy a score of 7.97 ?

Are the raters ignoring this category when it comes to TCC ?"

Patrick:

I thought you were asking if composite course should be ranked? What you said above seems to ask not if they should be ranked but if they are ranked correctly when they are ranked.

Those are two very different things.

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2006, 02:32:00 PM »
"But, return to the core issue, how on earth can TCC get a 7.97 rating if the course fails miserably in catergory
# 1, "ease and intimacy of routing" ?

The composite course is woefully lacking in ease and intimacy of routing, so how does it enjoy a score of 7.97 ?

Are the raters ignoring this category when it comes to TCC ?"


Tom,

I have not played the course, so I cannot comment on how the routing drags down the ranking as a whole but let me relate this to women.  

Back in the day, I would have fought to the death with anyone trying to give Cindy Crawford anything but a 10 and yet she clearly had a big facial mole.  Today the big two on the Wigler perfect 10 scale are Jessica Alba and Elisha Cuthbert.  The fact that Jessica's breasts are smaller than the usually Wigler 10 does not change her overall ranking.  In essence, one flaw can be overcame by unbelievable superiority in other areas (And in the case of TGC, it was ranked a 7.97, so a large part of the difference between 7.97 and 10 could be attributed to the routing).  Does that make sense or did I just drift off into fantasy land again?
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2006, 05:57:24 PM »
...pardon my ignorance, I obviously don't get out enough....but is TCC the Country Club in Brookline?....the same course where I enjoyed the Ryder Cup?...and was that competition played on the composite course?

Thank you in advance for your answers.
...and I don't feel that composite courses that are not played regularly outside competitions should be ranked.
...but if TOC was still played occasionally in reverse, I would consider that to qualify [although that would really be a different situation altogether].
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

wsmorrison

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2006, 06:35:45 PM »
Paul,

Yes, the TCC is Brookline.  Although there is another The Country Club--this one in Pepper Pike, Ohio.  Holes 1 through 8 are used in the composite course, hole 9 in championship play is hole 11, hole 10 in championship play is hole 13, hole 11 is a combination of 2 holes from the Primrose nine including hole 1 tee and fairway, hole 12 is hole 8 from the Primrose nine, hole 13 for championship play is hole 9 from the Primrose course, hole 14 through 18 in championship play correspond to holes 14 through 18.

This is one of the most complicated course evolutions we've ever come across.  I hope I remembered it right.  Tom Paul has outstanding spatial relations and he figured this out one night and it took awhile, but I finally got it too.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2006, 07:31:54 PM »
[zize=4x]
Except [/size]for the 100+ yard walk between 9 and 10

Wayne, that's big exception and a vast underestimate of the distance, the walk is more like 200+ yards to get to the next tee.  
You have to walk from the composite green # 11 to the old 12th tee, then the length of the old 12th hole, then to the 13th tee.  And, after playing # 13, over to # 1 on the next nine.  


and 50+ yard walk between 13 and 14 in TCC composite course, the routing is very intimate and easy with close tees and greens.  

You've forgotten or minimized the convoluted nature of the
combination of the 1st and 2nd hole on the other nine, it certainly doesn't fall into the "ease and intimacy" category.


1-8 and 14-18 are from the 18-hole course.  

You've also forgotten the walk to the par 3 tee on # 2 from the 1st green.  Not exactly easy and intimate, is it ?


I don't think it should be overly-penalized in an objective analysis.  Some deduction, yes.  

And when you make those deductions, the score of 7.97 will be reduced, which lowers the ranking, which was my point.


But there are a lot of courses, especially modern, that have far worse walks green to tee.

I'm not concerned or focused on them.

I'm focused on the blatant disregard of applying one of the rating criteria on a selective basis when it comes to TCC.


wsmorrison

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2006, 07:47:48 PM »
You are right, Pat.  I did forget the walk from 1 green to the forward tee on 2.  I don't think the walk between 9 and 10 is more than 150 yards, but I've never played the composite, just studied each hole individually and played the 18 and Primrose separately.

Good think I don't believe in rankings and therefore don't hold any of this quantitative mental masturbation in any regard.  But the course is played that way on a regular though infrequent basis, so an analysis of the composite isn't a waste of time, though a ranking of it is.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2006, 08:17:07 PM »
Wayne ...although in my deeper memory a little about the composite of TCC existed, the set up signage and flow barriers during the Ryder led me to think that the course was what was played regularly .....thanks for your insight.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

wsmorrison

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2006, 08:29:43 PM »
Paul,

That must have been one heck of a week.  I'd be surprised after all the partying you must have done at the end of the tournament that you remember much of anything  8)

You didn't fly to Cleveland only to find out you were at the wrong The Country Club did you?  That was a funny story you told about the Ryder Cup at Oakland Hills.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2006, 08:46:29 PM »
Wayne....shhhhh I'm still living that down... [and my girlfriend checks in here looking for me].
....I do plan on making it up to her when I say "darling, I just booked our tickets to Eire", and she says "lake?", and I then say "no, the other one"..... ;)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 08:48:48 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2006, 09:09:28 PM »
Wayne,

I happen to like TCC a great deal and think it should be highly ranked.

The composite golf course is merely a sterner test.

They've extracted easier, but interesting holes, and replaced them with harder holes.  They made a short par 4 a long par 3, and Frankensteined one hole which results in the combination of driving on a par 4, but playing your second shot from that fairway to the green of a nearby par 3.

TCC should be ranked as it was designed, built and plays.

I don't think they need to reference a harder, gimmickie golf course, the original one is fine as it is.

wsmorrison

Re:Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?
« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2006, 09:37:19 PM »
Paul,

Sorry 'bout that Bro.  I won't bring it up in a public forum  ;)

Pat,

It is hard to argue your points.  You make a reasonable case.