A new scale to measure greatness in architecture

[Alex_Wyatt]

As I wandered around one of America's great modern parkland courses, I was struck by how bored I was. The lack of options of approach.  The inability to recover from thick rough off the fairway or around the greens. The dictation of strategy by the design...it struck me that what I didn't like was how profoundly the course deviated from what I like best....SCOTLAND (and England and Wales and Ireland). So, here is my attempt at a new scale.  8 points. A course either gets a point or it doesn't for each criterion.

1. Is it generally firm and fast.
2. Does it not have too many trees.
3. Is the wind generally a factor.
4. Does it have central hazards.
5. Do the greens accept aerial and ground approaches.
6. Are the fairways wide.
7. Are there recovery options if one misses greens.
8. Is it fun to play.

For example...NGLA
 8 out of 8

Bear's Club
4 out of 8

What do you guys think?

[Craig Sweet]

No offense, but "firm and fast" is not always best, nor even good.

The wind blows all the time at some locations, and hardly ever at others.

Wide fairways...well....some courses have wide fairways solely for speeding up play....

I think the ONLY real good criterion on your list is....."Is it fun to play?"

[Tom Huckaby]

Alex:

I think it's a cool scale to measure golf courses as they meet or fail to meet what YOU want to find... and I tend to agree with all 8 criteria myself...

But I think you will find plenty of golfers - in fact the vast majority - who won't agree with the value of some of them.  In fact, for the great unwashed masses, it would go like this:

1. Is it generally firm and fast.
what are you kidding?  I want my ball to stop where I hit it.  OK sure we want the greens fast and true, but we want them soft also.

2. Does it not have too many trees.
What?  Golf courses don't exist without trees.

3. Is the wind generally a factor.
Are you nuts?  OK sure if it's with me and helps my massive drives, great.  But anything other than that and it screws me up.

4. Does it have central hazards.
You've really lost it now.  Like I want more crap in my way.

5. Do the greens accept aerial and ground approaches.
Now I know you're ready for the looney bin.  Who the hell wants to do that?  I'm throwing darts, baby.

6. Are the fairways wide.
Love ya for that.  Hell yes, we want airport runways.

7. Are there recovery options if one misses greens.
Now you're talking -who ghost-wrote those first few for you?

8. Is it fun to play.
Darn right - I want to shoot 15 shots under my handicap and that's my idea of fun.  Also make sure there are hot cart girls.


See my point?

Anyway, I like your 8 point scale, works for me.  I too favor links courses over tree-lined big time, and all the rest is what I tend to like also.  I'd just not expect many to agree with the scale outside of this forum.

TH

[Alex_Wyatt]

Craig, I disagree. Firm is always better than soft.  Always. Because more can happen to a ball that bounces, both good and bad. And strategy off the tee is virtually impossible without width . A course can be good with narrow fairways, but the best courses don't have narrow fairways. Golf without wind can be fun, but its less challenging and less interesting than golf with wind.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Some people would rather play Winged Foot than Shinnecock, (I would rather play them BOTH, A LOT)...but anyway, isn't it more interesting at the latter. Look at the courses that dominate the Golfweek Modern List. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes and Friar's Head are all certainly 8s.  

BillV, what you are saying is true, but does that invalidate the criteria? Everybody can't have Muirifield, sometimes all you can have is Muirfield Village, but Muirfield is better, isn't it?

[Craig Sweet]

alex...firm and fast conditions can drive a course right to the edge....and once on the edge it does not take much to push it over the edge....firm and fast can be shot to hell quickly if it starts to rain...so you play and you think the course was a tad slow/wet...does that in anyway diminish the greatness of the course? I don't think so....it just happened to be the conditions that day....

The same applies to the wind....personally, I tire of the wind.

I think there's way to many variables when it comes to fairway width...perhaps the strategy designed into the course called for more angles and options off the tee...so wide is good.....perhaps the design strategy places a premium on accuracy off the tee....then wide is not so good....

[Tom Huckaby]

Methinks the esteemed man of redan nails this.  This is one version of good - one which we seem to agree on, btw - but it's certainly not the only version of good.

In fact I can think of a truly great course that really only gets 2-3 yesses... Olympic Lake...

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Unfortunately, some of what most of you would consider the worst courses in the world would rank 6 or 7 on this scale. Take a cheap course in a small town in the plains. It will be totally flat, windy, treeless, and lacking central hazards. If you are of the opinion that golf is always fun, it gets a 7. If you are of the opinion that the course determines the fun, it gets a 6. Not quite the same as 8s and 9s on the Doak scale.

[George Pazin]

I, too, am curious to know when firm and fast isn't good. Seems to me it would only be bad if the course was poorly designed.

I like your criteria a lot, Alex. I think Huck underestimates the masses. I've played with a lot of regular golfers on baked out dog tracks who had a ball, even into the wind. I think the people that really prefer soft, not wind, etc., are poseur low handicappers who want to maintain artificially low handicaps.

Who likes parkland courses, anyway?

[George Pazin]

Unfortunately, some of what most of you would consider the worst courses in the world would rank 6 or 7 on this scale. Take a cheap course in a small town in the plains. It will be totally flat, windy, treeless, and lacking central hazards. If you are of the opinion that golf is always fun, it gets a 7. If you are of the opinion that the course determines the fun, it gets a 6. Not quite the same as 8s and 9s on the Doak scale.

I think I'd rather play the cheap course you describe than a lot of modern parkland layouts.

[Alex_Wyatt]

Interesting comment about the Lake course.  When its not set up for the US open (and there is an implicit criticism here about USGA setups) which tests does it fail? I have only been there a couple of times and not recently.

[Ryan Farrow]

I, too, am curious to know when firm and fast isn't good. Seems to me it would only be bad if the course was poorly designed.

I like your criteria a lot, Alex. I think Huck underestimates the masses. I've played with a lot of regular golfers on baked out dog tracks who had a ball, even into the wind. I think the people that really prefer soft, not wind, etc., are poseur low handicappers who want to maintain artificially low handicaps.

Who likes parkland courses, anyway?

I too did not enjoy playing in wind until I really played in some ridiculous wind. 3, 3 woods to reach a 495 yard par 5, now that was fun. The whole while I was playing the hole I could not wait until I got to the next tee to drive my ball over 320 yards. Then I birdied it. Wind really adds some fun to a course especially if its one you play quite often. Then when the wind picks up to 25-30 mph you get an entirely different course. Wind will be loved by all when they finally get a chance to play in some real wind.

[Chris Kane]

Royal Melbourne West would get 7 (the single central hazard on 4 isn't in play), while St Andrews Beach gets 8.  We all know which is the better course.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - the masses I know are all about conditions and cart girls and achieving a good score.  Very few have low handicaps.  We must hang with different crowds.  

Alex - here's how I'd asses Olympic Lake using your scale.  And note I mean none of this as any offense to the course - it is FANTASTIC - it just doesn't really meet what this scale is looking for.

1. Is it generally firm and fast.
No.  It is definitely more so than it ever has been, but it's never going to be links golf.

2. Does it not have too many trees.
Again less than ever after recent cutting, but still it is in a forest.

3. Is the wind generally a factor.
Sometimes.  But that's surely not what makes or breaks the course.

4. Does it have central hazards.
No.

5. Do the greens accept aerial and ground approaches.
Again, more than ever before, but still an aerial game works best.

6. Are the fairways wide.
Nope.

7. Are there recovery options if one misses greens.
Options?  I guess so... but I wouldn't single this out as a strength.  In most cases it's miss green, LW it back on.

8. Is it fun to play.
Absolutely, without a doubt.  But it is difficult, and it's not links golf.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

As I wandered around one of America's great modern parkland courses, I was struck by how bored I was. The lack of options of approach.  The inability to recover from thick rough off the fairway or around the greens. The dictation of strategy by the design...it struck me that what I didn't like was how profoundly the course deviated from what I like best....SCOTLAND (and England and Wales and Ireland). So, here is my attempt at a new scale.  8 points. A course either gets a point or it doesn't for each criterion.

1. Is it generally firm and fast.
2. Does it not have too many trees.
3. Is the wind generally a factor.
4. Does it have central hazards.
5. Do the greens accept aerial and ground approaches.
6. Are the fairways wide.
7. Are there recovery options if one misses greens.
8. Is it fun to play.

For example...NGLA
 8 out of 8

Bear's Club
4 out of 8

What do you guys think?

Alex,
I think your scale has a lot of merit and I'm always intruiged to read new/different ideas on how to "rate" courses. I have my own personally that's a different take on the various magazines criteria.  If your scale works for you, then I think that's the important thing.

That said, your scale wouldn't do me much good (just as mine might not do much good for you). I happen to have opposite views from most on here regarding wind and trees. Whereas a lot of people prefer minimal trees and a healthy breeze; I prefer a healthy amount of trees and minimal breeze...I think the game is hard enough and interesting enough as is without needing to make it harder. I like the wind sometimes, and certainly play in it enough, but I quite frankly like nice sunny days sometimes where I don't have to worry about knockdowns and run-ups etc. I think trees make a course more aesthetically pleasing, but that's just personal preference

As far as central hazards and wide fairways, I think both are good things, but they're not the only way to go. I usually aim at central hazards and swing real hard, knowing I never then will actually hit it in there...it works a heck of a lot better than aiming at the fairway when there's problems on both sides. Doesn't add much strategy for me I guess  I wouldn't rate a course based on them personally.

I think recovery options, a mix of options, and the capability of playing fast and firm are good thoughts. Your last one again to me is the only one that REALLY matters for any course, but I don't think that "fun" is a yes/no situation. I think just about any golf course is fun, but some much more than others.

[Andy Troeger]

Some people would rather play Winged Foot than Shinnecock, (I would rather play them BOTH, A LOT)...but anyway, isn't it more interesting at the latter. Look at the courses that dominate the Golfweek Modern List. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes and Friar's Head are all certainly 8s.  

BillV, what you are saying is true, but does that invalidate the criteria? Everybody can't have Muirifield, sometimes all you can have is Muirfield Village, but Muirfield is better, isn't it?

Having not played either one nor knowing which one is "better," with time and expense being equal I'd rather get a shot at Muirfield Village.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Trees make the modern player shape the ball. Personally I like the hole that says - hit it straight to here, but if you can draw (or fade) the ball, with control, you can advance the ball further, closer to green, and still be in the fairway.

[Wayne Freeman]

Alex-  if you're panning the "O" club, man do I feel sorry for you.  It's called the "longest short course" for a reason-  it will almost never play firm and fast, and all the trees frame the course so beautifully and make it so majestic.  It is one of the purest golf courses requiring precise shotmaking to be properly rewarded. A lot of people must love it, myself included, for it to be a perennial top 50 in the world.  
    Trying to pigeonhole all courses into your scale limits your experiences in so many ways;  it's like only liking women like Heather Locklear (which ain't all bad)-  it's still nice to enjoy Nicole Kidman (tall),  Eva Longoria (brunet)-  you get the point.  

[Marc Haring]

Alex

I really like the list. In fact it pretty much encompasses what I am trying to achieve on my course. Much of it is dependant on a good superintendent and committee as much as a gca.

I would add on variety on maybe a couple of holes because I do agree with Lloyd to a certain extent. On a parkland course you could have a hole or two that would benefit a shot shaped around a tree but the same effect could be achieved through slopes on the fairways against the dogleg eg. #17 Wentworth.

I just compared the list against The Belfry where the British Masters has just been played. I’m not sure but I think it registers a big fat zero.

[Walt Cutshall]

The original list is certainly interesting to think about, but as many have pointed out, you may not be able to effectively apply it across the board.

Personally, I appreciate courses that are fun and fair. I also like challenging courses.

To me, fairness is a huge component of the quality of the design. Does a course penalize well struck shots? If I take a reasonably conservative line, and strike a 4 iron 20' off line, am I severely penalized? If I am, and this happens repeatedly on a course, then I am going to take a very dim view of the course. This is different than being presented with a very hard golf shot a few times a round. I think David Duval said it best: "Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and hit the golf shot."

I don't think I agree with the item about trees. There are many great parkland courses that are great in large part because of the way trees shape the holes. And how do you quantify "too many?"

The list certainly is a good starting point for thoughtful discussion.

[Alex_Wyatt]

What's too many trees? When a shot that appears to be obviously allowable, is no longer so due to trees. Winged Foot has a lot of trees left, but I don't think it has too many.
Wayne, this list has nothing to do with olympic lake in particular, though I would give it a 5 or so, not the 2 or 3 we see here.

Let's add two more criteria to make it a full ten.

Walkable?
Interesting, but not over the top greens.

Now we have a 1-10.

[Tags:]

Tags: