Rating courses....

[Yannick Pilon]

One of Tom Doak's posts on the thread "How many Doak points do you have" got me thinking.  

In his post, Tom says: "There's probably someone out there with more "Doak points" than me, because I have not played nearly all of the courses I rated myself.  I have probably only played 60-65% of the courses in the book."

Do you guys feel you can have a good understanding of a course without actually playing it?

Have any "raters" on this site rated or ranked courses for publicized rankings system without playing them?

Is this fair for the courses that are rated this way, if any?  (Oh no, I used the F word! )

Yannick

[ed_getka]

Playing the course is preferable, but I would rather hear about a walk through from someone who's opinion I value than not to hear about a course at all.

[Tom_Doak]

Yannick:

Some people aren't going to really understand the course unless they play.  Others will possibly understand it better, because they have time to look at the options instead of just where they happened to hit it.

It's impossible to get a clear picture of a course if you play badly, because you're always out of position and you are in a funk.  And you're probably unduly favorable toward a course if you happen to play it well, too -- or maybe it's just a coincidence that nearly every Open champion rates the course he won on among the world's top ten.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, good point about the inability to rate a course when you play badly.  When I rate a course for Golf Digest, I'll hit a couple of drives and a couple of shots to the green and then putt to different pin places. It also helps me focus on hitting better shots when I play with a member or one of the pros.  

[Joel_Stewart]

Not one panelist is going to admit they rated a course and didn't play it.  

I was told many years ago by a panelist that the first time you play a course you should always play it down the middle of the fairway.  If you hit it in the rough, just move it out.   I have tried to use that, and Winged Foot is the best example from my personal knowledge.  I played it all the way back which was a huge mistake and then played terrible and can hardly remember any hole.  

[Matt_Ward]

Yannick:

Rating courses requires a divorcing if you will of what you do personally when playting. Too often people will associate a rating with the outcome of their own game when playing. I do agree with those who have already stated that.

However, it takes a very a FINE eye to rate / evaluate a course without playing any golf shots. I don't like to base my conclusions when doing it from that perspective alone. For example -- I based some preliminary findings on two NJ courses that are either open or set to open with the likes of Bayonne GC and Liberty National GC respectively. I stated that my findings were nothing more than a quick glance and nothing more until I finally played them both.

While evalutations can be done by eye -- the ultimate mechanism to see actual outcomes from actual strokes played is the final barometer to see if what is designed does what it is supposed to do.

All in all, I plant my conclusion only after my actual playing a particular course. It's no different than people making a quick assessment of a movie from the trailer alone and bypassing the actual film in its entirety. You may be right much of the time but there will be clear instances when such findings are a good bit out of step from what a playing experience will indicate.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  Which part of my post was rubbish?  The part where I say some people can evaluate a course without playing it, or the part where I say that it's impossible to get a clear picture of a course if you play it badly?  

If it's the latter, there are plenty of people around who will insist that you can't get a clear picture until you have played a course multiple times in all weather conditions, blah, blah, blah ... and that may be true.  It's hard to miss whether a course is a 5 or an 8 after one round, but to say you really KNOW it, if you've played it once and not played well, is silly.  I'd be more inclined to believe you if you had just walked around.


Matt:  Your explanation is fine, BUT you assume that the person in question is the quality of player who is supposed to achieve the desired results.  This is where the ego of raters gets in the way.  

Let's say the rater cannot hold the ball on the green from the left rough on the first hole at Winged Foot.  Why does he assume that he was supposed to, or not supposed to?  The design intent may be to reward a 2-handicap but not the 14-handicap; but it may be to let the 14-handicap get away with that bad drive on the first tee, or it may be to not let anybody but Tiger Woods slide if they go left.  Nearly all raters judge courses based on their own game, and honestly believe that is who the course should be designed for.

[TEPaul]

"In his post, Tom says: "There's probably someone out there with more "Doak points" than me, because I have not played nearly all of the courses I rated myself.  I have probably only played 60-65% of the courses in the book."

You mean to tell me Tom Doak didn't play all the golf courses he rated and critiqued in his book----that he only played maybe 60-65% of those he rated??

Well, I'll be damned---I sure didn't know that.

That sure as hell sucks.

Another good reason all rating and ranking sucks. The only thing that pathetic endeavor is good for is a bunch of people (raters) trying to play golf courses they probably couldn't otherwise and for golf magazines to increase their sales.

I'd like to see the premier golf courses of this world start to ban raters from their courses and also refuse to condone any magazine's ranking of their golf course.

PVGC should start. They oughtta say: "Maybe we have been ranked #1 in the Nation and in the world for years but we'd like to be taken off the ranking lists for good."  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Nice try with your counterpoint but I'm not buying what you're saying 100%.

I simply said that a walk-thru of a course can be done but such findings are at best preliminary -- the final conclusions should be field tested with actual shots. I never said the person playing must play well or even count score. Dropping balls in any number of locations will give the person a better idea on what the architect was attempting to do.

I don't doubt your eye of the beholder comments (handicap level) in your last post. However, I generally play many of the courses I visit with a guy who sports a 17+ handicap and likely can't carry the ball in the air more than 200 yards. He and I play the game from two very different perspectives. I watch his game and see what tactics he tries to employ when playing. Ditto he with my game. We then discuss the playing angles, the reward / penalty dimensions, et al, of the course in question. In many cases we come to the same conclusion because the elasticity of the course is that good.

It's very easy to assume that all low handicap players simply don't get it when talking about the merits of the course from a high handicap perspective. That's quite easy to say but it's not applicable across the board as you did indicate with your "nearly all raters" statement.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  If all raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses, then why fault me for not insisting to play them all?

Mark:  Does your statement mean that all courses are of equal merit?

[Ryan Farrow]

I actually think the best way to rate a course is to walk it. You tend to pick up on more details. You get to see the hole at more angles and really take in your environment. Playing the game of golf is a pure crapshoot for most people. Even if you play 5 balls per hole I still don't think you will notice as much opposed to walking it.

I wonder if it is just me but when I slice the hell out of a ball off the tee I tend to do the same thing when I give it another whack.

Brings back memories of sending two balls into a Lexus dealership within 30 seconds of each other.  

[Voytek Wilczak]

I don't know how you can rate the greens without playing the course.

Everything else, yes, but the greens, no.

A true rater should BOTH play and walk the course.

[Jim Thompson]

Having gone through this process now I think I can chime in and make a recommendation.  Do your base ranking via forward and backward walkthroughs taking your time to hit a few bump and runs and maybe some putts.  Then play the course and enjoy it.  I wish all raters would put the same level of thought and analysis in their ratings as John Percival does.  I even wish they would use his approach.  He is by far the most thorough and truly thoughtful raters I have ever met and I respect his opinions, even the ones with which I disagree.  I wonder if we could get John on this site?

Cheers!
JT

[David_Madison]

I've never rated a course that I didn't play (I'm a Golf Digest panelist.) I'm a one-handicap, and hit it pretty long, so I'll almost always play from the back tees. I like to hit plenty of extra shots from different parts of fairways and from likely trouble. I rarely play with more than one other person, so I have time to hit the extra shots and look around, and I also try to play during non-peak hours. When I'm rating a course, there's really no such thing as playing well or playing poorly, as my score or how I  played doesn't much matter. When the pro allows, I'll play the course a couple of times, once exploring it as I've mentioned above, and then once to really play it for a score (which I'll also tend to do a bit more of when rating a course after the first time I've seen it, when I'm more focused on condition and how the course might change from time to time as conditions change.)

[Tom_Doak]

Well at least now I know how to start a riot at the GOLF DIGEST summit in December if I want to.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  If all raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses, then why fault me for not insisting to play them all?"

TomD:

I don't believe I said 'all' raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses. I believe I said 'a bunch of raters only goal....'.  

Frankly, of the 35-40% of the courses you DIDN'T play, I'd take your critique over most all of the 800 (or whatever) magazine raters most magazines do have who've played a course once, twice of even five times.

I'm sure you have a great eye for how a course may play even if you've never played it but I'd still make you write at least five comprehensive paragraphs about any course you didn't play just to see how your critique stacks up hole by hole to those who really do know a golf course---eg like its members.

I don't care how good any architect or rater is there is no conceivable way he can know the way holes of any course play compared to those who play it all the time.

Don't try to split hairs---you know that's true.  

[TEPaul]

"Well at least now I know how to start a riot at the GOLF DIGEST summit in December if I want to."

TomD:

Forget about a riot---what you or someone needs to start in the world of magazine ranking is a total f....ing revolution. In my opinion, magazine ranking doesn't hold a candle to something like your Confidential Guide which at least tells readers something they both would like to know and need to know about architecture (even if you didn't play 35-40%  of the courses you critiqued in your Confidential Guide).

I'd endorse magazine rankings if the magazine, the editor or whoever it is who's responsible for the ratings and rankings of the magazine wrote a comprehensive critique of WHY any course's architecture was good, indifferent or bad---and I mean hole by hole!!

Oh right, I know, I've heard it a million times----eg golfers aren't interested in reading about architecture etc, etc, etc.

Just show them a list of names and numbers with no real architectural information as to why and why not something is good, indifferent or bad.

Face it, ranking, the way magazines are doing it today suck----there's just no question of it.    
 
 

[TEPaul]

"I don't doubt your eye of the beholder comments (handicap level) in your last post. However, I generally play many of the courses I visit with a guy who sports a 17+ handicap and likely can't carry the ball in the air more than 200 yards. He and I play the game from two very different perspectives. I watch his game and see what tactics he tries to employ when playing. Ditto he with my game. We then discuss the playing angles, the reward / penalty dimensions, et al, of the course in question. In many cases we come to the same conclusion because the elasticity of the course is that good.
It's very easy to assume that all low handicap players simply don't get it when talking about the merits of the course from a high handicap perspective. That's quite easy to say but it's not applicable across the board as you did indicate with your "nearly all raters" statement."

Matt Ward:

You can try to sell that crap to others but you ain't gonna sell it to me and plenty of others on here.

You think you can go out on some golf course one time with a 17 handicapper, and you observe his game and he observes yours, and then you sit down and discuss it and come up with an intelligent and comprehensive rating or ranking of a golf course??? Do you look for a 17 handicapper who knows something about golf architecture too or is that unimportant??  

I'm not criticizing you as a rater/ranker per se, Matt----I'm just saying rating and ranking sucks. Do you really think you know any golf course you've played once even 10-20% as well as someone who's played the course 50-100-400 times??  

No way. What you need to do on the reality of magazine rankings, which is bullshit no matter how you slice it, is learn to smell the coffee.  

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  I do agree with most of what you say above, including that magazine rankings suck.  

I've made it a point to write in any of our consulting reports that there is no way I can know how the course plays as well as most of the members who have played it hundreds of times, but that sometimes a fresh eye can point out a few things which have just been accepted without question by the members.

Just do not make me write hole-by-hole descriptions of golf courses because there are only a few courses in the world which deserve such in-depth treatment.  Most courses have only a few holes of real note, and for the rest a general ranking is enough -- that's why The Confidential Guide worked, although Bernard Darwin had proven that point well before I was born.  

One of the hardest parts of writing the book was in condensing my ideas about courses I had recently seen, so they wouldn't get much bigger and wordier reviews than the ones I'd seen ten years earlier.  Ran seems to have the same problem on this site  -- his early reviews were more to the point but now he seems compelled to narrate about 15 holes out of 18.  I don't believe for a minute that the subject courses are any better, he's just getting lazy at editing himself as we all do!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom:  I do agree with most of what you say above, including that magazine rankings suck."

TomD:

You do?? Are you serious? Well, in that case I completely rest my case on rating and ranking. And furthermore, I'm taking that quote above and memorializing it on here until Kingdom Come.

Look, I know you know that most of what I constantly say about rating and ranking is just putting you (and others on). However, that does NOT mean I'm ever going to be a big fan of rating and ranking.

How can you deny that if someone (anyone) who knows golf course architecture could both come to REALLY understand the great golf courses of this world and also write comprehensively about why they, their holes and the nuances of their holes are good, indifferent or bad it would be the best reference and education any and all of us could possibly have?

Don't bother to explain again why that doesn't happen---I've heard it too many times. And that's why I say it should be done right or not done at all.

That's why I like your book so much better than magazine rankings---at least you took the time and effort to WRITE relatively comprehensively about the architecture of the courses and their holes.

[PThomas]

Tom:  you criticize magazine rankings...yet you headed up the GOLF mag panel for years!  

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:  And I'm still part of that panel (I think), and I've got a couple or three courses ranked somewhere or other.  But magazine ratings still suck.  They are right up there with political polls; they don't explain anything, but they wreak great havoc by failing to inspire true leadership.

Mark B:  I have always maintained that the true mark of greatness in a golf course is that it has a character of its own, and usually that character is a byproduct of its location and topography and vegetation.  But if you haven't noticed, a lot of golf courses fall completely short of that mark, and some stand out a lot more than others:  Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, St. Andrews.  No other course is anything like them.  That's why they're great.

[Mark Leo]

This thread proves a long-argued point on this site that rankings don't mean anything.  No matter which magazine you choose, book, etc.  THEY DO MEAN A LOT.  Just look at the passion in this thread....

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:  They matter a lot to a handful of architects, and to all the architects who aren't getting rich off rankings as well.  But I would have to disagree that they MEAN anything.  Just because something provokes argument doesn't make it meaningful -- did you ever watch Jerry Springer?    

[ForkaB]

I have always maintained that the true mark of greatness in a golf course is that it has a character of its own, and usually that character is a byproduct of its location and topography and vegetation.  But if you haven't noticed, a lot of golf courses fall completely short of that mark, and some stand out a lot more than others:  Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, St. Andrews.  No other course is anything like them.  That's why they're great.

Tom

I'll give you TOC (because of the greens) and Pine Valley (because it is the conventional wisdom to say so), but Merion and Shinecock don't really stand out in terms of look and feel and playability.  In those regards they have lots of peers (for Merion, look at any Doak 7+ USA parkland course, for Shinnecock, look at the UK, or even Bandon Dunes.... ).  They each have a unique and pervasive history on their side, but that should be irrelevant, no?

Also, if uniqueness=greatness, then put Painswick, Stone Harbor and Old Head up in that pantheon of yours!

Rich