Rating courses....

[Mike_Sweeney]

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

Rich,

For Merion, I would probably split the difference between you and Tom due to the quarry holes at Merion. They are unique, at least to me. Winchester does not have those.  

Should Victoria National make this uniqueness = greatness category. I have never been there, but those pictues are very unique and Barney's Golf Digest buddies seem to think it is great.

[ForkaB]

Mike

I strongly doubt that Merion is the only 7+ course in the eastern USA with "quarry" holes.  In any case, to me the essence of the character of Merion is in the previous 15 holes, particularly the greens.  16-18 are awesome from the tee, but less so for the second shot (unless standing next to Hogan's plaque on the 18th causes you fainting spells.....).

[wsmorrison]

"16-18 are awesome from the tee, but less so for the second shot (unless standing next to Hogan's plaque on the 18th causes you fainting spells.....)."

The greens and topography make the second shots on 16 and 18 great.  Perhaps if there was a painted backdrop of a sea or ocean it would be even better    If you have a second shot on 17 other than a putt--and some putts can be very difficult in terms of speed and line, it is pretty dramatic as well.

The sandy waste area in the quarry on 16 is pretty unique for its environs especially when the Scottish broom is in bloom.  Yes, it is a bit reminiscent of Pine Valley (it was made so after Wilsons and Flynn completed 12-15 at Pine Valley in the earliest 1920s).  Prior to that it was either mowed grass or a flat sand pit completely sanded over.  Both 16 and 17 have steep valleys at the front of the greens and acute upsweeps into the green.

The finishing hole fairway has undulations up to the green and one of the most unique greens in the country with the first half back to front and the back half front to back.  This green design should be replicated more in modern designs.  It demands a precise approach trajectory depending upon pin position.

Rich, I think the character of Merion is found in all the holes with some escalating demands on the last three holes.  Though as I've said before, I think modern technology has had a significant negative impact on the difficulty of 16 because the pros can hit 3 wood/8 iron now.  But a new tee could be built behind the entrance road into the driving range parking lot.  A number of big trees would have to come down but it would add about 20 yards or more, actually with the slight change in angle it would play longer than that, and add a bit of temptation to hit driver.

[ForkaB]

That's fine Wayne.  I wasn't at all saying Merion isn't great, just that it is not particularly unique (within the context that all courses are unique, but some are just more unique than others )!

[TEPaul]

Paul T said to Tom Doak;

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

Paul T:

In that case who's in a better position to be critical of the magazine rankings?

TomD:

You are on a roll. Go for it.  

I realize all the reasons given every time this subject comes up why magazines who rate and rank golf courses or their architecture don't want to get into in-depth architectural analysis but the fact that they don't do that or refuse to do that for whatever reason should be no excuse. The fact remains numerical rankings of golf courses with no real in-depth explanations of why is not a positive thing for golf course architecture and the understanding of it.

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

The rating and ranking of a course is just that, of the course.  It is a single number. How does it evoke interest and debate on individual holes, features and shots?

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

That was a pretty feeble endorsement of rankings.  I agree with you that deep and broad discussions lead to better understandings of golf architecture.  These single number rankings may promote debate, however I think it dictates thoughts much more so than inspiring weighty discussions.

"You would be surprized how effing ignorant even members of (dare I say it!) Flynn courses can be about architecture, agronomy and strategic golf principles."

I am not surprised at all.  These same ignorant members you cite are more predisposed to following the lead of others through the ranking systems than making up their own minds.  This is not a good thing in my mind.

Rankings are, as I've often said, self-serving to two groups alone, the magazines in terms of sales and the rankers in terms of access.

[Pete Lavallee]

How about ranking cat houses instead?

[ForkaB]

How about ranking cat houses instead?

Pete

there's a great old joke about that which cannot be repeated on a family site such as this, alas.....

[TEPaul]

I think it's a whole lot of fun and can be extremely gratifying to educate golfers into some of the nuances of golf course architecture. Occasionally you run into people who later say they consequently look at golf and golf courses in a whole new and far more fascinated light.

However, in no case----no case at all, would I ever even remotely imply that before they willingly launch into an education of the finer points of golf architecture that they are ignorant!

To say or imply such a thing to any other golfer is both arrogant and pompous and in almost no case do golfers take well to someone who acts that way.

People get out of golf and golf architecture what they want to get out of it. That's any golfers' good right and they should be respected in any case.

If I've never informed you of golf and architecture's over-riding philosophy redanman, I will now. It is;

"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big world and there really is room in it for everyone."  

Otherwise known as "The Big World Theory".

At the very least it serves the important purpose of suppressing patent intellectual arrogance and pomposity which does nothing much more than almost automatically piss people off.  

And why does it almost automatically piss people off? Probably because no matter what reasons anyone plays golf fairly dedicatedly they seem to do it and take it remarkably personally. In that phenomenon is apparently golf's (and architecture's) greatest seduction as well as its greatest riddle.  

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I don't visit a course simply for the purpose in knowing what makes it unique -- I believe the value comes from being able to provide a comparative analysis against other similar type courses.

You say one visit isn't sufficient -- that's fine. How many qualities Tom? 50, 500, 5,000?

If that's the case then comments from just about anyone can be labeled as being incomplete because the great bulk of visits -- including the ones Doak did in Confidential Guide -- came from just a single visit -- some only from the walking perspective.

I glean plenty of perspective from talking with people on this site about the courses I visit. They have in fact played the subject course(s) a good bit more than me and I can learn from their comments on what I saw and what I may have missed. Ditto what I put forward and may even enlighten them on what I saw and how the holes / course played.

The guys who have a piss fit with rankings don't understand that it is the main item of conversation for a good number of people who play the game. If you can't understand that or simply want to snipe about those who do so be it.

Ratings and rankings are not going anywhere because the interest from those who play the game is clearly there and will remain so for as long as people enjoy playing golf.

[Craig Sweet]

I have yet to run into "a good number of people" for whom golf course rankings/ratings are a "main item of conversation".

But like Mucci said, I live in Montana, so what do I know?

Like I said long ago, we might as well rank Interstate Highways...

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

You must hang out with a different bunch because the golfers I know are always interested in talking about the merits of the courses they play and the ones they would like to play.

If that's not the case with you and your golf pals so be it.

[TEPaul]

"The guys who have a piss fit with rankings don't understand that it is the main item of conversation for a good number of people who play the game. If you can't understand that or simply want to snipe about those who do so be it."

Matt Ward:

I'm sure plenty of those who don't like rankings do understand that it may be a main topic of conversation amongst many golfers. So What? There are plenty of things in this world that may be a main topic of conversation amongst some that aren't worth a damn either.  

"Ratings and rankings are not going anywhere because the interest from those who play the game is clearly there and will remain so for as long as people enjoy playing golf."

I'm sorry to hear that. I was sort of hoping to see all the magazine rankings go down the shitter. I guess it just proves Lincoln's little adage;

"You can fool all the people some of the time---some of the people all the time---but you can't fool all the people all the time."

I realize that ratings and rankings are your main interest and primary modus operandi with golf. I wish I could help you on that but apparently I can't. Rankings suck---it's as simple as that.  
 
 

[TEPaul]

"TEP old man, you and I are closer to each other on this than you think.  If players like a Robinson course complete with landscaope features and water falls sufficient to cause the Emporer Apolpexy, all the better. (Except for poor old Nacco).  More folks playing and enjoying different kinds of golf the better."

redanman:

We are? You could've fooled me with much of what you say about most golfers' ignorance about golf architecture.

For my part, I would never tell any golfer they are ignorant about golf and architecture vis-a-vis what they like.

I merely tell them my "Big World" theory that there should be plenty of stuff out there for everyone. If they really like Robinson courses with water-falls and artificiality or whatever I merely tell them that's just fine----that's OK, and that there should be plenty of stuff out there for people with really bad taste too.  

[Rick Shefchik]

I accidentally discovered a fairly reliable way to judge a golf course without playing it.

Last week I was a scorer for a foursome playing in a charity scramble tournament at Minnesota Valley, one of three Seth Raynor courses in Minnesota. I had played the course about 20 years ago, but remembered very little of it. Walking the course with four decent players in a scramble, however, I think I got a very reliable sense of the course's qualities and quirks.

In a scramble, of course, you are following the advice advocated earlier in the thread by Joel Stewart to move every shot to the middle of the fairway, but that doesn't eliminate the difficulty and shot values created by the architect -- it just eliminates the recovery shots. The bunkers and water features are always in play, dictating strategy -- you just don't have to face the music if you hit into them.

You also get several perspectives on the greens when choosing where to putt from -- is the downhill/sidehill nature of a green so severe as to make the longer uphill putt a better choice?

I'd rather have played Minnesota Valley, but I believe I got a very thorough exposure to a classic old golf course without hitting a shot. (Well, I did hit one shot, but that's another story.) I could rate/rank MV if I were so inclined; but I think I agree with TEP -- ratings suck -- so I won't. Let's just say it's definitely worth a play.

[Tom_Doak]

It baffles me why several people want to move the ball back into the middle of the fairways to judge a course.  How the course treats recovery shots is a big part of the game.  My point about playing poorly was only that one never got a decent look at what might have been, but how the holes play from the rough is just as important.

Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.

[George Pazin]

Rick, I think the best way to learn about a course without playing it is to spend a few days watching play during a tournament. You plant yourself at select holes - or each of 'em, if possible - and watch a bunch of groups go through. Then you see a lot of different shots by a lot of different golfers.

The surprising thing is that even pros hit the ball with a far greater variety than most on here seem to believe. They are not robots who knock every iron within 10 feet every time, not even on a short par 3. What pros do that is amazing is get up and down with an unbelievable frequency.

And I think the worst possible way to analyse a course is strictly from the fairway.

 

And Matt, what us rankings-haters truly find frustrating with rankers is the obsession with the comparison, with little discussion of what actually goes into the comparison. That is one area I give you a tremendous amount of credit: regardless of whether or not I agree with you, you certainly provide reasons for your thinking.

[TEPaul]

"TEP

I love your density."
         

redanman;

Your posts are so frequently filled with mistakes and muddled thinking I'm sure you meant to say clarity rather than density.  

[Jim Thompson]

Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.

This should be in BOLD PRINT in all of the rating guidelines.  

[Joel_Stewart]

It baffles me why several people want to move the ball back into the middle of the fairways to judge a course.  How the course treats recovery shots is a big part of the game.  My point about playing poorly was only that one never got a decent look at what might have been, but how the holes play from the rough is just as important.

Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.

Tom:
I said in my original post that the first time (and in many cases the only time) you play a course you should play down the middle.  I'm know as an architect you design for a variety of angles and penalty shots but if a panelist is only going to see the course once, you have to view the course from the centerline.  Agree?  

[Forrest Richardson]

Frankly, rating a course is easier when you are not playing. You can look at different angles, imagine different shots, and take time to study certain holes and shots longer. When I shattered my arm roller skating a few years back, I had occasion to visit several courses and felt the inability to play turned out to be a plus in some ways.

Bottomline — I feel that a trained "eye" on golf architecture very likely has the ability to form decent impressions, either while playing or not playing. The key is taking time to spend with the course and give it a proper and decent look.

I disagree with the notion that one must play a course to adequately rate it. I feel it really depends on the person, their background and training. Some raters probably should be required to play — for that may be their only ability to look at a course.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:  I think I disagree.  If you are playing and you hit one way offline, you should at least go back and look at how the hole would have played from the fairway -- but how the approach shots play from the centerline is no more important than how they play from everywhere else, because most people are "everywhere else".

[Mark_Fine]

"EVERYBODY" rates golf courses everytime they play one.  Even guys like Tom Paul do it.  Some just don't have the National or Global forum as others do, to present their assessments.

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
You will never get a perfect group of raters.  I'm just saying we all rate courses when we play them.  

I look at the lists as guidelines, not gospel.  Having played most of the courses on these lists all I will say is that you would be doing just fine if you only got to play those courses on these lists.  And if you can find time beyond that, there are many more great ones just as worthy!