[Matthew Hunt]

Here is a try at a Scientific rating for a 18 hole course. Yardages are off back tees unless ther wise stated. Please post for a course you know.

Lengh in yards/200=  (Max 36 pts)

Differnce beetween front and back Mens tees/200=  (Max 5 pts)

Average Width of Fairway/5=   (Max 10 pts)

If Carts not comp. add 2, if not allowed ecept for medical conditions add 5= (Max 5pts)

1pt for every 100y's of 1st hole= (Max 5pts)

1pt for every 100 yards of the last 3 hole minus the difference in yardes beetween the nines= (Max 12pts)

1pt for every beetween the following distances: -150 250-350 450-550= (Max 18pts)

Go on try it.

The Rating currently stands at

1. RCD Championship 74
1. The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island  74
3. Kilkeel 73
4. Pinehurst No.7  72
5. Pinehurst No.1  71
6. Tobacaco Road 64
6. Desert Forest 64
8. RCD Annesley 59
9. Orchard Hills WA 52

[TEPaul]

Calling BOB CROSBY!!!

Bob, BobC, Bobzee----

Will you just look at this guy and his scientific rating BS?!

He must be the reincarnation of JOSHUA CRANE!!

Lay a couple of left jabs, a right uppercut and a "Thunder of Thor" on him and put him away for me, Maxie Behr and all the young lovers of STRATEGIC architecture, will you please?!

[Mike Sweeney]

Matthew,

If your first 400 and some post were not so enjoyable, I would ask for your dismissal.

I am here for the pretty pictures.  

[Matthew Hunt]

RCD gets 74 out of 86 which is good.

[Matthew Hunt]

I am not saying this is a good Idea but it worth a try to see if GCA is a Science or an Art  

I personly think its an Art

Ahh Lightning.....

[TEPaul]

Matthew:

Can you have scientific art or artistic science?

Have you ever seen a Chubber Checkers Hula Hooping opera? Essentially it's art and physics at its most sophisticated and sublime.

[Mark Bourgeois]

This methodology is as valid as the ones used by golf magazines. And if it produces roughly the same list of top 100 courses...

[Mike Sweeney]

This methodology is as valid as the ones used by golf magazines. And if it produces roughly the same list of top 100 courses...

then it is redundant and has no need to clog up GCA.com.

A reminder from the opening page:

"The courses included are ones from which the author believes there is much to be learned. Many of the courses are not 'championship' courses (whatever that means) or necessarily the best conditioned courses, but they share a single important characteristic: they are inspiring to play, be it by yourself, with your dog, family or friends."

My dog (if I had one) does not understand Matthew's system!!

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Matthew Hunt is a young fellow and Joshua Crane died many years ago, so it's possible (if you believe in the possibility) that Matthew is indeed Mr. Crane re-incarnated, come back to infiltrate this den of artistic decadence and puddle of spilled sensibilities. It's the Age of Science again; and what better guise for this Rational Mind to don than that of a Homer Simpson; my guard is already down.

Matthew - sorry for joking around. I had to drop math early on, as I had no brain for numbers and I still don't, so I can't comment of the specifics. (But if you ARE Joshua Crane, you'd better watch out - Mr. Bob Crosby has been called, and he's very smart!)

Peter

[Kyle Harris]

Matthew,

Go watch the movie "Dead Poets Society."

Heed Professor Keating's advice, "rip out the pages and carpe diem."

Also, science is a methodology and way of learning, you're simply trying to parametrize a rating process.

[BCrosby]

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.....where to begin...

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

...
1pt for every beetween the following distances: -150 250-350 450-550= (Max 18pts)
...

Do you play a hole of -150 backwards?
 

[Matthew Hunt]

...
1pt for every beetween the following distances: -150 250-350 450-550= (Max 18pts)
...

Do you play a hole of -150 backwards?
 

It means up to 150 yards.

I admit that the formula is pretty bad because it was what ever came into my head. I just wanted like Mark to see how it turns out compared run-of-the-mill lists.

Mike your dog would have to be very smart to use any of the magizine formulas

[Garland Bayley]

...
1pt for every beetween the following distances: -150 250-350 450-550= (Max 18pts)
...

Do you play a hole of -150 backwards?
 

It means up to 150 yards.

I admit that the formula is pretty bad because it was what ever came into my head. I just wanted like Mark to see how it turns out compared run-of-the-mill lists.

Mike your dog would have to be very smart to use any of the magizine formulas

So Forrest gets a point for any par 2 holes he manages to talk any clients into letting him build. Ref Routing the Golf Course by Forrest Richardson.

Far out! Your system wouldn't dismiss the idea like others do!  

[John Goodman]

By my reckoning Pinehurst No. 2 rates a 71.  Rees' No. 7 course rates a 72.  Tobacco Road limps in at 64.

Science is so revealing! . . .  

[Richard Boult]

let's just keep golf course rating simple - total yardage times stimpmeter value minus cart path length.

[Matthew Hunt]

The Rating  currently stands at

1. RCD 74
2. Pinehurst No.7  72
3. Pinehurst No.1  71
4. Tobacaco Road 64

Can every one do course they know well to see how this turns out.

[Garland Bayley]

Orchard Hills WA USA 52

Matthew,

You can edit the first message in the tread to keep the stats up to date.

[Matthew Hunt]

Orchard Hills WA USA 52

Matthew,

You can edit the first message in the tread to keep the stats up to date.

Thanks, updated list at the top but more course ratings are needed.

[TEPaul]

"Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.....where to begin...
Bob"


Bob:

You could begin by explaining to Matthew that among Joshua Crane's other accomplishments he was also a closet pedophile and apparently someone who treated even small dogs worse than Michael Vick.

[Matthew Hunt]

Who is Joshua Crane and whats he to do with this?

[Craig Sweet]

I wonder how Matthews scientific rating system would work with Interstate Highways?

Why oh why are people so obsessed with "rating' golf courses?

[Garland Bayley]

Joshua Crane was a golf writer that put forth a scientific rating method in the early 20th century.

You will find that people here will denegrate scientific methods for rating. Probably because a scientific method would ignore their subjective prejudices and downgrade their subjective favorites.

I am surprised to see the follower of the whole world philosophy trying to dismiss your efforts.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Paul,

Joshua Crane did not even know Michael Vick. How could he treat small dogs worse that he treated Michael Vick?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
Joshua Crane did not even know Michael Vick. How could he treat small dogs worse that he treated Michael Vick?"

Joshua Crane did not even know Michael Vick???

What's that got to do with anything?

I didn't say Joshua Crane treated small dogs worse than he treated Michael Vick. I said he treated small dogs worse than Michael Vick did.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()