[George Pazin]

Imho, the best ways to review a course for learning, discussion and comparison purposes are:

1) to play in a tournament at that course (preferrably more than one or one round)

and

2) to view a tournament being played at a course.

I know this flies in the face of the many folks who hold that you can't comment on a course unless you've played it, but I believe that casual play will more often than not result in a different style of play (think Bobby Jones's wise observation).

Similarly, watching multiple players come through a hole, seeing how various excellent approaches and complete mishits, allows one to see how a hole plays far more effectively than judging a fairway as playable because one happened to hit it (or even the contrary, for those of us who struggle to hit fairways).

Without many plays, subtle features are routinely overlooked in favor of obvious features, whose consequences are far easier to read, recognize and interpret.

Similarly, without tournament-type pressure, I don't believe most can effectively judge which risks are worthwhile and which are not.

It's not for nothing that I believe the most illuminating posts about golf courses are those arising from the competitions at Pine Valley from posters like Sully, Jamie, MWP, and of course Tom P. I could read their thoughts on PV, and Shinnecock, and Merion, and ____ all day long, whereas as some others, well, I'll just skim their thoughts on golf courses (even the blind squirrel...).

[Tom Huckaby]

I gotta go with Charlie here.  We're lucky in this forum in that the guys George mentioned are great tournament players AND astute obvservers of architecture - but that combination is exceedingly rare.  Most great players don't look for nor care about architecture - they just try to get the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible, and once a hole is done it's really done - their recall typically isn't that great.

I know from my limited experience also that the more serious the competition is, the less I look at the course and the more I just concentrate on execution and results.  The better players put me to shame in this.

Now perhaps watching great players tackle a course would be illuminating... I'll buy that....

[George Pazin]

Charlie, while I certainly see your point, I would bet (judging from your posts) that you would remember and recognize plenty if you simply sat down after your round and thought about the course in an architectural context. I think you're selling yourself short!

Huck, you're selling yourself short, too.

My point is that without the tournament pressure, the potentially dire consequences of a go or no go option virtually disappear.

[Garland Bayley]

The vast majority of golf is played for fun. I think that rating a golf course by tournament usage is only good for rating a golf course for it's suitability for tournaments.

I would suggest the best way to rate a golf course would be to get out on the course and play multiple shots after searching for and finding interesting shots to play, optimal shots to play, recovery possibilities, etc.

Perhaps ANGC was great, because it seems that Bobby Jones used something akin to this technique during the design.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - I'd take any round you play over Charlie or me after a competitive round in terms of recall.

When one is really grinding, it's all about performance.  The course itself fades into the background.  You just pick your target and zero in....

That necessarily makes recall of subtleties very difficult.  Damn near all competitive players are like this, I think.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

George,
I would have to totally disagree with you about rating a course while you playing it during a tournament.  Most players, myself included are focused on results and while we may be viewing the architecture, numerous holes might go by in a blur because I am grinding on my game.  It is similar to focusing on your score (even in casual play) while rating a course.  It is hard to do both.  

If I recall correctly, I believe Tom Paul said he never focused on the golf course architecture while he was playing competitive golf and really can recall much from those rounds.  He'll correct me if I'm wrong (his comments are probably still around if someone knows how to dig up old threads).  
Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

Similarly, without tournament-type pressure, I don't believe most can effectively judge which risks are worthwhile and which are not.-George Pazin

That's already been done beforehand by player and/or caddie, if there's enough money or prestige on the line.

[wsmorrison]

Sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but I too disagree that participating in tournament play or watching tournament play is the best way to review a golf course.

Reviews or ratings are subjective and not meaningful to anyone other than rankers.  Because many don't realize this, it does more harm than good.

Watching a tournament is not ideal because you are only seeing a narrow sampling of the types of players that utilize the course on a daily basis.  Watching a regular day of play is insightful, but how many rankers bother to do that?

Participating in a tournament is even less likely to yield a worthwhile review.  Better to stick to what you play the tournament for, that is posting the best score you are capable of that day, than other activities.

I respect the golf architecture insights of Jim S, Jamie S and Tom P (sorry, I don't know MWP) but they aren't gleaning much while playing tournament golf.

I'll eagerly listen to the comments of those that play the golf course on a regular basis (members)...all types of players not just the scratch or better player.  If the course was designed for more than one category of player, I want to watch and hear what the various categories have to say.  That tells me more about the success of a design than how tour players or scratch players play the course.  Their play is important to an overall understanding, but not at the top of my list.  The regulars have seen the course in all conditions and may have knowledge about changes over the years.  I find such information of use.

[George Pazin]

Would it be different if I said the best way to experience a course's architecture is under tournament pressures?

Anyway, perhaps I should explain a little.

A few friends of mine were in town this week to experience that hidden gem here in the Burgh that has hosted the most US Opens.

One of them was relating his experiences after the round and commented that he felt he would better understand and appreciate the course if he had another crack at it, as he took it too casually, hitting driver into trouble on a bunch of holes (he actually hit into 12 fairway bunkers - and still shot an 86 - not bad, I think).

I think part of this was due to the fact that he doesn't play a lot of competitive golf (his club championship this year is the first tourney he's entered in about 15 years, to my recollection).

I think if he were playing in a tournament at Oakmont, he would've been forced to think more. In this case (and maybe it was an unusual one), his relaxation caused him to shoot a higher round than he might have otherwise.

Couple that with some of the folks on here who are hitting multiple tee shots with no consequence and commenting on the playability of a course, and a new hypothesis is born.

I can deal with Huck disagreeing, that's almost a given, but if Wayne is, I might have to rethink my premise.

I'll eagerly listen to the comments of those that play the golf course on a regular basis (members)...all types of players not just the scratch or better player.  If the course was designed for more than one category of player, I want to watch and hear what the various categories have to say.  That tells me more about the success of a design than how tour players or scratch players play the course.  Their play is important to an overall understanding, but not at the top of my list.  The regulars have seen the course in all conditions and may have knowledge about changes over the years.  I find such information of use.

Can't say that I disagree with this at all.

I would also add that Tom P might say that he didn't notice the architecture, but like I said about Charlie and Huck, I think he is selling himself short and actually learned quite a bit.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, George.  I begin to see what you mean, but I find I can learn the most about a course just walking around and considering it while not playing.  If others are out on the course, I like to watch and absorb what they're doing and what's happening.

As for Tom Paul.  He is a humble man, but he has lots to be humble about  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Did you ever date someone who looked and acted great when they all dressed up in there sunday best only to find out they chewed spit and swore like a truck driver when they let their hair down?  

I think I'd rather rate the relaxed version rather than the one that portrayed an image that only came out at Easter and Christmas, or the big tournament.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - the point is this:  when playing competitively one doesn't LOOK for architecture or design or really care much one way or the other what a hole has to offer, other than the one optimum way to play it to achieve the best score.  And even then, you tend to forget it quickly.

You can discount this because it's me, or you can learn from it because so many others are saying the exact same thing.

 

So no, I'd say neither Charlie nor me nor Tom Paul nor Mark Fine nor anyone who plays competitively can give very good recall after the round in terms of architectural nuances - and it's not because we aren't learning - it's because we aren't SEEING it.  We're not LOOKING for it.  It really doesn't exist for us, in those times.

I do get what you're trying to say, though.  Slap and giggle rounds with zero consequence don't promote much learning either.  So put those on one end, competitive golf rounds on the other, and in both instances not much architectural learning is gained... the most will occur via viewing others play or playing somehow in the middle of the two poles.

TH

[George Pazin]

George - the point is this:  when playing competitively one doesn't LOOK for architecture or design or really care much one way or the other what a hole has to offer, other than the one optimum way to play it to achieve the best score.  And even then, you tend to forget it quickly.

You might be concentrating so hard on the next hole that you forget the prior hole, but you damn well better be looking at all of the architecture (within reason - obviously I don't expect you to notice the tree 100 yards left of the fairway that I will end up behind ) if you want to play your best.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

No, one doesn't even do that, not really.

Shivas has commented on this before, and he's absolutely correct:  on damn near all golf holes the proper shot choice decision is made in about 10 seconds max.  Golf holes are not all that difficult to figure out, when one's goal is to make the best percentage play.  Oh there are some that are vexing, but they really are few and far between.

When playing competitively, one picks a target, focuses in on it, and it's all about execution.  Architectural nuances are absolutely beside the point.

The main thing that makes competitive players the worst to ask about architecture, however, is the lack of recall.  It's just the way it is.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
You stated:

"Reviews or ratings are subjective and not meaningful to anyone other than rankers.  Because many don't realize this, it does more harm than good."

Are you sure about that?  I suspect you must realize that this whole site is about reviews and ratings.  You provide them here all the time just like the rest of us do.  The reviews that come out in the golf magazines are really not much different.  They just happen to be viewed by millions instead of the few dozen architecture buffs that frequent this site    

Here is one of your ranking posts from another thread:

"Sean, you need to make this trip happen sometime.  Here is my list of must plays if you were spending two weeks in Philadelphia.  If you do, prepare to gain a lot of weight eating cheesesteaks and snapper soup.

Pine Valley
Merion
Rolling Green
Huntingdon Valley
Lancaster (1.25 hrs away)
Philadelphia Country Club
Manufacturers
Gulph Mills (it is great)
Tavistock
Lehigh
Aronimink
Philadelphia Cricket
Stonewall
White Manor

That's a lot of Flynn, but there is a lot worth seeing.  If I had to narrow the list down to 5 courses:

Pine Valley
Merion
Lancaster
Huntingdon Valley
Rolling Green

However, you'd be remiss in not seeing any of the above at some point."

Getting back to George's point; I think the bottomline is that common sense tells us that the more one sees a course under different conditions (both playing and watching) the better.  On the other hand, some people play a course soooo much that they start to miss things that others might see from less frequent observations.  I always enjoy going around a golf course with members talking about things that they might take for granted or just forgot about.  

On one course we were working on, I pointed out the view of the New York City skyline to the committee members.  They couldn't see it.  We walked to the other side of some trees and there it was.  The trees have subsequently come down and the long range view restored.  I'm not sure that someone playing in a golf tournament would have picked up on something like this.  Most are too focused on their game rather than looking at long range views, bunker shapes and sand lines, ... and the list goes on and on.  

Mark

[Brad Klein]

Coz,

hey, I married her. And am still glad I did.

[wsmorrison]

No Mark, I'm not sure about that.  I spoke without thinking at all    

I don't think magazine rankings mean anything at all except to the people that are ranking and magazine sales.  That has nothing at all to do with recommendations for someone that is considering a visit to Philadelphia.  And if I do happen to rank things on occasion, I fail to see why it rises to a level of concern to you.  

Why should I think my ranking or ratings, a very unofficial pursuit mind you, have any more meaning than anyone else's?  I don't.  They are just for fun.  These are my ideas and not some sort of amalgam of tens or hundreds of disparate minds.  The magazine rankings are a much more defined and concerted effort that poses as something they are not.  I do not.  Do you begin to understand the difference?

[John Kavanaugh]

I do not believe that rankings sell magazines and have never seen any proof.  The fact that I have yet to get a bidder on my own top ten list seems to prove this point.  see link.. http://tinyurl.com/2obawv

Part of the problem with raters like me and those appointed at the other mags is that we are so above the common man.  I would like to see a lowering of the bar for the panels so that they would reflect the people who actually play the courses.  Golfweek has made huge strides in this with some of their recent appointees and leads the field from behind.

[John Kavanaugh]

I just revised my listing to make it feel like a real golf magazine with the following: In an attempt to boost sales I will include my latest swing tip, the name of the best golfer I played with this year and who I think is the cutest player on the LPGA.  This is an attempt to make it feel like a real golf mag.  Only 5 hours left to bid!!!  If it sells now the proof is in the pudding that rankings are only for the rankers.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
We all have our opinions, no problem.  But to think only the raters are concerned about the rankings is a bit short sighted.  Very few courses are not concerned about them.  Most all promote themselves if ranked and/or list how many stars they were given, or what number they are etc. etc.  Next time you visit a course, check out the walls in the pro shop, locker rooms, etc.  Even your home club has the lists (that you say no one but the rankers care about) hanging on their walls  

The reason I care about this is that there are quite a few guys on this site who rank courses.  They do the best they can and I would hope are proud of what they do.  We all know the lists have faults but they have some positives as well.  

[wsmorrison]

I didn't say that people weren't concerned with rankings, but rather they aren't meaningful in any actual sense, except to the rankers themselves for their own reasons.  Unfortunately rankings are taken to be meaningful, that is why I said, "Reviews or ratings are subjective and not meaningful to anyone other than rankers.  Because many don't realize this, it does more harm than good."

Does my club have the rankings list on the walls somewhere?  I honestly never noticed...there are too many meaningful things on the walls to consider, like 17, soon to be 19, USGA tournament items hanging on the walls  I believe a majority of the members don't really care what the ranking is, they love the place no matter how the rankers vote.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Almost every one of the courses you listed in that personal list to Sean (below) happens to be on the various magazine lists.  Maybe these guys who rank courses are getting something right and providing something useful to golfers looking for where to play    

Not everyone is on Golf Club Atlas to find such lists  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Almost every one of the courses you listed in that personal list to Sean (below) happens to be on the various magazine lists.  Maybe these guys who rank courses are getting something right and providing something useful to golfers looking for where to play."

It is simply an artifact of indisputably great golf in Philadelphia.  That is hard for anyone to get wrong.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Don't you think it helps to empathize with the average golfer (who are most of the people that enjoy these lists) and remember that he or she will play "less than one" Top 100 course in their lifetime.  Most would have no idea about the far majority of these courses (those that might be obvious to you) were it not for such lists and magazine reviews to ponder over.  Only an infinitesimal percentage of all golfers will ever get to play courses like Oakmont or Pine Valley or San Francisco GC, but they still have fun reading reviews about them and seeing photos and debating the rankings.  

Speaking of rankings, if I am not mistaken wasn't this site trying to rank architects the other day?  I think this site does more rankings than the magazines do  

[John Kavanaugh]

Wayne,
We all have our opinions, no problem.  But to think only the raters are concerned about the rankings is a bit short sighted.  Very few courses are not concerned about them.  Most all promote themselves if ranked and/or list how many stars they were given, or what number they are etc. etc.  Next time you visit a course, check out the walls in the pro shop, locker rooms, etc.  Even your home club has the lists (that you say no one but the rankers care about) hanging on their walls  

The reason I care about this is that there are quite a few guys on this site who rank courses.  They do the best they can and I would hope are proud of what they do.  We all know the lists have faults but they have some positives as well.  

What is a positive of the rankings?  Now that Erin Hills is not eligible for the Digest list I have no idea what they consider to be the top 100 or at least top 100 public.  Telling anyone which private courses they should try to access is a complete farce on many levels.  You can not say that architecture benefits in any manner when Fazio is the number one living architect on each and every list.  They do not sell magazines and at the very most sell ads which drive up the cost of golf for each and every one of us.  What is a positive that does not include the raters or their minions and probinions?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()