[Garland Bayley]

Golf Illustrated, May, 1924.

The article (minus figures) will appear in the following postings.
My apologies for typos as I have not proofed my typing. Things marked with ? are either unreadable or my best guess at what they say.

[Garland Bayley]

Last summer as after-lunch discussion of the relative merits of the Myopia and Essex courses among several good golfers, most of them members of both clubs, chrystallized certain ideas which had been fermenting for some time in a unclassified though not illegal manner and was made the occasion of a thorough study of the elements of sound layout and upkeep. The result was this method of rating courses in percentages, thus making it possible to compare them directly on the percentage rating, each element being given certain points, depending on its value relative to all the other component elements.

At first thought it seemed impossible to put a mathematical value on such a heterogeneous mass of elements, many of whic apparently have no relation to each other, but on analysis into its basic elements, and by proper balancing of the relative values of these elements, a result was obtained which gives an extraordinarily fair measure of comparative excellence. After the method had been worked out to a successful conclusion it was found that the value of the tables in giving the comparative rating of two or more courses was greatly overshadowed by the fact that they furnished an accurate and graphic method of exposing the weak points of any particular course, thus making it simple for a golf architect to record his criticism and suggestions for furture use for both himself and the green committee of that particular club. Then, by marking the weak elements onf the chart with a red pencil, he could place a graphic criticism and a permanent record before that green committee aas a goal toward which it might work. As funds became available, the weakest elements could be remedied first and the others in the order of ther importance, thus gradually bringing the course nearer and nearer perfection.

The two fundamentals entering into the excellence of a golf course are the design and layout on the one hand and the condition and upkeep on the other. These two should be kept entirely distinct in analyzing or criticising a course. A wonderful layout in poor condition is just as bad as a poor layout in wonderful condition. Although the condition appeals more perhaps to the non-serious golfer, and add more to his pleasure, to those who are striving to make a course which will furnish the highest test of skill for the best gofers, as well as afford the maximum of pleasure, the layout is at least as important as the condition. It was found best, therefore, to give an equal value to each of the above fundamentals. In order to afford a basis of comparison on each of them, two tables were designed, so that the comparative excellence of a course may be found as to its layout and design, and also as to its condition and upkeep. Moreover, there were some elements that enter into the first and not the second, and vice versa.

In analyzing the layout of a hole, the obvious elements are, in their natural order, though not in the order of importance; teeing grounds, roug, fairway, traps and greens. Of these, the fairway and the green are certainly the most important, the traps, rough and teeing grounds following in value; so each of these obvious elements is assigned a certain value. These elements apply to both the main divisions; that is, layout and upkeep. There are also elements which are not as physically obvious, and not in most cases as important, yet have a vital bearing on the result. These are (under layout), visibility, parallel holes and distrance from each green to the following teeing ground and (under condition), parallel holes, caddies and surroundings. Other elements, which though they might be placed under the two main divisionos, are more wisely grouped together, as will be shown, and applied to the course as a whole, in the final summary are length of the course, exposure to winds, order of holes (and this includes the classes of holes, such as one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes), and difficult walking. It is plain that in a perfect golf course, that is a course for the best test of skill as well as pleasure, these have a certain value which must be considered.

[Garland Bayley]

The sub-elements of a teeing ground are size and contour, applied to back, middle and front tees; the sub-elements of the rough are character, width and contour; the sub-elements of a fairway are width and contour and the sub-elements of a trap are location, size and shape (this includes depth).

In order to make it easier to rate a fairway, for instance, it is divided into three main parts in the order of their importance; A, the part more than one hundred and fifty yards from the tee and less than two hundred and fifty yards; B, the part forty yards short of the green tothe green and C, the remainder. In rating the rough, it is divided into four parts in the order of their importance; M, the part on each side of the fairway from the one hundred and fify yard mark to the two hundred and fifty yard mark, measured from the tee; N, the part around green which may catch a poor approach; O, the carry in front of tee and P, the remainder. In rating traps, two general groups are formed, in the order of their importance; first the group around green, and second the group to control tee shots. In holes of over two full shots, traps for second shots are considered in the tee shot group. In considering parallel hoes, first in importance are those affecting wild tee shots; second, those affecting will approach shots (and this includes tees which are too near the green). In rating visibility, the shot to gree is most important, the tee shot next. (Criticism by experts have been made that this table rates visibility too low, rather than too high, and it seems perhaps a valid criticism.)

The sub-elements of a teeing ground are quality (of surface), condition and fixtures, applied to back, middle and front tees; the sub-elements of the rough are quality (of grouwth or surface), condition and drainage, applied to the various areas, M, N, O and P; the sub-elements of a fairway are quality (of turf), drainage and condition, applied to the various areas A, B and C; the sub-elements of a trap are quality (of sand), condition and drainage, applied to the tee-shot group and the green group; and the sub-elements of a green are quality (of turf), drainage and condition.

In considering parallel holes, a small value is given to the pleasure of not playing back and forth in proximity to others. In considering caddies, it is apparent that good caddies are a valuable asset to a golf course, by saving physical exertion, preventing loss of balls, and (in blind shots) making the game safer, - and other things being equal, the course having good caddies would be much more popular that the course lacking them. Considering surroundings, it is needless to enlarge on the advantages of being in beautiful country, rather than in close proximity to hourses, factories, road or railroads.

The values placed on the various elements and sub-elements are derived from a gradual appoirtionment and balance after long consideration and study. It is not more likely that any two golf architects would entirely agree in this or any other apportionment or proportion of values than that any two of them would agree absolutely on laying out and individual hole, much less eighteen holes-which is most fortunate, for progress is made by sifting out new ideas, and many beautiful holes to-day would have been considered grotesque twenty years ago. However, the opinion of golf architects may vary in respect to the standard value of the elements, and might vary in their individual rating on that bases of each element, yet the toal result would be extremely close. It is safe to say that in the case of rating any group of five holes varying from seventy-two per cenct to ninety percent, and five architects would rate them in the same order, unless two of them happened to be within one per cent, of each other. By the very fact that in rating a course by this method the inspector is confined to judging one small sub-element at a time, his mind is not allowed to be swayed by general impressions nor lead away be pet aversions or  favorite theories. In other words, the inspector is held to judging one thing at a time, which in all judging, whether of a horse or of fnacy diving tends toward uniformity of result.

[Garland Bayley]

In rating by this method, it will be found tempting at first to be rather lenient in scaling down points on some of the sub-elements, as for example under design and layout, the sub-element of character of the rough. A great deal of rough, particularly on inland courses, is altogether too heavy and dense paret of the year, and yet at other times, in dry season perhaps, where it has ben lately cut, a full shot may be played out of it without loss of distance. Also, the proximity of trees to the fairway is to be much deplored, first because the element of luck enters too largely in the exact position of a ball (whether behind a tree or not) and secondly, because of the leaves in the fall which cause much loss of time in hunting for balls, and often lost balls, even in the fairway. For the latter reason the evergreen is not nearly as detrimental to a golf course as the deciduous tree. At the same time, beautiful trees placed proerly, and not too numerous, increase the attractiveness of a course largely. It will be found that severity in cutting down the value of sub-elements will not be too harsh on any particular course, for there are so many sub-elements that the effect of drastic and well-deserved criticism on some of them does not affect the final result as much as would seem probable at first thought.

The question of drainage is, of course, most vital, and shows as it should show, in the quality of the soil and greens, and the loosemess of the sand in the traps and hazards. One of the great faults of many courses is the scale on which the trapping is done. A lot of small, deep traps will be placed around a green, penalizing an almost good shot very severely, while a much worse approeach will not be penalized at all, except that being farther away makes the chip shot a little more difficult. How many trimes does a blll strike between traps surrounding a green and entail no penalty. Then again it will roll up on the grass face of the trap toward the pin, giving the player and easy little chip shot, wile another time it will just trickle over the edge half-way down the rear race of the trap, making it impossible to play toward the pin. One large trap is much fairer than a group of small ones of the same area for luck is largely eliminated. The fairest hazard around a green is sand, for the difficulty of playing the ball onto the green is proportionate to the distance from the green, a ball close up being played by the explosion shot, a reasonably safe one, while the clean shot out of sand becomes more difficult as the distance increases.

It will be found on using these rating tables that individual prejudices which even all good judges have to some extent, are so subordinated to the abstract judgment of the real elements necessary to a good hole that the false result which might creep in through those prejudices if a hole was judged as a whole will be entirely eliminated.

Certain criticism may be made that under this rating a drive and pitch hole of three hundred and forty yards may rate ninety percent, whre a two-shot hole of four hundred and twenty yards may only rate seventy-two per cent, although most players would agree that they regard the two-shotter as the better hole, or as they really mean, a more difficult hole; the reason being that two full shots seem harder to them than a shot and a half. But if the green is smaller and guarded more severly, the mashie shot may be more difficult that the spoon shot. The whole question, however, of the relative excellence of one shot, oand and a half shot, two shot and two and a half shot holes is taken care of under the element of "order of holes," which includes the subdivision of a course into certain length holes, and under "length of course." If a course is the standard, six thousand four hundred yards, adn there are, say three one-shot holes of various lengths, five drive and pitch, nine two shotters and on two and a half shotter, then each hole should be rated on its merits for a hole of its length, however much the players may prefer a strong two shotter; for it is evident that if a course consisted of eighteen wonderful four hundred and twenty yard holes, the monotyony of it would take away that most value ?area? of golf, variatey, which results in pleasure. Without pleasure, golf would become no more interesting than ?chest? weights. An interesting result of this method of rating is that it does not interfere with the individuality of holes; it is based on the fundamentals on which all good judges agree. Thus two entirely different holes may each rate one hundred per cent, although they may not have the slightest resemebland from the ordinary point of view of the average player.

It will be extraordinarily interesting to compare some of the famous holes of well-known courses, as well as the courses themselves, form this absolutely impartial standpoint, and it is the writer's intention to do so this season. It is even interesting and instructive to rate a course which is so well known that every detail can be visualized by memory, althought this is confined to rating under design and layout; for details of quality of grass and soil and drainage and upkeep cannot be visualized to the extent of reaching a fair result.

[Garland Bayley]

Here are the results of comparing three well-known holes near Boston by memory, only as regards design and layout - the thirteenth at Brookline, which is universally admitted to be, and rates, as one of the best at the Country Club; the fourth hole at Myopia, one of the best, and the eighth at Essex, also one of the best. The thirteenth at Brookline rates (as regards design and layout only) at eighty-six per cent, as compared with the fourth at Myopia at eighty-six per cent, and the eighth at Essex at eighty-one per cent. In indicating why and just where these holes fail to reach one hundred per cent, the smaller elements of parallel holes and green to tee distances are omitted, for brevity.

Standard rating - Tees 40; rough 80; fairway, 250; traps, 140; greens 250; visibility 200; total, 960.

Fourth Hole, Myopia - Tees ?; rough, 65; fairway, 250; traps, ?; greens, 180; visibility 200; total, 820.

Eight Hole Essex - Tees 30; rough 76; fairway, 235; traps, ?; greens 225; visibility 125; total 771.

Thirteenth Hole, Brookline - Tees, ?; rough, 44; fairway, 240 traps, ?; greens 225; visibilty, 200; total 820.

It can be seen immediately that the tees of all three are deficient. Brookline lacking a real back tee for the proportion of the hole, and all three a front or ladies' tee, which should be at least forty to fifty yards in front of the back tee. Essex has the best rough, the trees at Brookline encroaching on the proper width and the swamp on the left of the fairway and to a lesser degree in front of the tee at Myopia, giving distinctly ?poor? rough. At both Brookline and Myopia, balls are continually lost, and uneven penalties for being off the fairway are caused by variance in lies. Myopia has the best fairway and Essex the poorest; as the contour of the latter is such that small, heavy ?swales? introduce too much luck in lies ?in? a long second shot. Myopia is trapped better than either of the others, the tee shot needing more control. (Essex has no penalty for bad tee shot except rough), while Brookline and Myopia are about equally trapped as regards the green. Essex is superior to both in this latter respect. AS regards greens, that at Essex is alright size, but slope is unfair for a full iron, and the contour only ordinary. Myopia green is much too ?wide? for the iron shot and slopes in wrong direction, as well as too much. Brookline green is fairer than Essex for an iron shot, but is too wide to insist upon the proper accuracy for that shot. As regards visibility, and this is a most important element for moral hazard, pleasure and courage in match play (when the oppenent has laid his ball within putting distance). Myopia has a little advantage from the tee as to maroal hazard over Brookline, whereas Essex has no moral hazard at all. On the approach to green, Brookline has a most wonderful view of the green and traps lying before the player, Myopia almost as good, while Essex is far below their standard in this respect.

This rough analysis shows the value of the rating table as a guide for improving even the fine holes of a course. As an illustration, take the Brookline thirteenth as shown in the rating table above. To bring the thirteenth at Brookline well up toward one hundred per cent, from its present eighty-six per cent, the following improvements could be made at slight expense: A back teeing ground should be placed some twenty yards back on the rise of ground, as well as a ladies' tee twenty-five yards in front of the present tee. The rough in front of the tee should be so graveled and sanded that the grass would remain sparse instead of heavy. The traps on right should be made into one large one to eliminate luck and to threaten the tee shot more severly. For the same reason, and to make a shot out of bounds less likely, a large trap should be placed on the left extending over the ridge, and the material piled in mounds between trap and out of bounds. Some of the trees on th reght should be taken out to increase width of rough. The traps in front and to left edge of green should be made into one large one and carried up to the farther left-hand corner of the green, cutting into the green eight or ten feet along the left side, thus narrowing up the green a little. The hillocks and pot traps on right, as well as a considerable amount of the flat rough to the right, should be made one expanse of sand. These few changes would bring the points up as follows:

Standard - Tees, 40; rough, 80; fairway, 250; traps, 140; greens, 250; visibility, 200; rest, 40; total 1000.
Thirteenth Brookline - Tees, 40; rough, 60; fairway, 240; traps, 120; greens, 240; visibility, 200; rest, 40; total, 940.

This rating would be brought from eighty-six per cent to ninety-four per cent, with little expense, although even then the rough could never bye made wide enough on left, the contour of the fairway would still be not perfect, the traps would still be only half extensive enough to reduce the element of luck to a minimum and the green's countour would be not quite standard. But on the whole, there could be little criticism of it as a test of good golf, should those changes be made; for fine as it is now, it would them be an outstanding hole in the world of golf. In the same way, the fourth Myopia and the eighth Essex could be brought up tremendously, the first by thinning and draining the rank rough, consolidating traps in front of green and changing the countour of the green by building up the left somewhat, the second by trapping the tee shot to require control and by building up the back of the green so as to be visible and make the traps at back visible.

[Garland Bayley]

This criticism naturally suggests the query of what is a perfect hole. Roughly a perfect tow-shott, for example, has three generous tees, a strong carry of some fair hazard in front where every lie is alike, a fair green for the tee shot perfect even for a wooden club between the one hundred and fifty and two hundred and fifty yard marks, so trapped or dog-legged that a long tee shot well placed has a distinct advantage, the rough of such quality that the lies are alike (preventing a full but allowing a half to three-quarter shot), the traps of such size that the element of luck of just avoiding them is reduced to a minimum, the fairway short of green being true and ?uniform? for the short player, the traps around green being large for the reason stated above, the green being proportioned to the length of the second shot, the countour of the green being of generous slopes rather than ?fancy? undulations (no hole should be ?so? placed that a ball cannot be lead dead from any part of the green), the texture of the grass perfect and unifor, the entire hole well drained, and the culminating glory of the whole layout of traps, hazards and green being visible from the tree. The hole should be sequestered from any other and should have surroundings of beautiful natural scenery, whether woods, mountains or sea. All of us remember certain holes as almost ideal, and it is such memory that adds the glamor to golf and perfects such a wonderful combination of exercise, skill and outdoor life. The higher test of skill that is needed, and the greater pleasure that is afforded in playing a golf course certainly justify every effort that can be made to advance toward perfection.

[JESII]

That is very interesting...something I'll have to stew around for a while before commenting on...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Didn't Brad Klein take that system word for word in developing the Golf Week ratings? I do think Brad edited it heavily, though, for modern readers sensibilities.

Seriously, there have been attempts at various ranking/analysis systems since CB MacDonald and maybe before.  It seems to be as natural as breathing.  In fact, its hard to write about golf courses without comparing them to something - whether a standard of perfection or another similar course.

Its also natural to think about courses in a vacuum, and determining just what would be "ideal" knowing that no real world course would be likely to have all the ideal attributes (and that some would possess attributes you never knew you liked!)

This one is very hard to follow (although I admit I haven't tried all that hard) and could be subject to debate, as could any mathematical application to a natural ecosystem like a golf course.  And, there will always be a debate as to the point values assigned.  For example, he posits that one fw is worse than the other because of tendency to fluky lies.  Others would call that a plus! Still others would on a short 4 but not on a long one.  So, the system still calls for lots of subjective judgement.  At least it can break down the points to smaller areas of distinction.

I do know a few agronomists and even a few gca's that have similar evaluation systems for consulting on current courses.  No doubt they can be an interesting snap shot of what could be improved on a course agronomically or even design wise.

[Garland Bayley]

...And, there will always be a debate as to the point values assigned.  For example, he posits that one fw is worse than the other because of tendency to fluky lies.  Others would call that a plus! Still others would on a short 4 but not on a long one.  So, the system still calls for lots of subjective judgement.  At least it can break down the points to smaller areas of distinction.
...

I believe that he thought (although he did not write anything definitive to the effect) that with the multiple categories and sub-divisions thereof subjective differences would tend to average out so that course ratings for a specific group of courses using this system would come out generally with similar results.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have my own way of rating courses...which is bias as to what I like and don't like...it is:

There are somewhere between 25 and perhaps as many as 50 courses that I would like to go back to and play a few more times, and there are others I have played several times that I could go back and play another 100 times.

When a course falls into the first category and then passes muster into the final category, it is one of my top courses.

[JESII]

One thing that rings out of this is we have a guy here that is very intelligent and articulate that has a passion for golf and golf course architecture...why wouldn't we embrace a full open conversation with the him?

I personally would have no problem telling him that one of the things I prefer about Hidden Creek to Galloway is that the fairways don't always guarantee a great lie. I'd be curious as to his reaction to that.

[Garland Bayley]

He seems to depend on the law of averages to have ratings using his system to come out somewhat consistently. What is wrong with allowing the law of averages to average out to fair with respect to lies drawn on uneven fairways?

[JESII]

Garland,

I guess my point is that I wish someone had taken the time to talk to him about it back then. Clearly we can all agree that, as Mr. Huntley says so well, golf is not fair and it's probably better than way.

I'd think a sportsman like Crane would appreciate that if explained properly. It's unique in sports that it has very few formal boundaries...he may have just needed his mold broken...

Maybe it was...and maybe he didn't...

[Peter Pallotta]

Setting aside the philosophy and appeals to emotions/ feelings, the problem seems pretty simple to me:

Crane creates a ranking system based on scoring various elements of a golf course by their relative importance. He considers this an objective approach, but it's not.

HE determined the relative importance of the various elements, and then HE judged how well a hazard or green or teeing ground scored. Based on what?

It was personal opinion and personal agenda masquerading as fact and objective analysis and science.

And even that Crane would deem an 'objective' analysis of golf courses as something noble or praiseworthy is, to me, very telling:

It tells me that he was seeking agreement in the present so as to have conformity in the future.

That's why what interests me about this whole debate is not the specifics of Crane's method, but the fact that those aligned against him were convinced he wanted to take golf course architecture in the wrong direction (from their point of view of course).  

Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

In other words, Crane starts with an opinion about what makes an 'ideal' golf course, and then rigs a scientific method by which, surprise, the courses he thinks 'ideal' score the best, and TOC scores the worst.

Interesting that Jones didn't call TOC 'ideal'; he called it 'great'.

And so we're back to what the two sides wanted in their golf courses...which is as far as I can take it, but which has always seemed just about the most important/fundamental subject there is...

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

What you just said exactly describes how I've always thought of the differences between the magazine rankings of courses.  The GOLF DIGEST system posits an "ideal course" and then rigs up a complicated mathematical formula to support their results; the GOLF Magazine system simply asks people to judge which courses they think are best.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

It sounds to me like you are saying that Golf Magazine rankings are totally subjective, while Golf Digest and Crane add a bit of objectivity (I disagree with Peter on that matter) to the ratings.

For example, Crane stipulates that you should have 3 teeing grounds. I would hope any rater could objectively get that right on the courses in question at the time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()