[Matt_Ward]

Be honest ...

All BSers will be quickly sorted out !

To make the discussion quick and easy (comments are welcomed) use the following 1-10 guide.

1 -- How you play or how your game stacks up against the course is of no consideration

10 -- How you play or how your game stacks up against the course is absolutely critical for you to enjoy it even if others do or don't.

If you have a number somewhere inbetween be sure to post it.

To answer my own question -- in years past I would say that my application of high praise for any course was tied to the manner by which the course aligned itself to how I played / scored. Over the years that has changed dramatically and while it's still a factor it is much less -- part of that simply comes from keeping an open mind and in hearing the comments from others you play or have extensive knowledge of the course in question. For example, in years past I saw the collective qualities of Bethpage Black as being stellar to the max. Much of that tied to the fact that the course set-up well for me and I would often playdown the deficiencies that it still has (e.g. overly muscular course, good but far from outstanding greens, lack of any really outstanding short holes, etc, etc).

To give another example -- many guys don't particularly favor WF / West or even Shinnecock -- and will quickly opt for more user-friendly confines like a Fenway or NGLA. Although few actually admit it -- I have to say that far too often despite all the repeated denials the lack of love for the former and the enrapture with the latter stems from getting positive feedback tied directly to what type of game they produce.

In sum -- can individuals ever divorce their own personal success / failure with any final course assessments ?  

[George Pazin]

Some can, some can't.

I think the only I thing I can do reasonably well is evaluate how a course plays for lesser golfers. Of course, some would say I can't even do that....

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I have to admit, I've always assumed that your love for all those underrated courses in the Mountain Time Zone had a lot to do with the fact that you love to hit it far, and they're all at altitude.

For myself, I'm biased toward courses that have a bunch of short game interest.  Surely, part of that is based on self-interest because that used to be the strength of my game.  But I've always believed that what goes on around the greens is half the game, and could never understand how someone could love a course where half the game was boring and straightforward.

Likewise, I love a course that has a few long holes, but when you get to courses where there are 18 of them I lose interest.

[Jim Franklin]

Oakmont kicked my ass but it is the highest rated course I submitted to GD. (.01 ahead of PV) NGLA is my second favorite course in the world, but Shinnecock came out higher in my ratings. What does this mean?

[PThomas]

1

i'll never understand why it is so hard to separate the two..and Matt, I am not picking on you, because this discussion is one we've all heard many times before

example- i liked the Fazio course at Pronghorn better than Jack's ever though my score at the former was about a dozen shots higher, unfortunately

[Kirk Gill]

My guess is that tying one's rating of a course to one's own game would be more prevalent amonst the better players. Lesser lights (I am a known dim bulb) would be more apt to blame themselves for a lousy round, and still find the course to be fine. That said, I'd probably still trust the better golfer's impressions more than the lousy golfer's - generally speaking.

[George Pazin]

1

i'll never understand why it is so hard to separate the two..and Matt, I am not picking on you, because this discussion is one we've all heard many times before

example- i liked the Fazio course at Pronghorn better than Jack's ever though my score at the former was about a dozen shots higher, unfortunately

And how do you know you're being so objective?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, merely realistic.

[PThomas]

1

i'll never understand why it is so hard to separate the two..and Matt, I am not picking on you, because this discussion is one we've all heard many times before

example- i liked the Fazio course at Pronghorn better than Jack's ever though my score at the former was about a dozen shots higher, unfortunately

And how do you know you're being so objective?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, merely realistic.

i guess that's a good question George...let me go back and check some of my scores and i'll reply later

[jim_lewis]

1

[Peter Pallotta]

Matt -

Maybe I don't know enough or don't play enough to even begin thinking about rating a golf course in terms of how it fits my game -- so I can't ascribe a number to it.

But I do know that how a course looks and feels at first blush, and then throughout the round, has always had a lot to do with what I think of it (which is not the same as rating it, I don't think).

And honestly, I've never understood any of the talk around here about being able (or not) to evaluate a course for lesser/better players...and I mean that literally, I really don't understand it.  

We have eyes, we have emotions, we know a little bit about strategy and design principles, we know a little bit about a routing that flows and feels comfortable, we play with others of different abilities etc...doesn't rating a course begin by just LOOKING and THINKING and WATCHING and FEELING?

I mean, that's the thing about human beings - we're capable of abstract thinking and imagination and of making logical connections or suppositions...If I watch a very good player struggle to get up and down from a shot left and long of a green I can easily imagine that I'd struggle even worse from there

Like I say, not intended as a criticism; I just don't understand the question all that well, and never have....

Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
I'm sure you realize that how you "rate" a course can be very different than how much you "like or enjoy" a course.  Do you really think many 30 handicappers would "enjoy" playing Pine Valley.  It might be a great experience one or two times, but a steady diet would drive most of them from the game.  But this does not (or should not) necessarily mean that the 30 handicapper would "rate" the course poorly.  He or she might rate it poorly from the perspective of a high handicapper but might rate it very high from the perspective of a better golfer.  Part of the key is having that varied perspective in the first place  

[TEPaul]

"In sum -- can individuals ever divorce their own personal success / failure with any final course assessments?"

In my opinion, some either can't or just don't want to but certainly others sure can. I think the far greater problem is how fixated golf architects have been and continue to be about the reaction to architecture and courses of really good players.

Me, I'd have to be a 1 or a 2 at most. And if you don't believe me you should see what I just did last week and some of the emails I've been writing today in that regard on The Creek Club.

But I do draw the line on this kind of thing in some ways. One would be that some call a course like Pine Valley not ideal seemingly implying and inferring its architecture is lacking in some way. Since that particular course and its incredible architecture was never intended to accommodate much more than good golfers I don't see that as an issue at all.

I think if one is truly going to analyze any golf course or its particular architecture one should learn how to apply "The Big World" theory to it first.

It's pretty damn hard to nigh-on impossible for one single golf course to ideally accommodate the games of all golfers across the spectrum of playing levels and abilities.

That may be an interesting and perhaps noble goal but it really is a near impossibility, in my opinion.

But if one ever truly does do that in spades, it probably SHOULD go to the top of the list and be ranked the greatest course in the world!  

But the truth is for any architect to ever do anything like that he'd have to have both immense imagination first and he'd probably need to get all kinds of lucky with a site or God-only-knows what else too.

[JESII]

Mark,

Why would you want me to judge a course from your perspective?

[Jason Topp]

3-4

It was interesting playing 7 rounds at Bandon Dunes being paired up with different groups each round.  I certainly noticed a lot of things I would never have paid attention to otherwise.  

I'm not sure how much it impacted my evaluation of the courses.  It was much more interesting to watch how people handled the stress of playing a round of golf that they had planned for a year, travelled a long ways for and shelled out a lot of money for.  

A lot of people made themselves miserable real quickly. Others had the time of their lives.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have played my home course for 15 years from the blue tees which has alot of forced carries, none of which ever bother me except for the 18th if I don't crank it out.

Yesterday we played in a modified Pinehurst in which I had to hit my partners drive and now I see things I never saw before, so I am guilty of seeing a course thru my eyes.

My bias's are:

1. I hate course with trees on the right that overhang the fairway as I draw the ball substantially
2. I dislike course with rough that is so penal that all you can do is hack it out
3. Ditto on rough around greens that is so penal that it takes away your short game
4. I love quirk
5. I love big topographical changes
6. I love deep bunkers, odd shapes
7. I love fairways that are rumpled
8. I love challenging greens
9. The more texture a course has, the better

[TEPaul]

"Be honest ...
All BSers will be quickly sorted out!"


You know, Matt, I don't think BSers will be quickly sorted out. First of all who do you think it will be who sorts them out? You perhaps?

I don't think it's hard at all for anyone to see and understand architecture in the context of the games of others unlike one's own game.

I think all it takes is a real willingness to spend the time it takes to both really observe the games of others and to try to do it through the minds and eyes of others.

The only real problem with doing that is it takes a lot of time to do as well as a real willingness to do it.

So the thing anyone on here needs to ask themselves is----are they willing to take the time necessary to do that kind of thing which includes REALLY asking people what they think and talking to them about their own games and how they feel architecture relates to it?

Who on here really has even the willingness to do that comprehensively?

Who on here has ever really tried?

That's an area where the respondents should be very honest.  

[Jay Flemma]

I have played my home course for 15 years from the blue tees which has alot of forced carries, none of which ever bother me except for the 18th if I don't crank it out.

Yesterday we played in a modified Pinehurst in which I had to hit my partners drive and now I see things I never saw before, so I am guilty of seeing a course thru my eyes.

My bias's are:

1. I hate course with trees on the right that overhang the fairway as I draw the ball substantially
2. I dislike course with rough that is so penal that all you can do is hack it out
3. Ditto on rough around greens that is so penal that it takes away your short game
4. I love quirk
5. I love big topographical changes
6. I love deep bunkers, odd shapes
7. I love fairways that are rumpled
8. I love challenging greens
9. The more texture a course has, the better

Good stuff Cary.

I'm a 2 as well.  It makes no difference how I play.  I do look at whether it has alot of ground options.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

I don't even know what my game is anymore and have no idea which of my Sybill-like multiple golf personalities is going to show up when I go play.  

For most every course, I can accurately say something I read one of the pros wrote about Pebble Beach during the 72 US Open;

"This course is built all around my game.   It touches no part of it."  

[Joel_Stewart]

Matt:

Whats the point?  All of the rankings are subjective.   If you're out to bash Golf Digest's panelists and rankings then get over it.

I've played a number of courses that have kicked my ass but I rated them highly.  I came off the 18th thinking it was fair, I had a good time and I would like to play it again.

[Ken Moum]

I am not in the business of rating courses, I can say that I have two views of new courses I play.

First, and most important, is whether or not I enjoyed playing it. I don't have to play well, but I detest being smacked upside the head on hole, after hole, after hole.

It's why I was disappointed by Royal Dornoch, and thrilled by Brora.

I may dislike some really good courses, and some that I love aren't all that great.

For instance, I liked Faldo's Cottonwood Hills, even though others have suggested that it's too hard. I also liked Black Mesa--but a steady diet of it might be more than I could handle.

Conversely, on a recent trip to New Mexico, I played Albuquerque CC several times and I could play it all the time--primarily because I can score on it.

I have no delusions about where it fits on the list of great courses.

My overall score would be much closer to 10 than 1, I am not objective enough to say what it is.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

My Christmas present to Matt Ward:

I'm a 10.  If I score well the course rocks.  If I don't it sucks.  And I know you are a 1 - you can see things none of us have any clue about.

TH

ps - did you really expect anyone here to give a score higher than 2?  

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

Thanks for the response.

As I said in my original opening -- I have tried in recent years to see things from different perspectives but there's no doubt that how my game fits or doesn't is always a part of that equation. I try, sometimes failing, to keep that dimension in some sort of overall balance.

Peter:

Allow me to make my point more clear.

Golf is a game that tests individuals. Since golf is a very humble game -- a number of people have a tendency to return to those courses that often provide them with feedback that serves to drive their love for the game even further.

In short -- if a design doesn't fit their respective game -- whatever their handicap is -- I believe, that for a number of people, that will make up their mind in terms of just how good / bad / so-so the overall course is.

Now, I don't doubt there are people who can move their game aside -- whether they shoot well or hack it around -- and can still ascribe a positive assessment. But few people that I have either met or played with can apply a general interest without having a self interest connected to it. Simple as that.

Tom Doak:

I enjoy a number of the mountain time zone courses because of the sheer beauty that often possess -- both internal and clearly external. When you gaze upon a well-routed course with miles and miles of open territory to either side makes for a compelling vista -- especially for a guy who lives in the most densely populated state in the USA.

Frankly, I try to gauge my visits to courses outside my immediate NYC metro area address if I see and read accounts that provide elements of a more complex and fascinating side than simply yardage for yardage sake.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Do you see that paragraph in your intial post that begins "to answer my own question"?

There's no doubt at all why you wrote that and why you've come around over the years the way you said you have in that paragraph.

And that reason is because you've had to listen to me during those years and frankly I've convinced even you.

There is almost no stopping or denying the intelligence and the consequent force of my own arguments!!

Come on, don't get pissed or even try to deny it---you know it's true.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
I don't know if you were directing your question at me or someone else but I didn't want you to judge a course from my perspective.  I was just saying that when I evaluate or rate a course, I try to do it from many different perspectives.  If someone asks me how much I enjoy a course, they may get a totally different answer.

I've used Galloway National as an example in the past.  If someone asked me if they would enjoy playing Galloway National, if I didn't know them, the first question I might ask back is "what is your handicap".  I happen to think that Galloway is a course that the better the golfer, the more you will enjoy it.  This has little to do with what "rating" I would give it.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think it's impossible to put aside one's prejudices or preferences.

I was thinking about this recently and I thought - to evaluate a course for potential improvements, I'd like to play, or walk around with the club champion, the club champ from 40 years ago, a young 18 handicap and a 28 handicap. Next day, a round with the ladies, same type of thing. Then I might see the whole course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()