[Andy Troeger]

Quote from Stephen Covey in "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" that was brought up in a seminar I attended today:

"Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are -- or, as we are conditioned to see it. When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms. When other people disagree with us, we immediately think something is wrong with them."




I almost started a thread on the comment, but it applies pretty well here. By the way, I'm a 1 too!  

PS: Just because I posted that quote does not mean I entirely 100% agree with it, but I do think there's a lot of truth in thinking that we all think we are less biased by our own experiences than we really are. I'm sure somebody out there might be a 1, but most of us that think we're a 2 are probably a 4, 5 turns into 7, etc. I think I'm a 3-4 trying to be realistic, which probably makes me a 5-6  

[John Kirk]

I'm about a 7.

I don't hit the ball real straight, so I dislike classic courses that depend on mowing fairways real narrow to make themselves hard.  Some of them are great; some are too hard.  Some classic courses also have greens which are not that well designed for modern green speeds.

"Keep Manhattan just give me that countryside..."

[Andrew Summerell]

1

The justifications for my answer:

I have ranked & reviewed courses well that I’ve played poorly & visa versa.

When not playing in a comp, I don’t keep score. This means on many of the golfing travels, I can play 10 or more rounds & not have kept score once.

The more I have become interested in GCA, the more my golf suffers, especially on courses I haven’t played before due to being more interested in the golf course than my golf.

[Ken Moum]

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.

That's excellent. I recently played with a couple of superintendents on one of their courses--both of them are low single-digit handicappers.

We were talking about "seeing" the course through others eyes, and one of them said he occasionally plays with a group of women from their tees, hitting a mid-iron off the tee, just to get an idea of how the course works for them.

It's a great concept, IMHO.

[Andy Troeger]

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.

Lloyd,
I made a similar comment to one of the professionals that had hosted me this year. Ideally if I was to play the course and only had one round I'd like to play with a mid-range lady player, a professional or the club champion, and a 20 handicap. I'm about a 5 hcp give or take so that would give the best variety to add to my own game. Your scenario breaks it down better given more time and resources.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, I suppose that is true to a certain extent. Yet when I rate a course I hit a number of shots on each hole, if the course isn't very crowded.  Generally the staff appreciates it.  I remember playing six (at least I think it was six) at The Creek on Long Island.  I couldn't figure out how to hit the second shot.  I hit ten of them and still can't figure it out.  I loved it because it is challenge and I know there is the best way to play it, I just haven't found it yet.

When I first played Bulle Rock I hated it. But when I scored it (GD categories) it came out very well.  

The same was true for Trump Bedminster.  It beat me up.  I played with a friend who is a member who loved it.  When I did the rating I was pretty conflicted.  Doing the rating was difficult because my friend loves the course.  I'm hope I was objective but it is hard to know.

[Jim Thompson]

I can confirm that Paul Thomas does not allow his game to influence how he observes or partakes of a golf course.  Quite frankly when I've played with him neither of us had game, but we had a hell of a lot of fun.

[Jim Thompson]

Sorry Matt,

I would say I'd be about a six, but it has little to do with whether or not I play or am playing well, but more to do with whether or not I'm given the option to try to play "my game".

Cheers!

JT

[PThomas]

I can confirm that Paul Thomas does not allow his game to influence how he observes or partakes of a golf course.  Quite frankly when I've played with him neither of us had game, but we had a hell of a lot of fun.

we sure did Jim...i used your good jokes as my excuse for crummy play that day!

and i've played MPCC Shore course twice and played bad both times, but still love the golf course

[Andy Troeger]

One thing that seems to be getting blurred as this thread goes along...

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference in the way a course fits one's game and the way one plays when they happen to rate a course. As erratic as I can be, sometimes a course may suit me perfectly and I still struggle and the other way around.

I could care less about what my score is when I rate a course. I was all over the place at TPC Sawgrass and loved it, and have played well at other courses and been just ok about them.

I could say that I tend not to like courses that are very difficult/narrow driving courses with trouble all over and I could point out a few courses that would correlate with that theory. However, Wolf Run is in my top five courses played and its about as hard as it gets...so maybe not  

[Mike_Cirba]

When I first played Bulle Rock I hated it. But when I scored it (GD categories) it came out very well.  

Tommy,

I can't imagine hating a course and then having to score it positively.  

It's difficult not to think that something must be askew with the criteria?   Not to open that can of worms, but it does seems to lock one in to predetermination to some extent.

[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.

George - after further review i still think I am a 1!  another course i've played a few times and not done too well on is Kingsley...i could give more examples of this too

i really, really strive to keep my score out of the equation when deciding how good a course is

[John Kavanaugh]

If it doesn't matter how or where you hit the ball then why hit the ball at all.  I see no reason for raters to be required to play courses they rate.

note:  I have joined two courses in my life before I ever played them.  Joining a course is the most serious rate job a guy can do. You simply drive around, stand on a few tees and greens, and wa la..you decide what you think.

[David_Madison]

1

I'm weak around and on the greens, but when rating a course I value interesting, challenging, quirky, and varying greens complexes and holes with lots of options and that require thought. But the course style that gives me the best possible shot competitively is a cookie cutter bombfest, but that style sure doesn't do much for my ratings sensibilities. An Old Town or Sleepy Hollow will win out every time.

[jeffwarne]

Of course how you rate a course is tied to your game!
If it wasn't, you'd merely walk around it and perhaps watch others playing it. But then I guess there'd be bias based on how it suited their games

After all, aren't you using "your game" to navigate the course.

Perhaps it's the objective criteria that GOLF Digest imposes that results in so many rediculous rating and (raters).

How about you just rank the course on a 1-10 and not have to bother with such garbage as "shot values", and "resistance to scoring", and "conditioning". Cetainly you shouldn't be allowed to give a course 2 bonus points for "walkability" if you take a cart

Brora would probably fail miserably in all of the above categories(except walkability of course), yet I would rate it higher than at least 50% of the courses I've played in the top 100.

[jeffwarne]

Matt, I suppose that is true to a certain extent. Yet when I rate a course I hit a number of shots on each hole, if the course isn't very crowded.  Generally the staff appreciates it.  I remember playing six (at least I think it was six) at The Creek on Long Island.  I couldn't figure out how to hit the second shot.  I hit ten of them and still can't figure it out.  I loved it because it is challenge and I know there is the best way to play it, I just haven't found it yet.

When I first played Bulle Rock I hated it. But when I scored it (GD categories) it came out very well.  

The same was true for Trump Bedminster.  It beat me up.  I played with a friend who is a member who loved it.  When I did the rating I was pretty conflicted.  Doing the rating was difficult because my friend loves the course.  I'm hope I was objective but it is hard to know.

[jeffwarne]

Tommy,
Let's just say I'd disagree with the above quotes.

It'd be hard for me to find a staff anywhere that would appreciate multiple second shots, much less 10 on the same hole
And I'm pretty confident The Creek isn't desperate for a rating.

As far as Bulle Rock (which I haven't played) and Bedminster (which I have) if I hated both and after using Golf Digest criteria found myself scoring them highly.......well in all good faith, I'd have to recuse myself from ranking them at least, and would also consider joining the panel of another magazine that allowed me to be more subjective if it was that at odds with my overall feeling and sense of the course.
Otherwise why play?

[John Kavanaugh]

How many times have we all heard raters cut down a course because they try shots that fail.  I see it almost on a daily basis where 14 handicaps (a large majority of Golfweek guys don't carry handicaps despite having a diary full of scores) think that if they can not execute a shot no one should.  I have no problem with this since many 14 handicaps rely on their rankings.  I just wish they would ride their high horse somewhere up on the saddle and not up its...

[John Kavanaugh]

Lets start a list of things raters bitch about that is related to their ability to hit the ball.

1.  I loose too many balls.
2.  The course is too long.
3.  The bunkers are too deep.
4.  The greens are over the top.
5.  I could not hit the ball over a tree from a good lie in the fairway.
6.  My skull shots did not roll up on the green because I can't hit a high fade.

More anyone?

[John Kavanaugh]

I have one specific example of where redanman said the ground game on the third at Victoria National does not work because he hit his six iron on the third hole multiple times from 90 yds and could not pull the shot off.  He failed because of a lack of talent and held it against the design.  It takes time for hacks like him and me to learn the nuances of some difficult shots that should not be dismissed on the first attempt.  Just yesterday I pulled off the perfect 5 iron from 140 on the exact same hole in what you might imagine not driest of conditions.  (I  play with three clubs in the winter - Driver, 5 iron and 37 deg Putter/Wedge...I didn't want to hit the putter/wedge to a blind hole with water long so I hit a low running hard fade 5 iron which is also the safe shot in the summer.)

The approach options to the blind green on the third hole at the above course are varied, exciting and confusing to this day after seven years of play.  I'm sorry that redanman had trouble executing on his one attempt but that hardly makes it a poor design.

I do not remember the exact specifics but Noel Freeman did the exact same thing to a hole at Colorado Golf Club.  He could not execute so the hole was bad...

[JESII]

Just yesterday I pulled off the perfect 5 iron from 140 on the exact same hole in what you might imagine not driest of conditions.  

Now you're just bragging...

[John Kavanaugh]

You had that one in the bag...good job.  I always hear raters bitch about multiple tees when one of the great things about having so many tees is that you can taylor each hole to a three club set.

[JESII]

I think a great thing for an architect to do is put me between clubs as often as possible...

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think a great thing for an architect to do is put me between clubs as often as possible...

Sully
How can an architect do that? I really don't know. Do you mean offer you multiple options to make you undecided? That I understand.

[Ian Andrew]

I'm not a 1, nor a 2, may be not even a 3.

Why? I have bias built around what I think the idea course should be. It may not be related to my game or how I play - but that's still a bias when I look at a course. For example I detest excessive length because I think it removes variety. I don't care for a course without a short four. I have no time for a course with too many par threes or fours all in same range. Too many trees is always a negative in my eyes and so is 18 greens that can not be reached along the ground.

For all the people claiming the number 1 – good for you – you better at than I am if that’s true.

My biggest weakness (failing) as a rater - if the site was average and the course is great - I know I give extra grade for the architect’s skill. I come with bias too - respect for excellent architecture - and loathing for a poor job on a great site (I bet I knock them lower out of frustration with the architecture).

All this said - I don't apologize for any of it - I think the responsibility is in the magazine to find a balance in the panel from duffer through to scratch, from well versed in architecture to Joe Average (who does matter). I think most of my concerns come from scientifically selected panels with a scientific formula for what is great. I say let people vote honestly – with all the bias they bring.

I do rate currently - would it be better if I didn't?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()