[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

I read your post with much interest.

A few comments are in order.

You seem to have a fairly detailed / laundry list on what constitutes quality golf BEFORE you have even hit a shot. I used to do that myself -- thinking that high CR and slopes would be more worth my time then the reverse. Now, I have not exactly abandoned the former for the latter but I don't hold such an ill-conceived benchmark as the rallying cry in determining whether I visit a course or not. I've also made it a point over the years to watch intensely the manner by which shots are played by the people I'm with (usually varying handicap types) and get to see whether the strategic qualities of the course are complex or rather one-dimensional.

No doubt the mere definition of these items is sorted through the way shots I hit are handled and ultimately rewarded / penalized. I've had the good fortune in playing with a gent for many, many years who is a bus driver and not an especially gifted golfer -- handicap is 20+. I can dialogue with him after playing -- he is also observing my shots -- and from that we can likely put together a good intersection of key points on the positive and negative side.

Ian, I tend to agree with you that those who see themselves fully capable in applying the number 1 to their abilty to rate a course are somewhat delusional (my word) -- with all due respect. People cannot step out of their body and then provide a separate dispassionate analysis.

For me the issue is not whether people have in-grained preferences -- most people do and frankly they should. The real issue is do people have the CAPACITY to see beyond their own game. I really believe that those who have higher handicaps often have a more trying time in really understanding what quality golf is about for those at the more advanced / expert level of the game. While I think it's easier for the advanced person to appreciate what the high handicaps face -- again I say this in broad general terms -- I don't see the reverse being as easy to do.

I mentioned previously different types of courses. Winged Foot / West doesn't bring forward the same "love" and "passion" that one sees mentioned to nearby layouts like Fenway and even Quaker Ridge. I truly believe that such a different feeling for the Mamaroneck facility is tied to the fact that little love comes from playing that bear of a Tillie layoout without demonstrating a superior level of dexterity with the game.  Put those same people on the other two courses I mentioned and the gushing of adjectives is dripping off their tongues the minute the round concludes.

As I have grown older (now 50) I have really started to place the game and the courses I treasure in some sort of meaningful perspective that doesn't automatically convey knighthood to those layouts that have 75+CR's and 140+SL's. Some people on GCA believe I still think of all courses in that perspective. So be it for their own errors.

Ratings will always be subjective but it's clear to me that the failure of so many magazines is in having people who are truly locked-in to a preset formulaic mindset. You mentioned your checklist -- no doubt others have them as well. You get that same thought process with those -- usually of the narrow classical school types -- who view desert golf as being completely outside "the norm" on what "real" golf is about.

I've tried to keep in check my ingrained preferences under control. In years past I would not seek out a course with a par less than 70. Not anymore. Ditto on courses that are less than 6,500 yards -- but I add this part -- such courses had better have something that is utterly rich and special to keep my attention after a single play.

I do agree with you that having some layed out formula of numerically assigned criteria works from an accounting perspective but really fails because design is as much art as it is science.

In sum -- I still believe rate a course based on how it is tied to their specific game. The comments on so many threads lends credence to that time after time. Maintaining the truly "open" mind is likely more of a fantasy than reality for most.

The original post by Shivas is really telling because he understands what suits his game but is more than willing -- even desiring -- to be tested in other ways.

Ian, panelists who do rate, or even those who rate courses for their own pleasure, are served in fighting the impulse to apply greatness to those places that dovetail in the narrowest of ways tied to their games. I would guess if people looked at their individual listings of courses they could see if they are in fact doing such a thing now and whether or not an expanded view may be worth considering. Again, tastes of specific courses may be v-e-r-y narrow for some -- I've seen plenty of that here on GCA and can't expect people to take a wider view so easily.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

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).

VORP!

[George Pazin]

Lotsa telling responses in this thread.

Time to cull the list of posters whose opinions I value highly even further....

 

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..."

John makes the list! I think the other JK might, too.

[Matt_Ward]

The point of my thread was to examine the idea that a number of people have a certain particular "type" of course that they seem to prefer to play and likely will rate higher others that don't fit that exact mold.

If people truly define "great" or "exceptional" golf in such a narrow way is such a definition in and of itself good thing? No doubt -- for the person holding to such a view it's perfectly fine and worthwhile.

For me I would dare say no.

Why?

Frankly, the capacity to be open to the thought of other golf courses having qualities that fly either partially or totally against such a narrow band of acceptable courses demonstrates for me a more pragmatic sense of what can be embraced as superior golf (see the related discussion on desert golf).

I've had many discussion over the years with playing partners and others and when the subject of where to play comes up often people couch their answers in some form of up or down preference and when you really probe you generally find out that how the course relates to that person's particular game is part and parcel of what drives them to want to play there or not play there.

I've introduced people to Bethpage Black and after one round I could easily discern that a second or third round there was not going to happen. They knew perfectly well that their pop-gun tee shots were no match for the Jaws-like appetite the Black presents. Of course, the person who did not want to return always used another self-protection excuse to beg-off from a return visit. I generally believe that many people cannot separate their own games from the rating experience. They think they can but very few actually have the inherent discipline to do so.  

[George Pazin]

That's all well and good, Matt, it is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

I'll simply add that it's very easy to play a course poorly, not really have the game suited for it, and still rate the course highly - and yet to be completely in error in doing so. Rating a course highly that you played poorly may be completely right, or completely wrong, or varying degrees of either.

I think Ian's probably the most sensible person on the thread (no surprise there, he's been on my list for as long as I've been on here ), by recognizing that he rates a course relative to his own set principles.

Further, being able to rate a course highly that does not meet one's own standards or principles does not strike me as particularly open-minded or broad-minded, it strikes me as weird, and possibly hypocritical. Not always, but without further explanation or examination, I'd have a hard time taking that person's word seriously.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't really care how a course works for me and my game in how I rate it.  Sure, I have my bias, I really hate penal courses where on nearly every hole there's OB, lost ball area or water hazards awaiting.  I guess as a wild hitter maybe that counts as a bias that would affect my rating, but I don't have anything against short tight courses if they give you a chance to recover from your mistakes instead of making you reload or drop.

It isn't because I don't like how the penalties hurt my score, because I don't particularly care about score.  Hell, I dislike courses that have free drop areas just as much.  You know, where there's a greenskeeper who goes crazy with the GUR paint, or a course with lots of environmentally sensitive wildflowers, that sort of thing.  What you are playing there isn't quite golf in my mind.

I play golf because I love the challenge.  I like hitting shots that are just at the very edge of my ability, and pushing to extend that limit.  And actually, for a mid single digit handicap, I've got a lot of ability.  The reason I'm not scratch or plus has little to do with lack of raw ability and much to do with my utter lack of consistency due to never practicing and being completely self-taught, plus not having the right mindset for scoring (i.e., not playing safe when I should, having problems scoring lower than my "comfort zone", etc.)

So maybe I'm like Shivas in that there's almost a negative correlation for me.  I've played Turnberry twice, shot 77 both times, and think it is overrated.  I've played Prestwick twice, shot 95 and 102, and it is one my favorite courses.  That's not to say I don't highly rate and enjoy some "easy" courses, and think some really difficult ones suck.  But aside from the bias against penal courses, I'm pretty open to anything.  And the list of what I like is pretty diverse.  But I'm going to be more likely to truly enjoy playing a Bethpage Black or Oakmont than most would be, even if they beat the crap out of me.

[JESII]

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.

Lloyd,

Yes, I think maybe so...but maybe not...When approaching a green, any green, we have a certain position we want to hit the ball...I end up in between clubs if the green makes it seem harder to get it to that spot than simply point and shoot. The ball needs to be able to move once it hits the ground and I want to control that movement...

[Matt_Ward]

I'll say this again for the hard of hearing -- I've brought people to Bethpage Black and when they finished playing there I've seen more than a few people opine that the course was not that great -- that it's simply muscular and thoroughly lacking. When pressed -- these same folks had to admit that their own personal experience certainly did have an impact on what their overall assessment of the course was about. I applaud their honesty -- I'm laughing out loud on those who have stated that it's no problem -- that one can easily divorce your own experience from that of the overall qualities / lack thereof from the course itself.

I think there are people on GCA who are under the self-illusion that one can easily divorce how a course fits / not fits with your game and how one assesses the course overall with such a personal connection held to the side.

I'm not suggesting that certain people can do it -- but the idea that "it's no problem" to do so a thing makes me shake my head in wonder at such a unique skill.

Doug S:

I salute your honesty -- clearly you seem to favor a broad diversity of courses. You say you dislike penal courses but Oakmont is a poster child for such a style. One can easily make the same course that BB is no less in terms of its overall presentation.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Keep in mind with your Bethpage Black example that you look at courses from the perspective of having "adequate length" and recently mentioned how you've had to put effort into understanding and appreciating 6,400 yard courses. Many others as you've mentioned look at it the other way, having too much length at the potential expense of variety. I'd like to play Bethpage someday myself, but the question I will ask when playing the course is whether the greens and the rest of the course test all facets of the game or whether being able to hit long straight drives and long irons is overemphasized. Its a totally different question than I asked at Crystal Downs, where I wondered if the tee to green game matched the quality of the greens (my answer: YES!). I'm not making any judgment on Bethpage, just saying that is one way I would look at the course given its reputation. Hopefully all that makes some sense!  

As I stated earlier in the thread I agree with you that we all look through our own eyes when evaluating golf courses. Our own experiences and tastes have to guide us in some fashion when we look at golf courses. Often those tastes correlate with our own golfing strenghts and weaknesses, and I salute those who manage to overcome those tendencies. I would tend to agree though that anyone who thinks there is NO impact is probably fooling themselves.

[Tommy Williamsen]

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?

Sorry to be absent, but I have a dead hard drive.  I worte a dirge and gave it a fond farewell, along with 6000 songs on my i-tunes that were not backed up becaue my external hard drive died as well.  so I think i would like to do ranking on Dell instead.

i guess the strength of the GD rankings is that sxcores are independent of whether or not you like the course.  It is its weakness as well.  Bulle Rock, for instance, scored well on resistence to scoring, memorablility,and shot values.  It scored low on fun.  We don't have that categrory.  Actuallyt I am please that I can be objective enough to score it as I did.  I suspect we can all do something similar in other venues. I enjoy music and attend concerts at the Kennedy center when I can.  Periodically I will here a piece that is not my cup of tee.  The performance is good, the musicians phrasing was good, tone was good etc.  All in all it was played well.  I just didn't happen to like the piece.  

[Doug Siebert]

Doug S:

I salute your honesty -- clearly you seem to favor a broad diversity of courses. You say you dislike penal courses but Oakmont is a poster child for such a style. One can easily make the same course that BB is no less in terms of its overall presentation.

Matt,

Well, keep in mind the meaning of the word "penal" is different to me than the definition most of GCA typically uses.  I kind of alluded to it in my post, but basically a penal course to me is one that offers little or no possibility of recovery from a missed shot.  A hole that's surrounded on both sides by either OB, water, lost ball zones or trees/brush so thick you might not be able to play out sideways even if you find it is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

A course like Oakmont may have thick rough that makes the prospect of advancing the ball more than 50 yards or so somewhat of a risky or inadvisable shot, but I'm never losing more than one stroke per missed stroke I play -- its up to me whether I choose to cut my losses and lose only the one stroke by playing it safe and escaping the rough or fairway bunkers with a high percentage shot back into the fairway, or risk compounding my troubles by trying to advance the ball further.

So essentially I'm saying that Oakmont isn't penal to me, based on my definition of the word, nor would BB be.  Your typical crappy overly narrow housing development course that might be rated only 69.7/129 would quite likely be more penal by my way of thinking.  Now, that would be a course that most on GCA would give low marks to, but my low marks would not be based on the same factors other GCAers would base them on.

To me, at Oakmont you put your ball on the tee, then keep whacking at that same ball until you put it into the hole, without any reference to or intereference from the rules of golf.  That's kind of a precondition for a great golf course by my way of thinking, and a golf course can never be great if it doesn't at least get that part right!  If I played at Oakmont with full on brutish US Open conditions I might post a big number, but I wouldn't consider it penal and I'd enjoy the challenge.  Maybe someday I'll have the opportunity to give it a try.

[archie_struthers]

 



To all , I pose this conundrum   ??

Should Merion be the highest rated course for it's architecture, in that it's subtleties reward different styles of play more than any course I have experienced.  

Obviously there are arguments about rough height, green speeds (maintenance meld) et al that enter into this debate, as some (sho have not played the new tees) will deem the old girl too short , but .......isn't Merion the poster child for both Matt Ward and Tom Doak at the same time.  ( or their espoused / or perceived positions as to great architecture)

   

[JESII]

Archie,

Hope you are well,


As to Merion...YES...other than the congestion/flow issues brought on by the new tees.

Amazing course...but so is Pine Valley...do you think it is too penal for the high handicapper? Probably right for the purposes of your question...

[John Kavanaugh]

Archie,

According to Ben Crenshaw, The Riviera should be the highest rated course based on architecture.

[archie_struthers]

 

JES

Pine Valley is soooo good because even high handicappers usually have a few good holes.....and thus some great memories of pleasure and pain.


As to the architectural argument vis a vis Merion .... the ability to hit the ball high might be too great an advantage at "the Valley"  relative to my query....

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: Fact is that most people think their game is a whole lot better than it is.  They have handicaps at their home course where they are comfortable and they are based upon their best 10 out of 20, etc.  So they go to a new course and they have these false hopes of how they are going to play the course while at the same time they are trying to evaluate it.  There is nothing deceiving nor incomprehensible about golf - it's very simple, add up your strokes and total your score.  Perhaps I'm a bit foolish but when I was rating a course I never kept score - wasn't interested in my score - I was playing the course to try and evaluate it and if I was concerned about my score I would lose focus on the features of a hole that did not come into play for me.

[John Kavanaugh]

I like courses where I am comfortable more than those where I am not.  I can't quantify it and this is not an attempt to impress John Lennon, but I like courses where I can breathe.  I believe this has a direct relationship with my game and how it fits the course.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Well stated -- re: Merion and its unique architecture.

Doug S:

With all due respect to your definition of penal -- but Oakmont is the poster child for penal designs. The very reason it came into existence was because of the feelings the Fownes had regarding how poorly played shots would always be treated.

In regards to BB -- it is extremely penal in terms of how it handles tee shots -- especially those misplayed.

I can understand when you say penal, in your mind, is where the involvement of the rules of golf (e.g. OB, H20, etc, etc) becomes an absolute condition in playing a course.

If you played Oakmont or BB you'd find rough that can add plenty of time for seaches because of the depth and density of the rough.

Jerry K:

My only point was that some people can divorce their game when assessing the overall qualities / lack thereof from the course they have played. It's not as much as many might think, IMHO.

Many people take their experience -- whether they score or not -- and carry that forward with their overall views of the course.

Andy T:

When you have played BB you can tell me if I'm wrong. Fact is I've played the course more than 200 times in a lifetime and minus the really objective person (of which there are a number of) many people quickly assess the overall nature of the course simply from the perspective of how it fits their game.

I have had the benefit (in terms of diversity of courses encountered plus the benefit of age!) to try to widen my view on any course I have played. I don't write-off courses that are short or throw accolades to those that are simply long.

Andy, your last comment is a telling one. Far too many people believe they can throw to the side the role their game played in assessing a course. Many of these people think it can be easily done -- if one reads their views on the matter you can likely see where such foundations for their views gained traction -- in many ways how they played (not necessarily scored) is the starting point for their views.


 

[George Pazin]

So essentially I'm saying that Oakmont isn't penal to me, based on my definition of the word, nor would BB be.  Your typical crappy overly narrow housing development course that might be rated only 69.7/129 would quite likely be more penal by my way of thinking.  Now, that would be a course that most on GCA would give low marks to, but my low marks would not be based on the same factors other GCAers would base them on.

To me, at Oakmont you put your ball on the tee, then keep whacking at that same ball until you put it into the hole, without any reference to or intereference from the rules of golf.  That's kind of a precondition for a great golf course by my way of thinking, and a golf course can never be great if it doesn't at least get that part right!  If I played at Oakmont with full on brutish US Open conditions I might post a big number, but I wouldn't consider it penal and I'd enjoy the challenge.  Maybe someday I'll have the opportunity to give it a try.

Love this post and I love your way of thinking. That's part of why I say you will rarely go wrong on this site by agreeing with anyone named Doug.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy T:

When you have played BB you can tell me if I'm wrong. Fact is I've played the course more than 200 times in a lifetime and minus the really objective person (of which there are a number of) many people quickly assess the overall nature of the course simply from the perspective of how it fits their game.

I have had the benefit (in terms of diversity of courses encountered plus the benefit of age!) to try to widen my view on any course I have played. I don't write-off courses that are short or throw accolades to those that are simply long.

Andy, your last comment is a telling one. Far too many people believe they can throw to the side the role their game played in assessing a course. Many of these people think it can be easily done -- if one reads their views on the matter you can likely see where such foundations for their views gained traction -- in many ways how they played (not necessarily scored) is the starting point for their views.

Matt,
I didn't say you were wrong regarding BB, I would tend to agree with your premise and haven't played the course to see the specific example you presented. BB seems to be a course that definitely favors strong drivers of the ball, so it makes sense that they would probably enjoy the golf course more so than someone who drives it short and/or crooked and ends up in the rough punching back to the fairway all day.

That said, I hit it in the rough at TPC Sawgrass all day and shot about 90 last week and loved the golf course anyway. Alas, most likely if I played it again the results wouldn't be that much different as accuracy is not a strength of mine and missing fairways there tends to be a problem

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Congrats -- you are one of those few who can separate your game from that of an overall course's standing.

I didn't say no one can do it -- just that few seem capable in doing it.

[Brian Cenci]

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.

I'm like Tom in the fact that I tend to gain interest in a course that has greater short game aspects.  But, when I do the #'s I don't consider that in my decission.  I guess I would say I prefer playing courses that have interesting green complexes and chipping areas but when it comes time to rate the course I like at all the categories and go from there.  I don't think it correlates to a ranking.

There is however only 1 thing that I "dock" for when reviewing a course that specifically relates to my game....ANGLED TEE BOXES!  I would deduct potentially under any "Conditioning" category for this.  
     I'm a lefty and whenever I point this out to righties they look at me like I'm an idiot.  The majority of tee boxes have a tendency to be angled (I assume for drianage purposes) slightly so that a righty has an uphill lie (thus I have a downhill lie).  For the most part, uphill lies are easier to hit and they also slightly correct slicing.  Next time your on a tee box that looks unlevel, switch around and aim opposite of the hole to get a feel for how the other 1/10th of the world lives and has to struggle with downhill lies off the tee.

-Brian

[jeffwarne]

Brian,

You have a "sidehill lie", not an "uphill lie".
If the tee was producing an uphill lie, it would be the same for both righties and lefties-and promote a higher ball flight.

If ,as you're implying a tee produces a sidehill lie with the ball above the feet for righties, then the sidehill lie you would be stuck with would be one below your feet,encouraging slices.

I haven't noticed this, but then I'm not a lefty so perhaps we righties all get used to our hooky sidehill lies.
I've been known to straddle the left tee marker to encourage this effect, but it seems to me on the right side of the tee a similar effect could be found for a lefty.

Guess you wouldn't like any of the newer freeform tees.

Having  grown up on a hilly course, I just don't get too wrapped up in level tees-even a severe downhill lie(not sidehill below your feet) can be compensated for by raising tee height.

I would eliminate conditioning in the ratings anyway as it gives boring, manicured courses an edge they don't deserve and the more sophisticated the rater, the more his definition of proper conditioning would change.
I played with a rater at North Berwick who told me it was great but he was going to score it lower than Loch Lomond (where I had about 10 mudballs) because it was so "burnt out".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()