A Try at a Scientific Rating

[TEPaul]

"I am surprised to see the follower of the whole world philosophy trying to dismiss your efforts."

Not a bad point but first of all I'm not just the follower of the "Big World" philosophy, I am the CREATOR of the Big World Theory.  

I support anyone's right to have their own opinions on anything to do with golf course architecture and I have my own opinions on it as well and therefore that does not preclude my right to argue with anyone else's opinion as it does not preclude their right to argue with mine.

[paul cowley]

"I am surprised to see the follower of the whole world philosophy trying to dismiss your efforts."

Not a bad point but first of all I'm not just the follower of the "Big World" philosophy, I am the CREATOR of the Big World Theory.  

I support anyone's right to have their own opinions on anything to do with golf course architecture and I have my own opinions on it as well and therefore that does not preclude my right to argue with anyone else's opinion as it does not preclude their right to argue with mine.

...spoken like the true diety you are.

[TEPaul]

"Who is Joshua Crane and whats he to do with this?"

Matthew:

Joshua Crane was something of one of those "renaissance" type men of the teens and early 20s who had some of his own pretty unique ideas on what was best for architecture and its future via how to rate and imporve golf course architecture through mathematical analysis.

It just so happens that his attempts to garner some serious ink and press for his "scientific method" essentially freaked out some of the top architects and architectural philosophers of his time who considered themselves something of the leading contingent of what might be called new "strategic" school of architecture.

Bob Crosby is of the opinion that some of the best books written on architecture and strategic architecture around this time (mid to late 1920s) were done for the specific purpose of counteracting Crane's mathematical proposals.  

The debate was semi joined back then in the 1920s and then it sort of fizzled out.

Some today feel that because of this or even despite this many in the world of architecture went down the road Crane was proposing.

For that reason some of us today want to rerun the details of that old debate and perhaps conduct it again given the evolution of architecture in the ensuing eighty years or so.

Savy?  

[Jimbo]

"let's just keep golf course rating simple - total yardage times stimpmeter value minus cart path length"

Eureka!!!

[Garland Bayley]

Matthew,

You have to remember that some of the members of this site are really ancient and unable to still do the math it would take to give a number for Rolling Green or Garden City for instance.  

You old duffers know who you are.  

[Garland Bayley]

"Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.....where to begin...
Bob"


Bob:

You could begin by explaining to Matthew that among Joshua Crane's other accomplishments he was also a closet pedophile and apparently someone who treated even small dogs worse than Michael Vick.

Thought I would capture this before it got editted. Perhaps Dan Kelly can check in and tell us whether Joshua was treating small dogs worse than he was treating Michael Vick or he was treating them worse than Michael Vick did.
 

[Matthew Hunt]

OK, lets treat this as an exercise:

J.(Maths)Crane v Alister Mck

The Great GCA Fight Night.

We have lots of opinion lists(Magizines) but this is a scientific one to compare it too. I am not in favor of this type of Rating...Yet

[TEPaul]

Garland:

If you want to get into the finer points of parsing sentences maybe you should go to a website on the English language. If you want to know what I meant in that post about Joshua Crane and Michael Vick all you need to do is ask me.  

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

As a twice fallen deity, I just wanted to take a peg out of the most high.
 

[TEPaul]

Tom,

As a twice fallen deity, I just wanted to take a peg out of the most high.
 

Garland:

I suspected nothing less of you. The first order of business on this website, and particularly amongst regulars, should be to always look for ways to deflate those who act too "puffed up".

And I'm certain that includes all of us who spend too much time on here.  

[Matthew Hunt]

Bump

[Dave Givnish]

Desert Forest 64

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island  --74

Lengh in yards/200=  (Max 36 pts)--36 (36.78)

Difference between front and back Mens tees/200=  (Max 5 pts)--5 points (7,356-6,202=5.77)

Average Width of Fairway/5=  (Max 10 pts)--9 (might be 10 but I haven't been out there to measure them)

If Carts not comp. add 2, if not allowed except for medical conditions add 5= (Max 5pts) -- 4 points (walking only until noon tee times)

1pt for every 100y's of 1st hole= (Max 5pts) -- 4 (395)

1pt for every 100 yards of the last 3 hole minus the difference in yards between the nines= (Max 12pts) -- 570+221+439=1,239-94=1,145 -- 11 points

1pt for every between the following distances: -150 250-350 450-550= (Max 18pts) --5 points (No 4-453; No 6-455; No 7-527; No. 9-464; No. 12-466)

[Matthew Hunt]

1. RCD Championship 74
1. The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island  74
3. Pinehurst No.7  72
4. Pinehurst No.1  71
5. Tobacaco Road 64
5. Desert Forest 64
7. RCD Annesley 59
8. Orchard Hills WA 52

[Jonathan Cummings]

I am forever amused at how we insist on injecting an unnecessary step in these rating processes.  If you are interested in ranking courses then ask a person to provide a list of best-to-less best courses.  Forget the calculations - this is as close to the "truth" on that person's course rankings as you can get.  Get a lot of ranking lists from people of interest, average them and you have the best representation of a composite ranking as you can get.  Any injection of categories is an unnecessary step that only degrades the quality of the generated averaged list.

JC  

[Matthew Hunt]

Please note this is not saying this is the est was to do a experiment. I felt compeled to post this again because when I worked out Kilkeels rating it worked ou as third best better than the Two pinehurst courses. Does this show how formulas are not applicable in golf. The Rating currently stands at

1. RCD Championship 74
1. The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island  74
3. Kilkeel 73
4. Pinehurst No.7  72
5. Pinehurst No.1  71
6. Tobacaco Road 64
6. Desert Forest 64
8. RCD Annesley 59
9. Orchard Hills WA 52

[Garland Bayley]

Matthew,

I don't know if you saw this before, but I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=32246

[Matthew Hunt]

Matthew,

I don't know if you saw this before, but I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=32246

I did this as a experiment but I totall disagree with rating single holes, it seems kinda dirty  

[TEPaul]

Matthew:

You don't mind scientifically or mathematically rating golf courses but it makes you feel dirty to mathematically or scientifically rate single holes??

You know something, you are both a silly rabbit and a weird duck.

I hereby change my statement that you're like the pedofile Joshua Crane who mathematically molested golf holes and courses and treated small dogs worse than Michael Vick did---to read you are not just a mathematical pedophile of innocent golf architecture like Crane but you appear to be a MASS PEDOPHILE of golf architecture!!!

Something makes you feel dirty about mathematically molesting individual innocent little golf holes but for some odd reason you don't seem to mind mathematically molesting 18 innocent little golf holes at the same time!?!?

[John Moore II]

You know Matt, I tried to find a flaw in the rating process, but its too complex for me to do that. But as far as I got, it seems that a 7200 yd golf course with a second set of mens tees at 6200 yds, 50 yard wide fairways and a 500yd first hole would be nearly perfect. Not that this isn't a good idea, but it gets far to formulaic. Like to came to determine on your own, formulas don't work for golf course ratings. This rating really does not take into consideration anything about the greens or difficulty.

[John Moore II]

TPC at Wakefield Plantation--73

[Peter Nomm]

Minocqua (WI) CC - 67