The Golf Club Atlas rating criteria

[Mark_Fine]

Dave,
Again there is no right or wrong but I cringe at the "I used all my clubs rule."  Remember the story about Hogan.  It went something along the lines of this - Someone yelled out to him during a practice round "it's a seven iron".  He proceeded to drop a dozen or so balls and used all his clubs from that spot to hit balls onto the green.  Does that mean that hole was unbelieveably good or that the golfer was unbelievably good    I would argue types of shots are more important then length of shots.
Mark

[David Ober]

Dave,
Again there is no right or wrong but I cringe at the "I used all my clubs rule."  Remember the story about Hogan.  It went something along the lines of this - Someone yelled out to him during a practice round "it's a seven iron".  He proceeded to drop a dozen or so balls and used all his clubs from that spot to hit balls onto the green.  Does that mean that hole was unbelieveably good or that the golfer was unbelievably good    I would argue types of shots are more important then length of shots.
Mark

I must disagree here. If you play a course that has a variety of par 4 hole lengths, but they all end up being driver, wedge for the better player (even though he could hit 7-iron if s/he chose), I think that deducts from a course's rating -- especially if the par 3's also tend to be shortish and the par 5's longish (which requires lots of lay-ups and then wedge approaches).

One of the reasons I love my home course (even though it's nothing special) is that you truly do get to hit a great variety of shots every single round you play, without exception.  This is mainly due to the fact that the par 3's are all long(ish) and the par 5's all short, which necessitates that every golfer hit plenty of long-irons and fairway woods in addition to all of the wedges and mid-irons that you hit into most of the shortish par 4's. Without the (fairly) rare combination of long par 3's and short par 5's, I wouldn't enjoy playing my home course nearly as much as I do, and would probably have joined another club long ago, since my course is always in middling shape. The shot values, though, are always there at my course, and I enjoy every round, never tiring of it -- precisely because I do get to "use every club in my bag."

[David Stamm]

Dave,
Again there is no right or wrong but I cringe at the "I used all my clubs rule."  Remember the story about Hogan.  It went something along the lines of this - Someone yelled out to him during a practice round "it's a seven iron".  He proceeded to drop a dozen or so balls and used all his clubs from that spot to hit balls onto the green.  Does that mean that hole was unbelieveably good or that the golfer was unbelievably good    I would argue types of shots are more important then length of shots.
Mark

Mark, wouldn't that depend on the golfers ABILITY to be able to hit other types of shots that you describe? Most golfers can't. I agree, types of shots are a part of it, but all things being equal, all golfers can experience different length shots no matter what the ability. I'd say it's a equal sharing, length and variety of shot, IMHO.

[Andy Troeger]

I think design variety is a good rule, but I think its a better just to keep it simple than to go to the point of "using every club" because often that changes from day to day. Obviously works if one plays a course many times, but isn't particularly helpful for one time visits. I do like the idea behind it though.

[Garland Bayley]

The Pazin Awkwardness Factor. To what extent do you get awkward stances and lies. And, how often do you need to fade from a draw lie and vise versa.

[Garland Bayley]

The George Bahto criteria. How many recognizeable templates make up the course.

[Garland Bayley]

Great thread Garland.

One of the elements that is most important to me is the blending of architecture and aesthetics in a way that creates excitement in the golfer.

- Is the course natural?
- Did the architect force his hand on the land or use it subtly?
- How well does the course fit into the natural environment?
- How much strategy did the architect get out of the land available?
- Is it playable for the scratch golfer and the bogey golfer?
- Is the course built responsibly (from an environmental standpoint)?
- Is the course built to be walkable which maximizes the golfing experience?

I think there will be some diverging views in the weighting of criteria across this discussion group

I guess this one is the Rigg anti-rigging criteria. What a naturalist. You would think he hails from Oregon. Let's just hope he doesn't decide his first GCA event is to be done au-naturel.

[Cliff Hamm]

For most golfers, including me, the number one criteria is Was it fun?  Do I want to play it again and how soon?   For some that will embody all of the great architectural elements for others maybe not. While 'enjoyment' is subjective in the end that's what golf should be about.  If a course is architecturally great but not fun is it really architecturally great?

[BCrosby]

Isn't this thread an object lesson that no consensus about rating criteria exists? And isn't that a very, very big problem for ranking systems?

Dog shows have the same problem. By what conceivable criteria do you decide that a poodle is a better dog than a beagle? The absence of an agreed upon set of criteria makes such cross breed comparisons pretty much farcical...

Why don't you have the same problem when making similar cross breed comparisons among golf courses? By what independent criteria do you decide which among the golf course "breeds" of Myopia, Firstone or TPC Sawgrass is a better golf course?

My humble suggestion is that ranking systems fess up and acknowledge what they really are. They are popularity contests. People vote for the courses they like because, well, they really like them. Nothing wrong with that per se. Unless you assign it some deeper significance.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

If this website got into constructing some "GolfclubAtlas" rating criteria I would expect the criteria would work off this essential principle of GCA contained in Ran Morrissett's own description on this site's homepage:


“The courses included are ones from which the author believes there is much to be learned. Many of the courses are not 'championship' courses (whatever that means) or necessarily the best conditioned courses, but they share a single important characteristic: they are inspiring to play, be it by yourself, with your dog, family or friends.
Enjoyment is the primary theme of these descriptions, but when taken together, these course profiles hopefully trace the history and improvements/setbacks in golf course architecture.”



I also think if and when that GOLFCLUBATLAS criteria is created encompassing Morrissett's principles contained in his statement above that there should be clearly explained reasons both how and why.

[Mark_Fine]

We have tried this exercise in the past.  In fact, this group could not even get close to agreeing on the Top 10 courses let alone the top 100.  Maybe someone can pull up one of the old threads.

[Garland Bayley]

The Tom Doak random bunker criteria. I believe from something Tom posted that he appreciates the randomness of the bunkers at TOC. My impression from his post was that he would not attempt to be totally random, but would place the bunkers where they naturally fit in the landscape which did not necessarily place them in the most strategic positions. However, somehow he gets them stategically placed too, so obviously he know more than I do.

[Garland Bayley]

The Tom Paul criteria. How many holes from Fernadina Beach have faithfully replicated.

[John Kirk]

Dave,
Again there is no right or wrong but I cringe at the "I used all my clubs rule."  Remember the story about Hogan.  It went something along the lines of this - Someone yelled out to him during a practice round "it's a seven iron".  He proceeded to drop a dozen or so balls and used all his clubs from that spot to hit balls onto the green.  Does that mean that hole was unbelieveably good or that the golfer was unbelievably good    I would argue types of shots are more important then length of shots.
Mark

I must disagree here. If you play a course that has a variety of par 4 hole lengths, but they all end up being driver, wedge for the better player (even though he could hit 7-iron if s/he chose), I think that deducts from a course's rating -- especially if the par 3's also tend to be shortish and the par 5's longish (which requires lots of lay-ups and then wedge approaches).

One of the reasons I love my home course (even though it's nothing special) is that you truly do get to hit a great variety of shots every single round you play, without exception.  This is mainly due to the fact that the par 3's are all long(ish) and the par 5's all short, which necessitates that every golfer hit plenty of long-irons and fairway woods in addition to all of the wedges and mid-irons that you hit into most of the shortish par 4's. Without the (fairly) rare combination of long par 3's and short par 5's, I wouldn't enjoy playing my home course nearly as much as I do, and would probably have joined another club long ago, since my course is always in middling shape. The shot values, though, are always there at my course, and I enjoy every round, never tiring of it -- precisely because I do get to "use every club in my bag."

I like both David and Mark's thoughts here.  The other day I got to the 17th hole, decided upon a 7-wood second shot, looked down at the old dog and realized I hadn't hit it all day.  If it's not important, it's at least fun to do so.

Courses with long 3s and short 5s do a great job of spreading out the shots.  Pasatiempo comes to mind.

[TEPaul]

"The Tom Paul criteria. How many holes from Fernadina Beach have faithfully replicated."


No way. While Fernandina Beach Municipal is the world's greatest hidden gem for a particular reason for me, I'm certain none of its holes are replicas of any other course and I would never recommend that any of its holes be replicated elsewhere for the simple reason Fernandina Beach Municipal's true genius is what was once known as "Specialty of Place."   

Look, I've been singing the praises of Fernandina Beach Municipal on here for years and I guess to some degree I have sort of "kept the con", if you get my drift.   

So, although I think I once mentioned it on here, I will again now.

THE reason I have always said that Fernandina Beach Municipal is the world's greatest hidden gem to me, is because maybe ten years ago I was playing there with my wife, and it occured to me the golf course was so sleepy and looked so much like the way North Florida (and some of its courses) did back in the late '40s and early '50s (with the old Spanish moss on the trees and such) that if I just turned around I would see my dad there looking just like he did back then! This was not just a passing thought, it was so God-damned palapable (BTW my dad has been gone since '92), it gave me goosebumps and I actually couldn't even turn around thinking HE might actually be there behind me just like back then when I was a kid and he played all that golf up and down that entire area of Florida.

THAT is the reason, and the only reason, I call Fernandina Beach Municipal my world's greatest hidden gem. There's no other course I know of that had that same kind of aura for me; so similar in over-all feeling to the way things once were decades ago. What I'm talking about is a sudden feeling of nostalgia on steroids for me and it was Fernandina Beach Municipal golf course that did that for me all on its own.

Why wouldn't I love the place and refer to it as my little hidden gem, even if it has nothing at all to do with the quality of its golf course architecture?

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks for the explanation on FBMGC Tom. I forgot to put the smiley on my post as I tried to add a little levity to the thread.

You posted earlier about it not being possible to rank courses to suit everyone or even a significant segment of the golfing population. I agree totally. The purpose of putting together a list of ranking criteria is simply to survey what people value. From that list of criteria, I would expect everyone to have their own set that they value, which would lead to the set of courses they prefer. Thereby explaining why most disagree with the lists published.

[Garland Bayley]

The John Kirk accomodation criteria. The architecture of the course should accomodate the somewhat less than optimal tee shot.

My note, after all the penalty for such a shot is the distance added to the next shot.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:  if you are going to include Mucci's way of looking at courses on this, aesthetics and views cannot count AT ALL.  Each course might as well have 200 foot walls around it.

So if you really do want to count aesthetics/views a little, but not much, the proper terminology would be the Huckaby We Don't Play Blind criterion given that's what I have always said.

Please do correct this... that is unless you really do think the majority here as as blind as Pat.
TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

How does what lies beyond the property lines of a golf course impact the quality of the architecture inside the property lines ?

Do the greens absorb the aura of the distant views ?  The bunkers ?  The fairways ?

How does what lies beyond the property lines of a golf course impact play on the golf course ?

Would I rather go bowling at the Playboy Mansion versus the VFW Hall, sure, but, in terms of "Bowling" the quality of the wood, lanes, and balls determines the quality of the game, not the sights outside of the lanes.

If one is seeking the CCFAD experience perhaps assessing outside influences trumps the quality of the playing surfaces, features and architecture.

Some prefer to incorporate the attire when rating a woman.
It's the same thing with outside influences and golf courses.
Form versus substance.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

Are you gunning for 1000 times saying the exact same thing?  You're at 950 now... I'm rooting for you man.  And you're also now at 950 times getting my take WRONG.  I never ever ever ever ever said the views outside the course "trump" the architecture therein... for the 50,000th time - ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THEY CAN MATTER.  As Tom Doak says, since he clearly stated he designs to maximimize nice views when they are available.

In any case... it would seem at this late date that we agree, since you do state that you'd rather go bowling at the Playboy Mansion than the VFW hall.  That tells me that you FINALLY admit that views CAN MATTER.

Thanks for FINALLY getting it.

So yes, if this criteria is to be used here, it should properly be stated as the Huckaby/Mucci Views Are Acknowledged criteria.  Thanks.

TH

[Dave Givnish]

Mark -

What I guess that I meant, and should have said, is that a course is more interesting to me if I have enough options throughout the round - having to do something other than automatically hitting driver off every par 4 or par 5 for example, or being able to play ground approaches because the fairways are dry enough and the architect hasn't taken away the ground game - that at the end, I've used 10 or more of my clubs that day.  They don't have to be full shots.  I just got myself into positions where I had to creative, or I was able to be creative because of the course design.

Look at the We-ko-pa courses as a simple example of what I mean here in Arizona.  I think that Saguaro is much more interesting to play than Cholla. Cholla's par 4s and par 5s are for the most part driver-something holes where you can hit it as far as you want, go find it, and hit it again.  There are about 3 or 4 different clubs needed for approach shots.

There are several holes on Saguaro, starting at 2, where driver is possible but not always advised.  C&C didn't take driver out of my hand - they just made me think whether that would be the best way to get started.  As a result, you have approaches from more distances or angles.  The greens on Saguaro also seemed to be receptive to bringing the ball in on the ground than Cholla's but I may be wrong.

Dave

[Charlie Goerges]

I say there should be a "thought without execution clause". Basically there should be bonus points awarded when the hole disproportionately rewards the well-thought-out decision vs. the quality of the execution.

As an example, take a redanesque green. The well-thought-out decision might be to play short and right of the green to run the ball on (with, say, a knock-down five iron), the standard decision might be to aim at the center of the green and fly it there with a 6 iron. One player hits a perfect knock-down 5 and runs the ball on to about 5 feet. Another player hits a perfect 6 to the middle of the green, 7 feet from the hole. A third (and here's the key) hits a skulled worm-burner 5 iron which was aimed short and right, but that sucker runs along the ground and rolls up onto the green and settles in about 10 feet. Finally the last player "tries for more than in him lies" by aiming a 6 at the middle of the green; buries in the face of the redan bunker.

I like that there was almost no advantage to perfect execution, whatever the shot, over choosing the cleverest play.



Note that I said "redanesque", I realize the real redan might have something to say about the skulled shot.

[Norbert P]

 The purpose of putting together a list of ranking criteria is simply to survey what people value. From that list of criteria, I would expect everyone to have their own set that they value, which would lead to the set of courses they prefer. Thereby explaining why most disagree with the lists published.

  ". . . to survey what people value."
Garland, your wisdom shines brightly.  I've always avoided ranking threads but you have a good point, as do others here on this thread.

Walkability, variability, originality, honesty, affordability, educationality, culture of clients and clubhouse, nurturing of junior golf, playability for all skill levels, turf condions.


In most rankings that I've seen, though the criteria is presented, the results get homogenized into aaveraging score and then that course is then ranked. If on the other hand, each score for each category is ranked independently, say through graphs or a number system, then what the individual golfer "values" can be appreciated much more deliberately.

Meaning, if a course gets high marks for waterfalls, then let us know that specifically.  It makes no sense to some feller that always rides a cart to figure in "walkability" if he (lazy slug*) doesn't ever walk. 

Example :   Pacific Dunes
Walkability       9
Variabilty         9
Firm and fast   10
Culture            9
Originality        9
Routing           9
Views             10
Naturalness    9     
Affordabilty     >$200
Fun                 10
Uniqueness     10
Weather           1 or 10
Cart girl           DNA

(I used Pac Dunes cuz many of you have played it.  You can argue about my numbers but they're virtually arbitrary since I'm a hacker and am not allowed to rate courses.)   


*Not intended to slam on those that need carts to play.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

You still don't get it, although I too admire you for trying to get to the big 1-0-0-0.   

I'd rather go bowling at the Playboy mansion even if the lanes were crooked, wobbly, broken down, and nails sticking up, over the most beautiful and functionally well maintained bowling alley on the planet.  Take a wild guess why?  If you don't know the answer, then you'll never get it. 

[Garland Bayley]

Pat,

You still don't get it, although I too admire you for trying to get to the big 1-0-0-0.   

I'd rather go bowling at the Playboy mansion even if the lanes were crooked, wobbly, broken down, and nails sticking up, over the most beautiful and functionally well maintained bowling alley on the planet.  Take a wild guess why?  If you don't know the answer, then you'll never get it. 

Kalen,

You and Pat live in entirely different worlds. Pat has the Playboy mansion attractions available every day. He doesn't have to make a trip there to see the scenery. If you don't believe me, then just ask him about his nurse.

[Tags:]

Tags: