[Adrian_Stiff]

By height.

Lol .... that was my first thought when i saw this thread, but you beat me too it.

[Kalen Braley]

What is it that my wife keeps reminding me, oh yes it’s not size that matters it’s what you do with it. Yet again, our better halves seem to come up with words of real wisdom.

Melyvn,

I'm sorry to hear this...my condolensces.   

Back to the topic...

Its a part of our genetic makeup to compare and contrast just about everything in life.  I mean cmon who didn't use this technique when trying to figure out which college to attend, place to live, car to buy, even girl to marry.

At the end of the day its all personal preferences....and if we add up those personal preferences of everyone (in a perfect world) then and only then can we figure out which course is better or more preferred.

[Mark Bourgeois]

John,
I don't believe anyone who says that Shinnecock is better than Pine Valley and I don't believe anyone who says that Pine Valley is better than Shinnecock.

Of course Tom Doak rated both a 10 in the CG, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think one is better than the other.

Um, John?

Seriously though, this is why a cardinal system is superior to an ordinal system.  Am I the only one who believes greatness is sui generis?  Added benefit is the list of "great" courses is necessarily short.

Mark

[Gary Slatter]

I try not to compare courses because it's impossible unless you play them all 100 times or so.  I base my own opinion on how I felt walking off the 18th green and of course some are are "better" than others but comparing the Old Course to say, ANGC,  isn't fair.  
I have personal ratings of the best Dye course, the best links course, the best Dick Wilson, RTJ, Fazio, Thompson, etc.  but find it difficult to compare different categories. I have played only one Doak course (last two days) and even though it is next to Muirfield I don't think anyone can fairly compare courses built so far apart era-wise.  It was superb to see Tom's treatment, and nice use of trees!.

I prefer the late August version of the Old Course to any other time of the year.

Whats the best way to compare courses?  Personally.

[Jason Topp]

This question is the foundation of this website.  For me - it is best to use multiple comparison methods and then use judgement on how they should be weighted.  The property tax valuation process is actually a decent analogy.

1.  Hole by Hole - Criteria include - level of interest for all class of player (challenge and playability); variety,

        Advantage - forces rigor - I prefer to compare par 3's, par 4's and par 5's

2.  Gestalt - Evaluation of the overall experience - this one gets pretty squishy as far as any objective rating but setting, sequence, desire to return to the first tee all are factors.

3.  Comparison to criteria - Mackenzie's 13 Principles are as good as any even though I probably would reject about half of them

Some of these principles are (I could not find a complete list to cut and past - these are paraphrases in many cases:

- A course should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.I reject

- "A course should have a mix of long par fours, drive and pitch holes and at least four par threes."agree with the general concept but not the four par three idea

- "The greens and fairways should be undulating, without steep hills for the golfer to climb."agree

- "Every hole should be different in character agree

- "There should be a minimum of blind approach shots." not sure where I stand on this one

- "The emphasis should be placed on natural beauty, not on artificial features."agree although it might be possible to create a purely artifical course that matches a natural one.  I just have not seen it yet.

- "There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so the weaker player will have an alternative route open to him."I would modify to "challenging and interesting hazards"  I think heroic carries double reward length which gets too much benefit already

- "there should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes . . . agree

- "There should be a complete absence of the annoyance caused by searching for lost balls."agree as an ideal but have almost never seen it in practice

- Course conditioning must remain consistently outstanding - and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.think conditioning is overemphasized on modern courses and approaches are often underemphasized

- There should be little walking between the greens and tees. agree

- The course should stimulate the scratch man to improve his game   agree

- A long handicap or absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round even though he is piling up a big score  agree

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

If you are married tell your wife you are going to compare her with say just 10 other women. If you still have a pair afterwards and not been cut like John Wayne Bobbitt, you have an understanding wife.

I wonder if it is down to compare or you that some of us just instinctively know what it is we like and want. Compare like for like I accept but golf would be boring if each course that similar.

Another thing, comparing a links to any other course, well that hard if you love and play links. Once played on a links course, all else is just a poor imitation of the real thing – is it not?

Melvyn 


Jason

By all means compare similar items, but how do you judge course scorrectly. It like comparing two beautiful women. Are they not both enjoyable to look at yet your body chemistry decided at the time your eyes met?

Some enjoy courses I find a pain getting very little enjoyment from playing. We each have our own preferences and if it is so be decided by a form of proportional representation, then the winners are compromised and selected by a form based upon the lowest common denominator – neither way are of any use or achieve a satisfactory result IMHO

Melvyn

[Phil Benedict]

As I've followed the responses I've revised my thinking on the superiority of the hole-by-hole comparison, although I think it does have value if an otherwise great course has some weak holes.  Pebble Beach occasionally is cited in this regard.

I used to belong to a good, not great, Ross and would compare it to a Banks course I've played at least 25 times that's occasionally rated somewhere between 80 and 90 on the top 100 classic courses.  On a hole-by-hole basis the Ross did very well as it had no weak holes and a few really good holes. The Banks course had a couple of holes that didn't work for me, but overall it's a superior course because the green complexes are quite a bit better.  Once you got to the greens there was a lot more happening in the Banks course whereas the Ross greens were mostly oriented directly with the fairway and sloping from back-to-front.  

[David Stamm]

I don't know if it's the "best" method, but I go by one simple rule. Did I like it and like the way it made me feel ("inspired" as Philip alluded to) after my round. The old rule if I would be willing to run to the first tee again after 18 serves me well. There are courses that are technically better than others, and there are some that I know aren't as "architecturally as good" as others, but "like" maybe a little more because of the experience factor. Cases in point. I have played courses that are maybe a bit architecturally better than say Wilshire or Maidstone, but I love those places because of the whole package maybe a little more than others that I know are "better" courses. The continuity of the design is very important to me.

[Norbert P]

What's the Best Way to Compare Courses?

Beyond the environment and feel of the courses I try to avoid comparisons.  



Besides, it all comes down to the bev cart girl.

[John Moore II]

Mark, you seemed to have a question for me, but I didn't catch on to it. Is it so hard to believe that someone may think one course is better than the other or that one course is more enjoyable than the other? And yes, greatness can be individual and not in comparison, but how many who play golf don't compare one course to another? How can you know great if you don't know good? How can you know good if you don't know bad?

[JESII]

On to Page 2 and noone has the right answer yet...

"What's the Best Way to Compare Courses?"

Just ask Matt Ward and he'll let you know the answer...

[Jason Topp]

Jason

By all means compare similar items, but how do you judge course scorrectly. It like comparing two beautiful women. Are they not both enjoyable to look at yet your body chemistry decided at the time your eyes met?

Some enjoy courses I find a pain getting very little enjoyment from playing. We each have our own preferences and if it is so be decided by a form of proportional representation, then the winners are compromised and selected by a form based upon the lowest common denominator – neither way are of any use or achieve a satisfactory result IMHO

Melvyn

Melvyn - your post gets at a fundamental question  - does it all come down to personal preference or is there a standard of quality that, while not precisely objective, allows one to decide a particular golf course is superior to another?


I can be swayed either way on that point but I think the truth lies somewhere in between. 

Using your analagy, I highly doubt that anyone in the world would consider Raquel Welch in her prime as anything but beautiful.  Does everyone have the same personal preference or is there something universal about her beauty that can be identified?
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()