[Ulrich Mayring]

There's my fun scale:

http://sites.google.com/site/gcexpose/ratings

Ulrich

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm not limiting the suggestions.

It is probably futile, or someone would've come up with it already. But, let's explore it anyway.

Jim, I think it's important to try to differentiate where players have fun because of the architecture. Versus, when they have fun because of outside factors like who they played with or how they played.

Maybe Tom Huckaby's notion of how the CR and slope rating correlate is a good place to start? Tom?

Mike, Thanx. I will read them. Very funny.

Well Mike Nuzzo has me right - it's always been all about fun for me.  Seems just plain logical - why spend time on an non-wage earning activity if not to have fun?

And yes, some courses do allow for this more than others.

I just have little clue how to quantify it and god help me Pat Mucci seems to say it best - you just know it when you see it.

As for high CR and low slope, well... that would be a decent way to put some math behind courses that are fun for the most number of people... being that such courses challenge the scratch player (high CR, and we'd assume most of his fun comes from overcoming challenge) and don't kill the bogey golfer (low slope, meaning in general low bogey rating - small differential from CR creates the low slope - so the course is doable for him, allows him to have some success without too many brutal failures, and one can assume his fun is mostly derived from that).

However... that makes a LOT of assumptions which MANY scratch and bogey players will fall outside of.  There will the scratch players attuned to scenic beauty or other intangibles - not covered in this - or who want to go low and thus might prefer easier courses.  There will be masochistic bogey players who just love the challenge.  One size does not fit all.

But it's not a bad start anyway.  Find a high CR/low slope course and I bet a lot of people call it "fun."

Listing courses isn't a bad way either... although this thread exhibits how people can see that differently.  Because whereas I can find FUN on any golf course - just playing the game at all is fun for me, even on the worst of courses - yes some allow for more fun than others.  And as much as I would call Stone Eagle great, I can't call it pure "fun" - at least not up in the upper pantheon of such - it's just a bit too severe for me for that.  So I disagree with Jonathan Becker... it would get a 7 for me, maybe an 8... no way a 10.

10s for me would include, just off the top of my head:

Sand Hills
NGLA
Cypress Point

Oh wait a second, that's the top of my list of my "greatest" courses.  Well gee, for me it's the same thing.  Surprise surprise.



TH

[Jud_T]

10s:

Kingsley
TOC
Prestwick
Pac Dunes

[Jud_T]

 

[Steve Salmen]

Great topic Adam.  Over the last few years I've been sort of mentally ranking courses by how much fun I had.  I have to agree with Brett.  Probably the funnest stretch of golf I've ever played is 9-18 at North Berwick.  The only unfortunate thing is that the holes generally run in the same direction. There's tremendous variety.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike Nuzzo, While reading your article I couldn't help but think of; 1) How we ended up here in the first place. Most courses built between 1945 and 1995, to satisfy the most numbers, falling so flat as to be considered mediocre. And of course, 2) McDonalds.  3) My dear departed great Aunt Molly would say "Mickey Mouse" to describe the bland foods that were the result of commercialization.

I like the idea of having 3 categories of golfer's preferences. Perhaps a Fun rating could be categorized appropriately?

10 points seems too many, although Eric's attempt is excellent.

Any other notions?

[Jerry Kluger]

Here is my proposal:  You play the first three holes before you owe any fee for playing the course - if you finish the round then you go in and pay the fee and arrange for your afternoon round or next visit - if the first three holes aren't fun it isn't worth sticking around.

[Anthony Gray]

  A drivable par 4

  par 3 less than 120

  Creek that goes through the property

[Chip Gaskins]

  A drivable par 4

  par 3 less than 120

  Creek that goes through the property

I will agree with those.  Add a reachable par 5.

You just described Merion!

I would say Ballyneal and Tobacco Road are the two most fun courses for me.

[Adam Clayman]

In Mike Nuzzo's article he attempts to categorize the different types of players. I'm not smart enough to disagree with Mike, but maybe it's a great starting point to try to get a Fun rating that could be useful. Here's his attempt

I believe golfers can be subdivided into three types or
groupings: those who relish the playing chal- lenge; those who revere the course’s environ- ment; and those who place the enjoyment- factor above all else. Compounding the con- fusion is that most golfers want the experi- ence to overlap all three endpoints—but they seek them to different degrees.

I'm of the opinion that most of the factors that go into determining the Top courses, would also go into the Fun rating. Aspects like Variety, character (or funk as Sean puts it), and an adherence to core principles, are paramount.

Bandon Dunes resort would seem to be a great example of American golf that is not typical of the stereotypical American golf courses.  As is with Chip's mention of Ballyneal and Tobacco Road.

I'm still flying by the seat of my pants and I can see issues with my suggestion of having the golfer KNOW what type of player he/she is. Since, many golfer's don't give the architecture it's just due in their evaluations, getting them to own up to exactly what they are could be a big hurdle.

Keep discussing and even if we don't come up with a way to quantify a Fun rating, at least we've tossed it around.

[Jud_T]

fyi-previous fun course thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14510.0/

[Tim Leahy]

Tens on my fun meter:

Spyglass Hill-claissic mix of sand and forest
Lake Chabot-elevated tees, drop shot par 3, par 6 all downhill, great views of the bay
Rustic Canyon-viva la differance
Torrey Pines South-I love big dumb blondes
Rancho Murieta Norht-rolling figure eight layout with 100 year old oaks everywhere
Kapalua Plantation-wide fairways, unbelievable views, tradewinds

[Steve Lang]

   Adam,

There's no fun in splititng hairs, so any numerical scale must be pretty simple and direct:

  0  No fun,.. unless you're a masochist.. and just want to hit your ball over a field of play, little to no imagination required/inspired

   2 Some fun.. some architectural merit front and back that presented shot opportunities or unique memorable challenges

  4 Definite fun.. design, topography, or geographical influences at play, mental acuity may be overwhelmed by impulsive behavior

  Crazy 8 - Cool Fun.. paths of rational and irrational play are presented, and reward may be equally served or compounded depending on skill, luck, and audaciousness.  There is no such thing as a sucker pin only a pucker pin..

aDAM, i have to add a weather factor.. aftrer all, ballyneal in 25-30 mph winds is more fun i suspect than at 0-5..

[Chip Gaskins]

Well as a general rule the USGA US Open courses all sort of stink as far as far as fun to play, even in non-tournament conditions.

I can't say playing Baltusrol, Congressional, Olympic Club, Bethpage etc are very "fun" to play.  They are famous, historic, but not all that fun. 

They are certainly highly ranked, but not too fun. 

However now that I really think about it some of the US Open type courses that are fun....Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont, Prairie Dunes, etc.

Hmm...Nevermind

[Mike_Trenham]

Women's Open courses look more fun than the Open venues... (I must disclose I have not played many of them)

Newport
Pineneedles
Cherry Hills
Indian Wood
Orchards
Five Farms
Plainfield
Northland

[Mac Plumart]

In the last two posts I put on this thread, I was being a goofball for the most part.  But the part about having to develop a utility function for each and every golfers idea of "fun" was actually half serious.  In fact, I think having a few categories of golfer types would be a good place to start.  Mike Nuzzo's three categories seem like a good place to start. 

The reason being is that different golfers like different things.  Chip says that US Open type of courses aren't fun for him.  Well, that is him.  I am sure he probably fits into one of Mike's three categories.  A great friend of mine (who is a good golfer) likes playing good (but hard) golf courses in the harshest of conditions.  The challenge they provide is "fun" for him.

Once you have these categories, perhaps you could apply Eric T's point list in a manner that Jim C. suggests.  But only have voters who fall in specific categories vote for those specific categories.  For example, golfer who love a challenge rate courses and their data is compile and a "Challenging Fun" course ranking is compiled.  Then another category of golfer ranks their courses and another composite list is created. 

That way golfers can try to find courses that fit their style by looking at specific composites.

[Chip Gaskins]

That way golfers can try to find courses that fit their style by looking at specific composites.

I can agree with that.  I seek out those fun, quirky courses.  Eastward Ho!, Creek Club, Meadow Club, Hidden Creek, Pine Needles, Wild Horse, etc over play courses like Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Oakland Hills, Castle Pines, Murifield Village, Olympic, etc...

Neither are right, just different.

[Steve Strasheim]

Having fun on the golf course is my number 1 priority these days when I play. So, this is a topic I am very interested in.

My criteria would perhaps be:

1. Obvious effort by the course creators and course staff to make the experience fun.
2. Opportunity for great recovery shots without lots of penalties/ball searching.
3. Good forward as well as mens tees.
4. Allows for scoring if the player strikes it well.
5. Experience "X" factor. X factor could be any combination of natural beauty, architect, club dynamics, even course difficulty. It is fun to play hard courses.

In order to rate course fun, I would give each category 1-4 above a possible 5 points and add them up. X factor would also be a number between 1-5, but would be a multiplier. In this fashion, a course cannot be simply easy and still have a high fun rating. An X factor multiplier of 1 (boring, easy) gives a maximum score of 20, but an x factor of 5 (visually stunning, challenging) gives a max score of 100.

[Jason Connor]

I was thinking about how to measure this as simply as possible.  So here is the question I'd ask in 30 words:

Imagine having 3:50 to play.  And you're a single.  And you insist upon walking.  And you have one sleeve of balls with you.
Which course would you want to play?

To me this set of constraints frames the question:  you want a course with a good pace, you want a course where you can find a good game with pleasurable company, you want a walking course, you want a course that isn't going to eat 11 balls.

It is the right question?  What is an easier question?

[Mike Nuzzo]

From the studies I referenced it was found that if you develop a cup of coffee that pleases the greatest number of people you wind up with a 60. 
If you try to develop the best cup of coffee that pleases a particular segment you can get to an 80.

If you build a golf course to please everyone the best you can get is a Doak 6.
If you build a course to please a segment you may wind up with an 8.
That is a big difference.
To paraphrase Doak's past comments - the best courses in the world were always developed for one segment.

The video that help gel everything together for me is a very good one.
Watch it...
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

[Eric Smith]

In the last two posts I put on this thread, I was being a goofball for the most part.  But the part about having to develop a utility function for each and every golfers idea of "fun" was actually half serious.  In fact, I think having a few categories of golfer types would be a good place to start.  Mike Nuzzo's three categories seem like a good place to start.  

The reason being is that different golfers like different things.  Chip says that US Open type of courses aren't fun for him.  Well, that is him.  I am sure he probably fits into one of Mike's three categories.  A great friend of mine (who is a good golfer) likes playing good (but hard) golf courses in the harshest of conditions.  The challenge they provide is "fun" for him.

Once you have these categories, perhaps you could apply Eric T's point list in a manner that Jim C. suggests.  But only have voters who fall in specific categories vote for those specific categories.  For example, golfer who love a challenge rate courses and their data is compile and a "Challenging Fun" course ranking is compiled.  Then another category of golfer ranks their courses and another composite list is created.  

That way golfers can try to find courses that fit their style by looking at specific composites.

Brutally difficult golf has at times been a lot of fun to me as well, though I wouldn't characterize it as my favorite fun criteria.  

I think our friend Plankton is a fan of the hard stuff and I'd submit him as poster boy for this segment of fun seekers ("Challenging Fun" as Mac puts it):


F is for fire that burns down the whole town!
U is for uranium..... bombs
N is for no survivors!!

Give him The Ocean Course from one up from the back tees in a 35 mph wind (in January!) FUN!

[Adam Clayman]

Mac, I'm glad you returned to the thread. I did sense you were being silly, which is fine. But you do seem to have an affinity for these number things.

Steve, Both Lang and Strasheim. I really like the directions you've taken.

Maybe the Fun rating should be a combination of numbers? Possibly 3 separate digits representing three different categories of golfers?

So a 1, 2, 3 rating would not be as much fun for the best of players who are looking for that ball busting challenge, every shot every hole. ( The 1) The 2, would be average on the fun scale to the golfer who needs beauty and perfect conditioning. While the 3 would tell the golfer who likes the Wild Horses, Prestwicks, and TOC that they can expect nirvana on the fun scale.

A 3, 3, 3 would be everyone's definition of fun. A rarity indeed.

Once again, I'm incapable of carrying the analysis much further, So, please have at it. There are no wrong answers or bad suggestions.

[Jud_T]

I love where this is going.  First off anyone who hasn't read Mike's essay, it's a MUST read (see page 1 of thread for link).  This was one of the first and best things I've read as the result of this site and was a bit of an AHA moment.  I think we simply need three lists-one for courses in each category.  Top 50 Fun Golf Courses,  Top 50 Beautiful Golf Courses and Top 50 Challenging Golf Courses.  Everyone sends in ballots for their top 10 or 20 in each category and they are tabulated.  A course like Pebble might appear on both the Pretty and Challenging lists, while TOC may only be on the fun list etc....Then everyone can simply go to the list of that type which they prefer, which should be pretty self-evident by the lists themselves for those who aren't clear about their own preferences.   I know I only really care about the fun list while others may go directly to challenging, pretty etc....It really makes no sense to compare Butler National with Lawsonia etc...They target different markets....

[Steve Strasheim]

Adam,

Just to try out my post from last night, some of my personal fun ratings for courses you might be familar with.

Sandhills:

Effort: 5
Recovery: 3
Tees: 3 (assume as 3 for all since I never paid attention until last fall).
Scoring: 4
X-Factor: 5
TOTAL SCORE: 75

Bayside:

Effort: 3
Recovery: 4
Tees: 3 (assume as 3 for all since I never paid attention until last fall).
Scoring: 5
X-Factor: 3
TOTAL SCORE: 45

Firethorn:

Effort: 4
Recovery: 2
Tees: 3 (assume as 3 for all since I never paid attention until last fall).
Scoring: 4
X-Factor: 3
TOTAL SCORE: 39

Whistling Straits:

Effort: 5
Recovery: 2
Tees: 3 (assume as 3 for all since I never paid attention until last fall).
Scoring: 2
X-Factor: 4
TOTAL SCORE: 48

Needs some refinement, but kind of fun just for kicks.

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, Love it. The only aspect that appears to be missing involves the aesthetics, or the pretty quotient. Unless that is the X factor Too early to be picky, but the one number that jumped off the page was a 3 recovery at SH versus a 4 at Bayside. If I understand your example correctly, you are saying Recovery at Bayside is either easier, or more fun, (?) at Bayside. Is that correct? If so, I'm not too sure. WH SH and Bayside all have similar issues with recovery, albeit, they are for different reasons. Ballyneal would have to be the poster child for recovery because the irrigation system was specifically designed to minimize throw into the native. And, time and money is spent to make sure the Dunes are not too thick with plants, when Mother nature supplies the fuel for growth.

One idea might be to replace recovery, Or add, a lost ball valuation?

Just throwing it out there for discussion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()