[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Would you rather evaluate a golf course by yourself with little or no interaction or do you prefer playing with a group of evaluators where they might confer or colaborate on their evaluations. I can see the advantage of group where your personal play/score can be mitigated, but I would be more concerned with the pack mentality of a group tending to over or under evaluate a golf course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

Most of my friends just like to play golf and have no interest in "evaluating" a course.  Thus, I wind up going by myself if I really want to study something I haven't seen.

Going with a gang doesn't hold much appeal, but I can certainly think of people I've met at GCA get togethers that I'd really enjoy going with to check out a course.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Good question! I never did any evaluating until about four years ago but now I do and I like to do a bit of everything you mentioned.

Interestingly, the course I've probably spent the most time analyzing is NGLA which very well might be the best course of all to analyze the architecture of. I didn't really think through the way it happened but about four years ago I played about six holes on it late one evening (hadn't been there in about three decades) and the look of the place, the look and feel of the course, basically everything about it got my attention right away. The next day I qualified for a good tournament there and then played the tournament that weekend.

A few days later after getting home, the course, architecture, particularly what I call the "maintenance meld" really started sinking in and left me totally fascinated by the experience I had. But I realized playing the course in the tournament I had not been able to notice and really take in the architectural detail. So I went back up there and played a quick round with a man who knew the course, its architecture and history extremely well and we discussed as much as possible the architecture as we played. This increased the fascination! Then I went back again with Kye Goalby, Brian Schneider and the same man. This time they played and I chose to walk and watch how they played it and just look and I was able to take in much more of the detail and essence of the design this way.

The following year or so I road around on the course (after playing one of the tournament rounds) with Gib Papazian and Neal Meagher and we looked at anything and everything to do with the architecture and discussed our various impressions of it--this too increased the fascination and education.

I've been back there a few more times, once recently with Kye Goalby to just walk and look at the architecture and the detail. It never gets tiring, matter of fact it really does get more interesting and more impressive everytime I go. It most definitely helps to have gotten to know Karl Olsen a little bit and to spend as much time with him as possible on these visits. Actually, on the courses I've looked at closely in the last few years it helps immensely to talk to the supers. Obviously it's even better to play a course with the architect like Gil Hanse at Inniscrone and Applebrook and maybe the best of all a really good tour at Friar's with Ken Bakst! If you're interested in architecture and how it all comes together in the creation it can't get any better than that!

So everyway I've done it has been interesting. Playing NGLA in the tournaments under what I consider an ideal set up (ideal "maintenance meld") was the payoff and proof though to see the little things great architecture does to the ball. How great architecture made me and my opponents act and react to it when out there competing on it was very important but to keep going back to analyze the whys of it all I just love to do.

So all those various ways of evaluating was great and I really do believe it has made me much better at being able now to just look at any golf course and evaluate it!

[Will E]

Tom,
Great question!
TE Paul,
I loved reading your response, your passion is contagious.

For me evaluating a course with a gang can be tricky. Usually it requires being very diplomatic based upon the fact I'm almost always with someone who either has an interest in the course, or has gone to great pains in arranging for me to get to play it. I'm so afraid of offending someone that I actually have composed a list of stock responses, I'm sure we all have some of the same replies.
When playing with good friends I have the reputation of hating everything. Have you seen Shallow Hal ? That's not really true, I'm just so spoiled that it's hard not to be critical.
I think that evaluating should be a solo effort first, otherwise group think takes over.
I like to listen to what the "gang" has to say, just as I am hooked on this DG. As TE Paul has indicated, it is a great joy to be able share with many of the generous people involved in GCA. With an open mind and good company it's impossible not to learn.

[jim_lewis]

I feel that I do a better job of evaluating a course if I play alone avoiding/minimizing distractions. I prefer not to be involved in a match. If I play alone, I can take more time and hit extra shots from different positions. If I am going to play with someone else, I prefer that it be a member who is familiar with the history of any changes that have been made to the course and someone who will play from different tees than me.

Besides, I find that pros are usually much more accommodating and I have more flexibility if I travel alone.

[redanman (Guest)]

solo

when the course is empty

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I prefer evaluating a course by myself, then discussing or evaluating it with others who may have seen things I didn't or who may have different perspectives.

I think the pooling of ideas can lead to a more thorough evaluation, but each individual should first evaluate for themselves lest they be influenced by others views prior to making up their own mind.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom --

Usually solo.

Although I do make it a point to play a with a mixed bag of friends whose comments I value because I can watch how they handle the demands presented and if the course is designed to challenge different levels of players.

Good thread!

[APBernstein]

Tom:

Contrary to most on this site, I almost always play/rate a course while playing in a group or, at least, solo with a caddy.

While I do often travel alone, I usually request to be paired with a group of members.  The advantage of this is they can often provide some background information of the course and interesting stories.  One disadvantage is that, if they know you are rating the course, you have to sort through all their glowing comments on the course's bahalf.  I don't find it too difficult though.

Even though I am rating the golf course, I am still playing golf.  I find golf more interesting in a group, or a match.  I don't find myself too distracted (or distracted at all) by these other factors.

All the best,

[Craig Van Egmond]

Most people I play with don't give a darn about evaluating the courses, so its mostly a solo endeavor.

I find when I do play with fellow GCA members, we do most of our evaluating afterwards in the bar/resturaunt over drinks.

[Jeff McDowell]

Like most of you, I play frequently with people who are not that interested in architecture. But I am always interested in their opinions.

Shooter, I, too, have a reputation for hating everything. I have found, however, I can find an interesting feature in even the weakest designs. I focus on those.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()