... who ever so gently reminded me that in order to be considered a first class citizen, I would have to occasionally start a new thread.
Well, this is it, the topic is "Categories for Ranking Golf Courses". As of today, mine are:
1) Quirk.Aka: Fun. Surprise. Innovation.
To be sure, I don't like quirk for quirk's sake. Quirk must create an interesting hole that is fun to play. It must be unusual, preferably never seen before. I want to be surprised by the way the hole is laid out, less so by finding out that my ball is lost after I thought I made a good shot. I can tolerate some of that, but not on every other hole.
2) Scenery.Aka: Visuals.
I am something of a nature lover. I like it when a golf course looks natural (never mind how much work the greenkeepers put into it). I also like my courses peaceful, remote, in a rural setting. Residential developments, industry, traffic noise etc. are out. But it's not just the landscape and its scale, it's also the smaller design details on a hole, such as the mounding, sleepers, ditches, plants, the bunkering ... all of that and more can be used to good (and bad) effect.
3) Shot Values.Aka: Strategy. Variety. Conditioning.
So it's quirky and it's natural, but how is the actual golf? Do I go through my entire bag and use every club? Do I have to shape different types of shots? Are the par 3s all of the same length or do they vary from wedge to driver? How interesting are the challenges? Do I have to pull off a few incredible shots (and can I be successful at some) or is it just bread-and-butter golf? Is the conditioning appropriate to the design? Do the greens roll true? Does it play the way the architect designed it to play?
4) Flow.Aka: Rhythm. Ambiance. Freedom.
This is a toughie to describe, it's more of a feel thing. Sometimes I play a rather average course, but the way it is set up gets me into a calm, yet purposeful mode. The routing is obviously very important for that. The holes need to flow into each other, cart paths and side-by-side holes are often detrimental, it should be just me and the current hole. But seclusion has its downside as well: sometimes I feel restricted, especially by trees, and I long for open spaces. A course where every hole is visible from anywhere can have flow as well. A tree-lined course needs wide fairways and short shadows, but, compared to an open course, it can more easily provide twists and turns. If the round of golf feels like an adventure and every corner I turn presents a new view and the trek becomes an exploration of sorts, then flow will result for me. Ambiance adds to that, it must feel right. It shouldn't try to be something it isn't.
I found that every course I like scores highly in these categories. I also think that more than 3 or 4 categories make the process of ranking a course too fiddly and pseudo-scientific. Obviously, this system is catered to my personal taste in golf architecture. Someone else using it might find his favorite courses score rather low. That invalidates neither the system, nor his taste
Do you have any categories? Which are they? Or are you happy with a single number, such as the Doak scale?
I used to have a single number like that, but found that it doesn't enlighten much, especially in the middle tier of average courses, that many of us are probably playing much of the time. When I come to a new region and wonder which course to play, then there simply aren't too many Doak 8s around. I want a system that works for the mythical creature of "GCA aficionado" - did I miss anything that makes courses great?
Ulrich