This thread is dedicated to Pat Mucci ...

[Ulrich Mayring]

... 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

[Sean_A]

My only concern is bout shot values.  I am not convinced going thru the entire bag is meaningful for a player good enough to say with a fair amount of certainty that he will hit certain clubs most of the time.  So I am far from convinced this standard can be applied to a 10 capper who will hit many less then very good drives meaning he will be hitting all sorts of clubs that have little to do with strategy, and everything to do with recovering.  I am also skeptical of condition and playing to the archie's intent.  That stuff is a tall order when talking about classic architecture.  I spose I think of excellent conditioning as a very rare bonus. 

I don't have categories per say, more a matter of feeling my way through a design critique.  Perhaps this is why I can alter my opinion so often until I feel I know a course very well - and that is very few courses. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Whilst on this subject, I feel a warning is in order. 


You might find it shocking but this Friday there's the best chance ever that Pat may:

a   be Polite
b   Logical
c   Read what you say and try and appreciate it.

So be prepared (just in case)

http://tinyurl.com/buadken

[John Kavanaugh]

Does it play the way the architect designed it to play?

How can you or anyone else know the architects intent for your very specialized individual method of striking a ball?  If an architect just so happens to design a hole that fits your eye and you can hit the shot he got lucky at best. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Sean,
you are right that the "Shot Values" category will to some extent come down to the way I played on that given day. Maybe I hooked the ball a lot and found it nice to have room on the left, whereas on another day I might slice it. However, I am taking these things into account and walk the course with an open eye. I had probably my worst round ever (shot something like 123!) on a course I rated very highly afterwards. Yes, I'd like to replay it, shoot 85 and see how I like it then. But still, I enjoyed that day immensely.

About conditioning, I said "appropriate conditioning", not "excellent conditioning". In fact, I would hate a course like Windermere (to take a current example) to play like Valderrama. Some courses must be rougher than others. Also, by rolling conditioning and shot values into one category, it means that they only count for 25% of the total score. All that being said, if you overwater a course that was designed to play firm and fast, you're getting the flak from me!

Tony,
I am prepared for the best!

John,
you are right in that I am second-guessing the architect's intent and then compare to how I fared. Yes, it's completely subjective. And yes, I think that is appropriate. I am ranking golf courses not for an audience of thousands, who read some kind of magazine, or even millions, who watch a TV show. I am doing it for myself and perhaps a few other GCA aficionados. This is unpaid and unsolicited work, but I hope not un-responsible

Ulrich

[Jeff Taylor]

The land speaks to the architect. The course speaks to the golfer.
Are we listening?

[Jay Flemma]

I have to agree about shot values.  I remember Brian Silva once telling me that the ASGCA was meeting at MPCC and they spent hours not coming to any conclusion about what "shot values" could mean...then someone said, "what are we doing? It's a gorgeous day and we're at MPCC!"

So they all went out to play golf instead!

Hey! Let's all go play golf!

[Peter Pallotta]

Well Ulrich, since you asked I'll add my (trade marked) concept/scale, i.e. VORD - Variety of Recovery Difficulty. This scale is meant to encourage the architect to utilize throughout the round and in various and interesting and differing ways the whole palette of features meant to make recovery shots around the greens challenging and fun - i.e. run-offs here, water there, rough in some places but not others, bunkers shallow and deep, big and small, a few and many, raised/perched greens etc etc...all used so that sometimes I have a chance at recovering, sometimes a good chance, sometimes little chance, sometimes none. 

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

Thanks for the dedication, I knew you could do it if you put the effort in.

I probably enjoy quirk more than most, perhaps that's why I like St Georges's and other courses where it abounds.

Each of us has our own, visceral rating system, but you've articulated yours well.

I generally categorize courses in broader terms without compartmentalizing, but perhaps our results are similar.

Keep up the good work

[Ulrich Mayring]

Peter,
does your concept apply specifically to short game challenges around the greens or is VORD also meant to, say, describe the situation after a botched drive?

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Sean,
you are right that the "Shot Values" category will to some extent come down to the way I played on that given day. Maybe I hooked the ball a lot and found it nice to have room on the left, whereas on another day I might slice it. However, I am taking these things into account and walk the course with an open eye. I had probably my worst round ever (shot something like 123!) on a course I rated very highly afterwards. Yes, I'd like to replay it, shoot 85 and see how I like it then. But still, I enjoyed that day immensely.

About conditioning, I said "appropriate conditioning", not "excellent conditioning". In fact, I would hate a course like Windermere (to take a current example) to play like Valderrama. Some courses must be rougher than others. Also, by rolling conditioning and shot values into one category, it means that they only count for 25% of the total score. All that being said, if you overwater a course that was designed to play firm and fast, you're getting the flak from me!

Tony,
I am prepared for the best!

John,
you are right in that I am second-guessing the architect's intent and then compare to how I fared. Yes, it's completely subjective. And yes, I think that is appropriate. I am ranking golf courses not for an audience of thousands, who read some kind of magazine, or even millions, who watch a TV show. I am doing it for myself and perhaps a few other GCA aficionados. This is unpaid and unsolicited work, but I hope not un-responsible

Ulrich

I think you are missing my point.  For most handicap players there is no such thing as the typical drive, 5 iron or wedge.  So many mistakes are made that its virtually impossible to say the hole is a driver 5 iron for instance.  

I am not sure what appropriate conditioning means.  Is this average?  Does it take into account weather issues?  I think talking about conditioning is dodgy unless it was exceptionally poor or good or unless you know the course quite well.  Most of us just have a snap shot of the course rather than a complete understanding of how it is presented 365.

I don't think I answered your question.  I tend took for variety, originality, challenge, fun and how all these elements hang together.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Ulrich - for better or worse, the VORD scale only applies to recovery shots around the greens (resulting from, for example, mishit approaches), but not to the recovery options related to/the result of poor drives.  Also, the term is not in fact trade-marked...feel free to share it with the world!!

Peter

[Jud_T]

I'd be careful with the scenery category.  While I have no problem with your description, far too many interpret this to mean ocean views that don't come into play or flower beds, fountains, deep green overwatered turf etc.  I'd add shot variety/conditioning- can a strong player play exclusively an aerial game or is he forced to consider the ground game once the ball lands?  Can an average player run the ball onto the green on a longer approach?  Are there demands off the tee for the stronger player to find the best line into the green yet room for the average player to play wide of hazards etc.  Do the hazards presented allow for an option other than hitting a provisional ball?