How To Assess A Golf Course Architecturally

[Ronald Montesano]

The first email interaction I had with the esteemed BK,  a member of this forum, ended with this attempt at a compliment: And I really enjoy Golf World. BK was gentle in his response: It's actually Golf Week. Since that exchange, I've enjoyed reading Rater's Notebook in print and on line.

Kicking back on a Saturday morning, as the rains postponed a practice session, I read a Rater's Notebook on TPC Boston. I wasn't focused on the actual words, but on the criteria. Terms like routing, feature shaping, setting, land plan, contours, conditioning and management are some of the featured words among the ten standard categories. I presume that the numerical scale runs from 0 to 10, although I've never seen a 0 nor a 10 in any rating.

I'm not certain if the Rater's Notebook is the standard evaluative tool for all GW raters. I know that the GW scale is held in regard in these halls. It's certain that the voice of BK would be but one among the many (hopefully) assessments of the courses that make up the GW lists. We mention lots of lists in conversation and online discourse, for various reasons.

GD also is public about its method for rating courses: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-05/100-greatest-golf-courses-methodology

I cannot find the criteria for excellence set down by JP for the GM ratings, despite multiple searches. Those are the three lists (GW, GD, GM) in the USA that weigh in the heaviest.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss which criteria are best used to assess the worth of a golf course. Given that golfer A might say "a golf course is best when I can drink buckets of beer and not crash my cart" while Golfer B might add "for me, the highest-ranked course is the hottest-looking, like my wife/husband." Our starting point is muddied and muddled, as we are golfers of different skill levels, who target different outcomes, that preserve different memories in different ways. It is grounded in architecture, since we share this neighborhood.

At best, we'll have a list that I will collate and embolden on occasion. I suspect that some will contribute categories/criteria already in use, while others will advance new methods. Fingers crossed, take your marks, let's go.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One pro I know says its the course that most makes you want to go straight from 18 to 1 to tee it up again.

Your question is an old one.  So much of your assessment is in the "Je ne sais quoi" but if you are sending 1000 raters out, you have to give them something to go by.  I will bet most use a more "feel" rating, and then go back and assign the points as necessary, or maybe use them as a double check.

You might go to a perfectly average course in likeability and find studying the criteria that the architect really did create balance of length, doglegs, etc., and other things on the list.  Would you like it any more knowing that?

[Tom_Doak]

Your question is an old one.  So much of your assessment is in the "Je ne sais quoi" but if you are sending 1000 raters out, you have to give them something to go by.

You really don't; when I was running the rankings for GOLF Magazine, I refused to attempt to write a definition of "great" for others to follow.  We trusted the panelists we picked to have their own understanding of the subject, but that's why we didn't have 1000 raters.

I agree with Jeff completely that writing a formula would just encourage some architects to follow the formula blindly, instead of trying to give the course a character of its own.  I have always believed that the best courses are those with a character of their own.

[Wade Whitehead]

Mike Trenham said it well a few years ago.  I'll paraphrase and hope he clarifies if I misstate.

Many (and maybe most) golf courses have a great hole or two.  Only the best, however, have great stretches of three or more holes.  And the very best have two or more great stretches.

I've always enjoyed that criteria for evaluating any given course.  What's the layout's best stretch?  And how many great stretches does it have?

WW

[William_G]

I do believe in evaluation being largely subjective, yet it is valuable to distill the elements of subjectivity into objectivity to aid in the evaluation's merits and prevent the loudest voice becoming the voice of reason

by limiting the number of evaluations, you inherently subscribe to the loudest voice eg. the bully  

each course has it's own being, no doubt

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Stealing almost verbatim from the architects' posts so far, why not ask for exactly what we want to know:

Does this course have a character all its own? (A definite no being 1; a resounding yes being 10)

What feelings does the course engender in you? (Boredom being a 1; transcendence being a 10)

Peter

 



 

[Don_Mahaffey]

What Peter said with bonus points for some whimsy. Golf is supposed to be fun.  

[Lyne Morrison]

And is it engaging for the typical club golfer, including the competitive woman,  in addition to those who are most accomplished?

Lyne

[ed_getka]

One aspect of how I evaluate a golf course is the balance between the demands of tee shots, approach shots, and short game/putting. A really good course IMO doesn't overemphasize one area over the others. Certainly on any given hole there can be an emphasis, but the course as a whole should be relatively balanced IMO.

[Tom_Doak]

One aspect of how I evaluate a golf course is the balance between the demands of tee shots, approach shots, and short game/putting. A really good course IMO doesn't overemphasize one area over the others. Certainly on any given hole there can be an emphasis, but the course as a whole should be relatively balanced IMO.

Ed:

I think architects have made a fetish of balance.

There are great courses which over-emphasize tee shots, approach shots, and short game, in turn.  You may think this puts them a bit behind in the running for "greatest of them all," and others might agree or disagree, but it doesn't prevent them from being pretty great.

[Jason Topp]

This is the question at the heart of this website. I suspect a great golf course exists that defies each of these criteria but here are some I have thought of:

Does the course provide an interesting challenge to all classes of player?
Does the course provide an enjoyable walk through an interesting place?
Does the course tempt you to make aggressive choices?
Does the course require a variety of shots?
Does the course provide the opportunity for interesting recovery shots?
Does the course drain properly and is it designed or maintained in such a way to keep the grass healthy?
Does the course as a whole and in its details look good?
Does the course challenge the player to develop shots the player has not needed in the past?
Does the course give the player with a thoughtful plan of attack an advantage over the thoughtless player?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ronald:

I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible -- varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc.

Mark

[George Pazin]

I mostly just think about whether each shot asks an interesting question.

And "What's my yardage?" is never an interesting question...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Now George here I thought I'd managed to kill a rankings thread and you drag it back up. Does anyone know the online equivalent of the pine stake?

 

All in good fun, Ronaldo. All in good fun.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's like ranking blondes, brunetts and redheads, big busted, big asses, skinny, full lips v thin lips. Who is drop dead beautiful??? Did our esteemed Tiger Woods know the difference?  If he didn't, how can us mere mortals even begin to pretend we know