Judging

[jim_lewis]

According to the late, great Levon Helm......."It's easy when you know how."

[PCCraig]

Jud,

Great Lake was considered "ethnic?"

[Jud_T]

Jud,

Great Lake was considered "ethnic?"

it wasn't anglo/saxon anyway.  Plus it was literally the best restaurant I've ever been to.  If you want something a little more off the beaten path try Cemitas Puebla.

[Sean_A]

Dan

But, you do make a judgement if you will pay to play a course again or perhaps even judge whether you p;ay a course again regardless of cost - no?  Okay, much of this decision may depend on the size of your wallet, but somewhere in there is a judgement about the quality of the course and/or how much you liked it - no?

Ciao

Sean --

Yes, of course.

I don't see how I can have failed to convey that my objection is not to rating courses, but to *RANKING* the great number of excellent courses that are worth returning to -- like, for example, all of the courses listed in the "10 Best Courses in My City" thread ... where, just to judge by the Twin Cities lists, we seem to have greater appreciation of our home courses, which we know best, than others have. (I think it's true and merited appreciation, not evidence of some "homer" bias.)

I'd be content with a four-tier rating system for other people's courses, such as you suggest:

1. Don't bother.
2. Play.
3. Play whenever you get the opportunity.
4. Play at any price (w/in reason!).

I still don't think I'd be qualified to say, in most cases, whether a course deserved a 2 or a 3, until I'd played it numerous times -- but it's possible I'm just a slow learner.

Dan

Dan

Okay, I guess I don't really make a distinction between rate and rank.  I can understand not digging ordinal ranking compared to group ranking (rating?).  Even so, to rate courses in the Rihcelin method you have to draw a line of quality somehow or the groups don't mean much.  Personally, I find it much easier to stick with favourites, its safe ground because its my ground.  To be honest, I rarely trust best of lists anyway because I think people add in extras to boost courses - things like views, preference for types of holes etc.  This is why I said I wonder how often people highly rank courses they are not thrilled about.

My approach is not much different to that above, but I freely admit the extras are part of the deal.  I always say there isn't much point to paying a green fee if you are only interested in the quality of the course.  I can learn more watching others.  

3* Don’t Miss For Any Reason
2* Plan A Trip Around This Course
1* Worth An Overnight Detour
R Worth A Daytime Detour
r A Good Back-Up Choice If Convenient

For the record, I have yet to experience my idea of a 3*.  
    

[PCCraig]

Jud,

Great Lake was considered "ethnic?"

it wasn't anglo/saxon anyway.  Plus it was literally the best restaurant I've ever been to.  If you want something a little more off the beaten path try Cemitas Puebla.

Wow...high praise! I had been a few times and liked it a lot. Bummer that it closed.

[Mike_Young]

Great Lakes??  Are ya'll talking about the little pizza place on the way to Evanston from Chicago?

[Jud_T]

Great Lakes??  Are ya'll talking about the little pizza place on the way to Evanston from Chicago?

Yup.  Best pizza on the planet.  He lost his lease.  Rumor is they'll be reopening elsewhere.

[Mike_Young]

I like that place....

[Brent Hutto]

Interesting subtle distinction, but can we tell what course is better, or merely which course we like better?

Which course I like better. It is 100% subjective.

But even with total freedom to make a subjective judgement, I can't tell you if I like Royal Dornoch better than I liked Walton Heath Old. I know I liked them both an awful lot but I didn't like either of them as much as I liked Cypress Point.

Even 100% subjective judgments are fairly coarse. Attempting to split differences among courses to which we reacted similarly is a mug's game.