[Adam Lawrence]

ps. I'd maybe swap "Quality of Challenge" for "Resistance to Scoring" in no. 5

Is that just a semantic change, or do you think there is a significant difference?

[Niall C]

Adam


In simple terms, one is qualitative and the other quantitative.


For example the quantitative approach might be what you would call a one dimensional penal course with very narrow fairways, thick rough and other gunge flanking the fairways and relatively long to par ie. very hard to score on.


The qualitative approach might be best illustrated by considering a Dr MacKenzie course with it's alternative route where the hacker can, if he wishes, readily avoid the trouble by taking a safer route, or alternatively take on some of the challenges, such as diagonal hazards for instance, in the hope of getting a better score. He may well end up with as high a score as he would have had on the first course but I suspect he'd have had a lot more fun on the second, with it's more interesting and varied challenges.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

In other words, it's even more subjective 

[Tim Gallant]

Variety, to me, has always meant what's on the ground. The look (textures and off site visuals), the undulation, the quirks of nature, etc.. It has almost nothing to with what clubs I hit, save for a ludicrous repetition of hole lengths, and direction of said holes.

Love this because to me, I think, 'would I have a good time if I played each hole with 1 club' (i.e a 5-iron)? If there is interest in the variety as described above, then it will be a blast trying to hit that 80 yard bump & run through the valley of sins, as well as 165 yards over a stone wall alla North Berwick. Doesn't matter if I use 14 clubs or 1 - but more about the shots that you are asked to play.

[Niall C]

In other words, it's even more subjective 

Adam


Even more subjective than what ? 

You are still putting a value on some aspect of the design rather than an overall "I think that course is a Doak 8" or whatever. The key point about this particular criteria is that you are recognising that the course should present a challenge and that what matters is the nature of the challenge rather than how severe it is.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

It was a joke. You could argue that resistance to scoring can, at least theoretically, be objectively measured. But I don't believe the evaluation of courses 'objectively' is either desirable or possible, because what makes them good is inherently subjective.

[cary lichtenstein]

Off the top of my head this morning I came up with 10 criteria for evaluating golf courses.
1.  Strategy
2.  Fun factor
3.  Routing
4.  Memorability/ Uniqueness of holes
5.  Resistance to Scoring
6.  Walkability
7.  Conditioning
8.  Aesthetics
9.  History/Reputation of course
10. Affordability/Value
Did I miss any others and are they weighed equally or not?

Way too analytical in my  humble opinion. Its all about the overall experience. If you come away disappointed or wanting more, if you come away in awe, that says it all

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()