[Jeff_Brauer]

 John K,

The second paragraph of your second post comes close to my idea of shot value evaluation.  Also agree with many other posts.  I have never seen a great definition in concise form, and have tried for years to come up with something.  My imperfect idea at the moment, is listed below.  Obviously, more scientific than some would like, but when "evaluating" anything, it seems like you do need to go this route.
First, I think we look at the value of each shot, giving each shot a rating based on the system below.Then, we compare the overall compendium of shots to see if the course has good shot values.Obviously, if we have some kind of Doak (or Golf Digest) scale per shot, no course is coming out a perfect 10.For the whole, the question is how many times can you break the rules and still have a course with good shot values?  Certainly, there could/would be a way to rate the exception (like blind shot) that works well. 
1.       The Absolutes - No unplayable shot.
a.       For Average Players and above, this would include forced carries beyond their max carry distance (considering wind), usually about 2/3 average driving distance.
b.       It also includes extremely difficult shots, like:
                                                               i.      Requiring a uphill long iron shot from a downhill lie.
                                                             ii.      Water on right with wind blowing right to left, i.e., must aim over OB or water to reach green or fairway)
                                                           iii.      Shot over something (bunker lip) but under something else (tree branches) (at least from normal play areas)
2.       Statistically reasonable “doable” shots –
a.       Targets of such size, shape, and angle and contour to accept a well-played shot.
                                                               i.      Shape – Not so extreme (fairway or green) to effectively reduce target area
                                                             ii.      Size –
1.       Fairways at least 10% (pro)-15% (am) of expected tee shot distance, i.e., 30 -27 yards for average player and good am works as minimum
2.       Greens at least the size of USGA Slope chart recommendations.
a.       10% (pro)-15% (am) width
b.       10% (pro)-25% (am) depth
3.       Adjust targets for wind conditions, like deeper greens on downwind shots to account for less spin, more rollout, wider greens in crosswinds, etc. (as per George Thomas)
                                                           iii.      Angle – Generally
1.       Bend in Prevailing Wind Direction on all shots
2.       Steeper Angle as Approach Shot Shortens
3.       Max Angle leaves at least small opening from the edge of fairway.
                                                           iv.      Contour – Generally Higher in Back to Help Stop Shot (the Redan is an exception, allowable if there are means to land ball short)
3.      Visibility. (While there are exceptions to this rule, they better be good to make up for what most consider an obvious flaw. No visibility, no strategy)
4.      Options- Shots with 2-3 fairly obvious options are much better than a shot with one option. Requires some light thinking.More options just get aggravating and confusing to most.
5.       “Best” Target Location/Optionsthat “suggest/reward” a best location with a clear advantage, on the tee shot usually by:
i.      Shorter approach– Always an advantage
ii.      Better angle – Usually a frontal opening without hazards in between
iii.      Green contours assist approach – An upslope facing one side of the fairway to help stop their shot)
iv.      Preferred stance and lie -Usually a level or uphill lie to make the shot easier
v.      Better vision to green – Not as important given yardage books, but still providing psychological comfort
vi.      Taking major hazards out of play on either shot-Golfer’s fist task is to avoid potential disaster!
Sometimes, those locations/advantages can vary by wind, pin location or by golfer abilities, rather than the absolutes just above.
6.       Features “suggest/reward” one shot /pattern.As Jim Colbert once told me, “There are smarter dudes than me, but if the wind blows left, the target angles left, and my lie slopes left, I think I will hit a draw.No sense fighting physics, and that maxes out my chance of success.
He, and most other good players I speak with say the same thing.A good shot value is one where most signals suggest a preferred shot, making it a matter of judgement and execution.A shot with a hook lie and fade target is harder to judge, involves more luck, and rewards nothing strongly, which contributes less to “having to hit all the shots.”
7.       Temptation/Dilemma – This should rate higher for some, but maybe not all shots, or there is too much excitement.At least a few options ought to have a high degree of risk and reward, i.e., possible eagle/birdie to bogey/double bogey, or birdie to bogey.Carry Hazards and narrow fairways should be arranged so golfer has 51-67% chance of success, based on average game.
8.       Recovery – Most (not all) hazards ought to offer a chance at recovery.While there is no magic formula, in general, golfers won’t challenge a hazard if the chances of recovery (i.e., can reach green) are less than 51-67%. (variation depends on golfer, place in round, etc.)
Then of course, the best courses compare all the individual shot values to the others.
9.       Balance - Not all golfers can “hit all the shots” so there needs to be balance to not play favorites:
1.       Among shots that favor
a.       accuracy,
b.       length,
c.       finesse.
2.       Wind Patterns – Shots with wind from every point of compass
3.       Shot patterns:
a.       Hook vs. Draw (Winds from all compass points)
b.       High vs. Low (actually, most winds favor this)
c.       Spin vs. Roll Out (Typically tail winds combined with frontal openings vs head winds)


10.   Variety – Similar to Balance, but also considers differences in wind variation, sequence and order (i.e., short, long, short type approach sequence, different approach shots by par, hole length/type, etc.)  An extreme example - Manhattan CC in Kansas has a front nine that favors the draw, a back nine favoring the fade. There have been some monumental swings, which are fun, but in theory, I would want to keep the match closer, longer for more fun and excitement, so a ranking based on alternating fades and draws Pete Dye style make some sense.
There you have it, a nice 10 point list (because who doesn’t think in terms of lists these days) that in my experience, most good players would judge an individual shot.  If you gave each shot a point for every  preferred "value" it has, and averaged all 36 shots (I figure putting is always a matter of trying to hole it out, and has constant value, but obviously, perhaps rolling greens ought to figure in somehow) you could average shot values for a course.  May have to work on including putting next!
Would be an interesting exercise, as you can tell I think above, but in the end, not sure it would change anyone's rankings.  I know there are exceptions to any rule above that still seem to work, but not sure how you would rate those.  I also would need to figure a way to judge shot relationships a bit better.  going back to putting, most feel that most holes should reward two difficult tee to green shots with easier putting, etc. 
As I said, about as fully formed as a post oatmeal bowel movement.  Also, apologies, as the formatting in Word doesn't translate fully, making it harder to read.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


To further clarify my response, I do think defining shot values as a thing to itself is important.  I agree we can eliminate the other factors to a big degree - resistance to scoring, design variety, memorability, aesthetics, conditioning and ambience, because while they do help evaluate a course and all that makes it bad, good or great, shot values are really a separate thing.



I look at things a bit differently as from Golf Digest’s definition of “shot values.”  As in, what the heck does the Golf Digest definition of “shot values” really mean:


How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

That seems kind of vague to me, a lot of words to say basically nothing!


So, I break down shot values in a bit more detail, like they would/should for their raters, rather than leave it all to vague opinion.  (I mean, if you are doing a point system, go all the way on the double weighted category in guidance, no?
 
I also believe your definition of “shot values” is not useful for a golf course architect to choose what to do, even if it reflects what you do on course:
 
A.   Analyze the upcoming shot, and visualize/internalize how to play the shot.
B.    Begin pre-shot routine, and execute the shot.
C.    Watch the result.



What guidance does that give an architect in selecting and arranging features? After all, its my job to give you something to analyze, isn't it?  I tend to use the bullet points above in considering what to give you to analyze, based on my takeaways from good players, which isn't too different from Mac, Thomas and other gca types, in that they were/are trying to create situations where certain shots are encouraged, suggested, rewarded.  That was their key focus on placing hazards, to encourage, not to punish.   I am not sure they were interested in resistance to scoring, as much as they were rewarding shot making with a better score.  I think the "punish the miss" mentality was both earlier (around 1900) and later (around 1950 when RTJ redid Oakland Hills.)   


The "create shot types" vs. "punish misses is hard for most to distinguish, and of course, you have to punish a miss somewhat to have strategy (consequences) and more strongly suggest a path to success.  Or, maybe not, buy you have to make it more likely to land in a bunker, miss the green, etc. from one location, or with one shot pattern over another.  But sometimes, golfers will argue that a shot should have "all kinds of options."  But if all options are equal, that is lesser strategy than if there are a few more likely to work better.



Of course, the players are always half the equation, more than equal to the course.  However, it is amazing how consistently a good player will tell me they want those criteria in almost any shot.



You are on your own in visualizing (although I help by making it obvious in most cases) and the shot pattern is all you.  Even top players, who can hit all the shots, will tell you its qualified by "when I am on my game."  When not on, they tend to have a go to shot, like the high fade, which supersedes whatever the target may tell them is best to do.



Thus, my criteria, which I at least look at, and then often ignore as impossible to attain (yes, there are situations that require a hook off a fade lie, etc., and I guess that's a shot type, too, just not a strong one to strive for, but which happens)

Anyway,  I hope that further clears up a long winded post. (Ironically enough, by being more long winded)

[John Kirk]

Give a couple specific examples of holes or shots that are universally considered to have a high "shot value"?  (Particularly from courses most on here are familiar with like a Pacific Dunes, etc)

Let me take a crack at this...

A couple comments the 6th and 8th holes at Pacific Dunes.

1.  Both holes have difficult approach shot opportunities.  Flying the big bunker and holding the 6th green from the left side of the fairway is a great accomplishment, and that is a valuable shot trait.  Furthermore, most greenside short game plays around the 6th green are exciting and interesting plays.

The front hole location on the 8th hole is really tough.  It is difficult for most of us mortals to fly the ball all the way to the green and hold the green.  I might be better off by playing to the back of the green and trying to two putt.  The back bunker play to the front hole is brutal, steeply downhill.

2.  Looking at the visual rewards offered by these holes, the 6th hole doesn't offer much in terms of shot viewing pleasure.  The hole itself and the scenery, of course, are beautiful.  The best angle of attack for me is to drive it over the right fairway bunker and the edge of the big dune, which is about a 190-200 yard carry from the green tees.  Then the approach shot is easy, but blind, so the visual experiences is the anticipation walking up the slope.  Especially downwind, the strong player who hits a reliable draw should take his chances and try to drive the green.  I came close a couple of times.

The 8th hole is more interesting for ball watching.  If you can drive the ball at the copse of trees down the left side of the fairway, then the viewing opens up, and you will get to watch the second shot, while generally having the best angle of attack to all hole locations.  A ball in certain areas of the fairway offers the unusual possibility of having your ball disappear and reappear, if played off the right bank onto the green.

Different strengths to these two holes make the shot values about equal for me, with a slight edge to the 8th hole.

A couple more examples...

Redan:  I'm including this example partly to make a point about Redan strategy.

Most Redan holes have similar strategies, and most of the time we talk about how they encourage a right to left shaped approach shot, that will bounce either on the front of the green, or just short, and roll down onto the green.  I'm not sure I agree with that.  The Redan I know best is the difficult 12th hole at Old Macdonald.  Missing right of the green is a harder up and down than missing in the deep left greenside bunker.  Also, a straight or faded (left to right) shot tends to have backspin, limiting roll, while a drawn shot has overspin, and the long rollout could become problematic.  If you're good enough, then I'd suggest the typical Redan should be attacked with a fade shot.  I'm not very good at hitting fades, as I get stuck way inside too often.  Come to think of it, I can't draw it either, relegated to a varying degrees of the smother shot until I fix it.  Anyway, the draw is the safe play, but the fade is the pro play here.  Isn't it?

Does a Redan have great shot values?  Pretty to look at, the Redan would tend to yield a lot of long uphill putts, or tricky downhill putts and chips, and offer limited viewing of tee shots.  However, there are exceptions.  The 17th at Pacific Dunes offers great viewing of results.  Overall, I consider the Redan hole as good but not great for shot values.

The 16th at Cypress Point:  I've never played it, but my Dad proudly shared his experience with me early in my golf career, when during one f his two rounds there (maybe in the late 50s or early 60s) he hit a great driver onto the green, and then three putted from about 20 feet.  The ultimate heroic shot, the tee shot must carry about 200 yards of the Pacific Ocean to reach the green, or the player can play the hole as a dogleg par 4 by playing safely to the left side of the peninsula.  The viewing and environment are unparalleled, and the strategy is diverse.  Perhaps the highest shot values of any golf hole in the world.

The 9th hole at Augusta National:  Just a famous example of a hole which yields a large percentage of putts that must be played either very delicately, or with a great deal of break.  It's always fun to watch the pros push their approach a bit right to this green which is oriented to encourage this miss.  Then they have to play the putt way up the hill and let it trickle down to the hole, to the delight of the fans.  Although the success rate of the players is quite high (maybe 80+% two putt?), this is a classic fun shot that rates high in shot value. 

[Tom_Doak]

Does a Redan have great shot values?  Pretty to look at, the Redan would tend to yield a lot of long uphill putts, or tricky downhill putts and chips, and offer limited viewing of tee shots.  However, there are exceptions.  The 17th at Pacific Dunes offers great viewing of results.  Overall, I consider the Redan hole as good but not great for shot values.

If the Redan doesn't have great shot values, then your definition is in trouble.  It didn't get famous for the great view from the tee!


What I admire about the hole is that it can be played with EITHER a draw or a fade ... but whichever one you choose, you've got to commit to it and hit a very good shot.  Generally, the fade will work better when it's playing into the wind, and the draw when it's playing downwind, but most people are likely going to go with whichever shot pattern they're most confident in.


The fade is certainly the play on most Redans if you are trying to get close and make a 2 ... you'd have to be lucky to get a draw to roll out just the right length.  However I'm not sure the fade is the pro play on #12 at Old Macdonald ... the green doesn't give you as much bank to play into on the right, the target is skinnier, and if you miss to the right you have your work cut out just to make bogey. 

[John Kirk]

...

What guidance does that give an architect in selecting and arranging features? After all, its my job to give you something to analyze, isn't it?  I tend to use the bullet points above in considering what to give you to analyze, based on my takeaways from good players, which isn't too different from Mac, Thomas and other gca types, in that they were/are trying to create situations where certain shots are encouraged, suggested, rewarded.  That was their key focus on placing hazards, to encourage, not to punish.   I am not sure they were interested in resistance to scoring, as much as they were rewarding shot making with a better score.  I think the "punish the miss" mentality was both earlier (around 1900) and later (around 1950 when RTJ redid Oakland Hills.)   

The "create shot types" vs. "punish misses is hard for most to distinguish, and of course, you have to punish a miss somewhat to have strategy (consequences) and more strongly suggest a path to success.  Or, maybe not, buy you have to make it more likely to land in a bunker, miss the green, etc. from one location, or with one shot pattern over another.  But sometimes, golfers will argue that a shot should have "all kinds of options."  But if all options are equal, that is lesser strategy than if there are a few more likely to work better.

Of course, the players are always half the equation, more than equal to the course.  However, it is amazing how consistently a good player will tell me they want those criteria in almost any shot.

You are on your own in visualizing (although I help by making it obvious in most cases) and the shot pattern is all you.  Even top players, who can hit all the shots, will tell you its qualified by "when I am on my game."  When not on, they tend to have a go to shot, like the high fade, which supersedes whatever the target may tell them is best to do.

Thus, my criteria, which I at least look at, and then often ignore as impossible to attain (yes, there are situations that require a hook off a fade lie, etc., and I guess that's a shot type, too, just not a strong one to strive for, but which happens)

Anyway,  I hope that further clears up a long winded post. (Ironically enough, by being more long winded)

Jeff and Tom,

Thanks for all the detailed responses.

Jeff, I read the two long responses twice.  My response is that as an evaluator of golf courses and golf shots, how the architect builds the course and provides the enjoyable challenge is not my concern.  It is outside my responsibility to give guidance.  You make the course, and I play it.

The list of course requirements and criteria in reply #25 highlights the two general approaches to course design.  Your checklist serves as a guide to analyze the shot requirements provided for the player's enjoyment.  Some architects seem to design based on the best journey through the park.  However, few plots of land possess the natural features worthy of this second type of design, and therefore the "comprehensive test" model is a logical choice.  Still, I imagine that when you are given a good piece of land, you look for great green sites as part of the initial analysis, and that is noticeably missing from your list.

It seems there are two general common strategies for golf course design, an academic approach and an intuitive approach.  Not an either/or proposition, architects use both disciplines to varying degrees.  Clearly there should be an academic balance of golf shots, but an intuitive feel for where to walk, and how a golf ball bounces, is important as well.

Jeff's list is somewhat similar to the evaluation checklist made by Joshua Crane, highlighted in Bob Crosby's fine essay "Joshua Crane In The Golden Age, Part I".  For newcomers to the site, Mr. Crosby's essay is essential reading.  And I hope my remarks made sense.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/

[George Pazin]

If the Redan doesn't have great shot values, then your definition is in trouble.  It didn't get famous for the great view from the tee!


What I admire about the hole is that it can be played with EITHER a draw or a fade ... but whichever one you choose, you've got to commit to it and hit a very good shot.

I think this is where most people err. They don't understand the concept of true options, and true risk/reward. They tend to think of options as the black and white stuff that is favored by virtually every judge of an armchair architecture contest - hit it here or there - if you succeed, it works, if you don't, it doesn't. They don't understand that true options - not black and white options, but true options (I personally, being of the design flavor, favor the black and white versus grayscale versus true RGB color, but understand if others don't)... true options are how does a draw affect the shot, how does a fade, how does a high shot, a low shot, a drop and stop shot, a running shot, etc.


Why most people fail at this is they judge things based on one or two shots. And if it's that small of a sample, you simply don't know if it's a day when it's a little more damp than usual, so a shot holds that wouldn't ordinarily, or dryer, so it doesn't. Or if you really hit it perfectly and judged the spin perfectly, or if you hit it a line or two fat or thin and didn't necessarily get the result you intended.


We had this discussion about 15 years ago about one of the holes at Rustic Canyon, I think the 12th. And the bottom line to me - and I realize, that's me, others might draw a different conclusion - is that people are simply unable to divorce their own results from how things may play out over time. You might hit a one in a thousand shot for yourself and not even realize how lucky you just got.


That's why shot values have so little meaning to me personally, at least as defined by others. What I look for personally is shot variety and shot accommodation. I don't care if I care repetitive 7 irons on par 3s, if they are different - high, low, draw, fade, running, etc. And I want to have some sort of play - not figure out my drop area - on an errant shot, even if it means that play is not particularly desirable. You may need to play that hole multiple times in multiple conditions to figure out why a certain side is highly preferable. (I understand that there are some people who figure it out in one play, but they are the rare rare rare exception, and even they don't always get it right every time.)


Nice topic, John Kirk.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


I wasn't implying that you needed to give me any advice, although, many golfers do, and most seem to think it is sorely needed!    Its just that architects need a theory first in order to design.  I agree as you note that some consider a whole range of things equal to or before pure shot values, including the walk, taking what nature gives you, views, etc.


I really don't disagree with the basic Golf Digest criteria including ambiance, etc., and do think shot values are worth studying as a separate item.  That said, I know that, while they are culled from literally hundreds, if not thousands of better golfer comments, most do get their "emotional" reaction and evaluation from the other factors, and only the "pen and pencil" crowd (i.e., competitive golfers) talk shot values like I show in the list above.


Its mostly an academic exercise, as I have never completed any Crane like form to declare a shot value, uh... value......for any course.  I do it informally, and mostly stand by it, although, I know there would be the same critiques Crane got for his.  BTW, I also think if you applied it, you might have something close to GD's rankings, much like Crane ended up with many more modern courses rated higher than St. Andrews.  That said, I would never use a rating to renovate a famous hole in normal circumstances. 


As an academic exercise, some may think my take is overdone, and I understand that, but one thing I have found out, once you get on the statistical roller coaster, you can't get off until the ride is over.  But, in looking at that list, for example, if you were assigning points, wouldn't you think, all things being equal (they rarely are) that a shot that is:


Totally unplayable is not as acceptable as one that is?
Presenting 2-3 options is better than only 1 (and to a lesser extent, 4 or more)?
Having consequences/playability differences between those options is better than no consequences?
Suggesting/favoring/creating the need to craft shots is better than on that doesn't ask as much?


It's sort of like the old baby name game - Do you like Abigail or Betsy better?  Cloe or Daisy?  After round one, do you prefer Abigail or Cloe, etc.  If you keep asking specific enough questions, you almost always pick one value over the other, no?


Like TD, I have thought about some holes (he mentions the Redan) that are favorites.  I considered PB 8, with its famous, thrilling second over the ocean.  Going through my checklist, you might mark down a point on the tee shot because its blind, another for a perhaps undersized green for the fw wood approach.  Since its a lot of peoples favorite hole, some would blanche at a rating of "only" 8-9 for shot values.  They might conclude the analysis is wrong.  On the other hand, I just conclude that I happen to like a hole that is less than perfect, as they all are.  Not much different than admiring women....the one you like best isn't perfect either, but it doesn't matter to you.


There are enough examples of  less visually stunning, but highly regarded courses to show that shot values alone are enough to make it great.  Muirfield comes to mind as one that at least JN thought very highly of, mostly for how it played.


Anyway, I am glad you brought the topic back to the top.  My favorite kind of topic here, over access or course reviews (which also have their charms.....) but a delve into true philosophy that makes one think, even if one disagrees with one or another premise.

[Steve Lang]

Didn't Ross say:

"The test should call for long and accurate tee shots, accurate iron play, precise handling of the short game and consistent putting.  These activities should be called for in a proportion that will not permit excellence in any other department to largely offset deficiencies in any other."  Donald Ross

Seems like a value proposition to me.  If you can put it where you need to, or can get by, that shot has value...

[Tim Gallant]

Like TD, I have thought about some holes (he mentions the Redan) that are favorites.  I considered PB 8, with its famous, thrilling second over the ocean.  Going through my checklist, you might mark down a point on the tee shot because its blind, another for a perhaps undersized green for the fw wood approach.  Since its a lot of peoples favorite hole, some would blanche at a rating of "only" 8-9 for shot values.  They might conclude the analysis is wrong.  On the other hand, I just conclude that I happen to like a hole that is less than perfect, as they all are.  Not much different than admiring women....the one you like best isn't perfect either, but it doesn't matter to you.

Ah ha! This both hits the nail on the head, and explains why using a strict shot value formula in rankings is so tricky. I absolutely agree that one could love a hole that isn't perfect. However, I wonder if that person is strong and objective enough to then mark down a shot/hole/course based on a rigid formula. Using your analogy, I think my fiancee is the most beautiful woman in the world, and while there may be some formula used to define beauty (none that I know of, but just go with it!) I could use this formula and still determine that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, because I will never be objective.


Is it the same with shot values? One might love a hole, and in the back of his/her mind might know that there are some small flaws, but never fully admit these for fear that their beloved is thrown to the wolves (ie. out of the top whatever)?

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if that person is strong and objective enough to then mark down a shot/hole/course based on a rigid formula. Using your analogy, I think my fiancee is the most beautiful woman in the world, and while there may be some formula used to define beauty (none that I know of, but just go with it!) I could use this formula and still determine that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, because I will never be objective.


Is it the same with shot values? One might love a hole, and in the back of his/her mind might know that there are some small flaws, but never fully admit these for fear that their beloved is thrown to the wolves (ie. out of the top whatever)?

Whether you believe shot values are the most important thing in golf architecture, or completely irrelevant, you still run into this same problem for any formula you use to rate a course ... that it may produce results that clash with your true feelings about the relative merits of two courses, formed without using any formula at all.  So the question is whether any formula is really good enough to stick to when your gut tells you different.


For myself, I haven't seen the formula worth sticking to.  I declined to try and write one years ago for GOLF Magazine's rankings, because I wouldn't trust anyone else to write one for me.  My gut reaction will usually get me to within a point of where a course should sit on the Doak scale; after that, I'll try to make comparisons to other courses in the same range to see if I should push it up or down that last point.  But my criteria for those head-to-head comparisons may vary based on the two courses being compared, and the nature of each.  For example, if they are not courses intended for tournament play, then even Mr. Ross's values quoted by Steve Lang above are not that important.

[Sean_A]

Like Tom, I tend to go with my gut and do head to head comparisons because I know a formula will not work.  That said, I will tip my hat to experts for some courses because I know my tendencies are to be hard on championship courses, but I think for good reason...they are less likely to be courses that stand out except for their championship history.  In other words, championship courses tend to be hammered into codified shape over time to suit the purposes of pros...which definitely doesn't include odd bounces, blind shots and wonky lies.  Te me, this is why TOC, Prestwick and Sandwich are so special...and we all know they have been nuetered over time as well...or suffer the consequences a la Prestwick.  So, I just figure I have a blind eye for the likes of Muirfield and rank them much higher than I would for a personal preference list.


Ciao

[Steve Lang]

  Guts, intuition, emotional feelings,  purely subjective imaginary criteria, perfect for real human evaluations and no end to the permutations.

[Tom_Doak]

I am copying this over from the new GOLF DIGEST rankings thread because I realized it belonged better here.  If you could indeed come up with a definition of Shot Values that everyone understood and used properly, it might be the only definition you'd need.  Just look at the courses in GOLF DIGEST's list that rate the lowest for Shot Values:


here are the courses [based on 2015 scores] that would be most vulnerable:[/size]Under 7.5:  Diamond Creek, Double Eagle, Hudson National, Kittansett, Laurel Valley, Maidstone, French Lick, The Preserve, The Quarry at LaQuinta7.5 to 7.6:  Arcadia Bluffs, Bandon Trails (!), Black Rock, Blackwolf Run, Calusa Pines, Canyata, Cherry Hills, Eagle Point, Estancia, Flint Hills National, MPCC, Mountaintop, Rich Harvest, Shoreacres, Streamsong (Red), The Valley ClubThe only courses in there that I think belong in the top 100 are the three shortest ones - Maidstone, Shoreacres and The Valley Club - and they are probably victims of long hitters' interpretations of "Shot Values".  Other than that, maybe they should just make Shot Values the whole ball of wax.[/color]

[Paul Rudovsky]

A few thoughts on what i have read:


1.  bad bounces and good bounces are an essential part of the game.  to my mind, golf is a simulation of life...and one gets good and bad bounces in life, and how one does at life is in large part a function of how he/she reacts to good and bad bounces.  same thing in golf, and that is why links golf is so much better.  in fact "conditioning" as per GD definition is most heavily based on firm and fast...not green and beautiful (for sure some panelists follow the green/beautiful path...but the GD manual talks about firm/fast)


2.  "playability" is a criteria that is input by GD panelists but it does not, at present, get included in the results.  the GD folks are most likely "testing" this criteria to see if should be included, but to date it is not.


3.  yes there is a very large number of GD panelists and with such a large number there must be quite a few who are not qualified...BUT it is important to realize that this method had the advantage of "the law of large numbers" cancelling out or minimizing the effects of unusual situations


4.  at the end of the day, believe it our not, there is no "right" answer to the question "what are the top 100 courses in the world or USA?"  Yes it is important to define what you mean by "top"...what are the criteria...but even if you do a great job at that, beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder.  Picking a top 100 is like picking a spouse (or 100 spouses??? ).


5.  and to those who think the exercise is a bunch of bullxxxx, then how come you have spent so much time reading and writing these posts


6.  to my mind, the truly great courses are both championship tests and fun to play (e.g. The Old Course) and they are almost always strategic in design and not penal.  Strategic courses give the player options, and made the golfer think.  Golf is like chess and the two chess players are the architect and the golfer.  Great course require the player to think about what the architect is presenting and figure out how to deal with the problem at hand.  Everyone says golf is 90% mental...and great architecture brings that out.


7.  i am a member of two major panels, and believe all of the panels have their strengths and weaknesses...that does not mean that they are all equally good, but i'll keep my preferences quiet.  What is clear to me (and I have studied the listings for decades) it that they all, in general, are asymptotically approaching better/best results...over time they are all getting better (partially because people are traveling more and seeing more courses).  go back to the early ratings...they were horrible because they were first efforts (try using a personal computer from 35 years ago) and pioneers have a tough task.  All products improve dramatically over time.  This does not mean there won't be ratings on any list that are awful (and yes...advertising $$ has clearly impacted some ratings...but then again, if you were a publisher of a magazine...what would you do today??


with that I will go to sleep and watch the brickbats fly 

[JESII]

Paul - I would rather read your personal top 20, 50, 100 or whatever with discussion and explanation and stories than wonder how a couple hundred people can decide collectively that #56 is better than #67...or whatever the debates will be.


My personal opinion is that the law of large numbers you credit for creating quality lists actually just nueters them...

[Tom_Doak]

Paul - I would rather read your personal top 20, 50, 100 or whatever with discussion and explanation and stories than wonder how a couple hundred people can decide collectively that #56 is better than #67...or whatever the debates will be.


My personal opinion is that the law of large numbers you credit for creating quality lists actually just nueters them...

+1 to both sentiments


The law of large numbers is much more vulnerable to GIGO

[Sean_A]

Paul - I would rather read your personal top 20, 50, 100 or whatever with discussion and explanation and stories than wonder how a couple hundred people can decide collectively that #56 is better than #67...or whatever the debates will be.


My personal opinion is that the law of large numbers you credit for creating quality lists actually just nueters them...

Of course large panels nueter lists...isn't that part of the point?  Hammer down pointy nails?


I would rather read one person's list(s) as well, but I realize the panel and individual serve different functions.


Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

Paul - I would rather read your personal top 20, 50, 100 or whatever with discussion and explanation and stories than wonder how a couple hundred people can decide collectively that #56 is better than #67...or whatever the debates will be.


My personal opinion is that the law of large numbers you credit for creating quality lists actually just nueters them...

Of course large panels nueter lists...isn't that part of the point?  Hammer down pointy nails?


I would rather read one person's list(s) as well, but I realize the panel and individual serve different functions.


Ciao

Jim and Tom--


Sean is right.  First, while I agree to some degree with your sentiments, how many personal blogs do you have the time to read (not to mention the time to evaluate the author's skill's and biases...yes, the reality is we ALL have biases...which is another reason for the law of large #'s).  Plus, lots of golfers "want a number", like to watch the ups and downs, and don't like ties even if the differences used to resolve ties are meaningless. 


(Jim---if you are looking for another blog go to https://rudogolf.blogspot.com)


One of the detailed features of GD's list is that they throw away the "outliers"...the 5 or 10% (I forget which %) of ratings that are the lowest and highest for a course in attempt to keep raters with off the charts biases or who are trying to manipulate the results  from influencing the results.  Yes, this can tend to "dampen" movements and slow down the move up or down of courses that have dramatically worsened or improved but, again, no rating system is perfect.


If you really want to understand what the magazine ratings are saying...you need to look how course ratings have moved over time.  The trends are what is important.  I built a huge set of spreadsheets with the full history of magazine ratings for top 100 USA and World, and the trends are very interesting....watch how Shinnecock, NGLA, etc. have moved up and places like Medinah #3 and Baltusrol Lower have moved down.  Some may disagree with some of the movements, but some of them reflect true realities...many of you kids never played Shinnecock in the mid 70's when the fairways were cut to about 1" and you got fliers from every fairway and the greens stimped at about a 5. Also, when you see a course drop precipitously, it is often due to conditioning issues...and when you see a course move up quickly, it is often due to a great renovation, or because a course finally received the minimum number of ratings to qualify for the list (which is why Fishers and Crystal were hidden so long).


Finally...a pox on all the houses...how can any list that has never included Palmetto GC be recognized!!  GD and GM have never had Palmetto in their Top100 and GW had it about 4-5 times in its top 100 Classic...but way down at #84 at its highest rating (and if you looked at the numerical ratings on a merged GW Classic/Modern list, that put it at about #165 in the USA.  NUTS!!


Paul






 

[JESII]

Paul - for my money, the magazines would do better with a ranking each month from a single individual.


Naturally, that individual would need the resume and the capacity to make the narrative interesting. I firmly believe there are enough people like you to make it work. It would work well regionally as well...NE United States, Mainland Europe, Far East etc...


I am much more interested in an opinion than in a collection of opinions presented as fact.

[Sean_A]

Paul - I would rather read your personal top 20, 50, 100 or whatever with discussion and explanation and stories than wonder how a couple hundred people can decide collectively that #56 is better than #67...or whatever the debates will be.


My personal opinion is that the law of large numbers you credit for creating quality lists actually just nueters them...

Of course large panels nueter lists...isn't that part of the point?  Hammer down pointy nails?


I would rather read one person's list(s) as well, but I realize the panel and individual serve different functions.


Ciao

Finally...a pox on all the houses...how can any list that has never included Palmetto GC be recognized!!  GD and GM have never had Palmetto in their Top100 and GW had it about 4-5 times in its top 100 Classic...but way down at #84 at its highest rating (and if you looked at the numerical ratings on a merged GW Classic/Modern list, that put it at about #165 in the USA.  NUTS!!

Paul

No pox on my house please.  Palmetto stunned me.  I saw pix of the place and a general sense of approval from the photographers, but Palmetto is far better than that.  It went straight into my top 10 Happy 100.


Ciao

[Steve Lang]

A few thoughts on what i have read:


...6.  to my mind, the truly great courses are both championship tests and fun to play (e.g. The Old Course) and they are almost always strategic in design and not penal.  Strategic courses give the player options, and made the golfer think.  Golf is like chess and the two chess players are the architect and the golfer.  Great course require the player to think about what the architect is presenting and figure out how to deal with the problem at hand.  Everyone says golf is 90% mental...and great architecture brings that out.

Paul,
Pretty much agree with your general points, but on that 90% mental point, I can't help but think about Yogi's quote:
"Baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical"
or on the rater crowd issue of large numbers, George Carlins' quote:“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”


now back to the regularly scheduled programming...

[BCrosby]

I'm with Sully and TD.

The absence of reliable rating criteria can't be overcome by large numbers of raters.

If ratings are inescapably subjective, the expertise, judgment and experience of the individual rater takes on critical importance. There aren't a lot of people who tick all those boxes. Which is why the CG's rankings by four seasoned, respected raters are more credible than rankings in mass circulation magazines.

Sean's assertion that Palmetto should be ranked higher is the kind of discussion we should have more of. He has seen and analyzed enough courses to qualify as someone we should listen to. I'm not sure I agree with him about Palmetto, but I'd like to hear his case for giving it a higher ranking.

Bob   

[BCowan]

I'm with Sully and TD.

The absence of reliable rating criteria can't be overcome by large numbers of raters.

If ratings are inescapably subjective, the expertise, judgment and experience of the individual rater takes on critical importance. There aren't a lot of people who tick all those boxes. Which is why the CG's rankings by four seasoned, respected raters are more credible than rankings in mass circulation magazines.

Sean's assertion that Palmetto should be ranked higher is the kind of discussion we should have more of. He has seen and analyzed enough courses to qualify as someone we should listen to. I'm not sure I agree with him about Palmetto, but I'd like to hear his case for giving it a higher ranking.

Bob

Bob,

   I disagree with you.  Ask Fazio if he thinks he is getting a fair shake in the CG.  The beauty of spontaneous order (no criteria) it removes group thought.     

[BCrosby]

Ben -


The weight given to rankings done by a limited number of experienced, respected raters does not depend on their results receiving universal assent.


What matters is that they offer up a narrative for what they are thinking. That's how we all learn from the process.     


Bob 

[BCowan]

What matters is that they offer up a narrative for what they are thinking. That's how we all learn from the process


Bob,

   I agree

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()