Golf Digest Course ratings

[Jack Carney]

I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.

I've never worked in the print business but I do understand math. GD subscription revenues are in excess of $20MM and advertisement revenue is more than double that. In addition, unlike many magazines revenues are reportedly up for GD and Conde Nast so I really don't think $100M either way is going to determine keeping the lights on. I do think it helps justify admin costs of the effort and in todays cost center centric world a natural target.


You obviously aren't very familiar with the economics of the magazine publishing business 

[James Brown]

Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.

Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.

I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?

In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".

Garland,


How then do you explain the Bandon courses being so highly rated? Perhaps the most over rated courses in the world.

You think GD is over rating the Bandon courses?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


How then do you explain the Bandon courses being so highly rated? Perhaps the most over rated courses in the world.

Dude, they are under rated, not over rated.

[Garland Bayley]

GD uses eight criteria:


--Shot values (do holes present a variety of risks and rewards and test accuracy, length, and finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two?)


--Playability (does course challenge low handicap players while providing options for high handicappers?)


--Design variety (how varied are the holes in lengths, direction, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours?)


--Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)


--Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)


--Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)


--Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)


--Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)


...

John,

Notice how notoriety gained by hosting important tournaments is not in the rating criteria. Notice that the list does not have the historical significance criteria. Notice that the list does not have the exclusive club criteria. Clearly many of the top courses in their rating list are being over rated due to these factors.

Whereas, the Bandon courses are over the top on the rating criteria except perhaps the resistance to scoring criteria.

Therefore, much of GD list over rated. Bandon courses under rated.
 


 

[Jon Wiggett]

At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )

Glenn,


18 is a great matchplay hole offering anything from a 2 through to a 5 or even a 6.


I wonder what the rankings would look like if they were done from a matchplay angle not a strokeplay?


Jon

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Jon,


I can see how #18 at N Berwick would be good match play hole.  Forget par.  Who can get it in the hole the fastest?


That said, it doesn't require the player to make a choice...does it?  Try to drive it on the green or as close as possible.  I don't see why a player capable of hitting the green would ever lay up. 


Or am I missing something?


Whatever its strategic merits, I have fond feelings for #18 as the beautiful climax of a trip around my favorite course...at least so far!

[Sean_A]

Jon,


I can see how #18 at N Berwick would be good match play hole.  Forget par.  Who can get it in the hole the fastest?


That said, it doesn't require the player to make a choice...does it?  Try to drive it on the green or as close as possible.  I don't see why a player capable of hitting the green would ever lay up. 


Or am I missing something?


Whatever its strategic merits, I have fond feelings for #18 as the beautiful climax of a trip around my favorite course...at least so far!

Did you not notice the OOB on the right?  It is very easy to dump a tee shot there.  I reckon the safe shit is to blast one leftish side of the green and if you miss left its a good chance to get up and down. If you play for the centre of the green and come up short you are in the NB version of the Valley of Sin and if you push the drive its Sinn Fein time.   

Ciao

[Matt Dawson]

Jon,


 and if you push the drive its Sinn Fein time.   

Ciao

I just got that one....

Having said that, of all the GB&I courses we discuss, I think N Berwick is the course where I differ most from mean viewpoint on GCA

It does absolutely nothing for me. Can't quite put my finger on why.

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Sean,


Of course, I saw the OB on the right.  I do not, however, consider it "very easy to dump a tee shot there."


I would say the proper tee shot, not just the safe one, is toward the left side of the green.  The up-and-down from there is not difficult.  Nor is NB's "valley of sin" as difficult as the one on TOC.  Up-and-down is readily achievable.


The penalties, for me, fall short of what would be necessary to make #18 a good strategic hole.


But let me repeat:  I love NB...and even #18, albeit for different reasons.

[James Brown]

Jon,


I can see how #18 at N Berwick would be good match play hole.  Forget par.  Who can get it in the hole the fastest?


That said, it doesn't require the player to make a choice...does it?  Try to drive it on the green or as close as possible.  I don't see why a player capable of hitting the green would ever lay up. 


Or am I missing something?


Whatever its strategic merits, I have fond feelings for #18 as the beautiful climax of a trip around my favorite course...at least so far!

Agree.  Not much choice on 18, even if you are chronic slicer in a left to right gail.


Come to think of it, every other hole, except maybe 11 and possibily 17 begs a tee choice. 

[James Brown]

Garland,


I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard.  Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation.  The latter is GD's description of "playability."


It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability."  Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."


Anyone can build a "difficult" course.  And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play.  The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable.  I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.


"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished.  The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.


A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies.  At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )

Isn’t “Difficult but fair” as a measure a logical criterion, given your point about anyone can build a “difficult” Course?   Maybe another way to say this is “thoughtfully difficult.”


Setting aside the criteria, it seems to me like most of the negative feedback about the GD rankings has less to do with the actual language of the criteria than how the criteria are actually employed by the raters and the editors in compiling them.  Hence my OP asking about what I presume is change in the composition of the raters. 


What would the ideal cadre of raters be in a practical world?

[Garland Bayley]

...
What would the ideal cadre of raters be in a practical world?

#1 criteria, knowledgeable. Many posters here report the uninitiated value conditioning above all else.

#2 criteria, raters for the target audience. I.e., high handicappers producing ratings for high handicappers, mid handicappers producing ratings for mid handicappers, etc.

Using #2 criteria, Pine Valley would rank well below Bandon Dunes for perhaps the high and mid handicappers, but perhaps above Bandon Dunes for the low and plus handicappers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pine Valley would rank below Bandon if you are an idiot. Funny thing, only idiots subscribe to magazines. You may be on to something.

[Garland Bayley]

Pine Valley would rank below Bandon if you are an idiot. Funny thing, only idiots subscribe to magazines. You may be on to something.

Since I don't subscribe to magazines, you must be talking about yourself.

What I did suggest was that the average player may prefer Bandon, and the better player prefer Pine Valley.
Certainly more average players play Bandon than do PV.

[cary lichtenstein]

Garland,


I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard.  Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation.  The latter is GD's description of "playability."


It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability."  Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."


Anyone can build a "difficult" course.  And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play.  The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable.  I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.


"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished.  The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.


A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies.  At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )

So let me ask, I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?

[cary lichtenstein]

Pine Valley would rank below Bandon if you are an idiot. Funny thing, only idiots subscribe to magazines. You may be on to something.

John, you're on to something

[Nigel Islam]

Garland,


I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard.  Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation.  The latter is GD's description of "playability."


It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability."  Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."


Anyone can build a "difficult" course.  And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play.  The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable.  I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.


"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished.  The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.


A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies.  At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )

So let me ask, I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?

Cary,


    What I loved about Oakmont is that as you set up to hit every shot, you think in your mind you can execute the shot. Then I hit the shot and it turns out I'm just not good enough to do it.  It's like this throughout the entire round, no tricks, just demanding of perfection. I suspect this is what you hated about it, but that is the reason it is held in such high regard. I get why you didn't like it, but that why I think so highly of it.


Nigel

[John Kavanaugh]

Garland,


I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard.  Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation.  The latter is GD's description of "playability."


It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability."  Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."


Anyone can build a "difficult" course.  And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play.  The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable.  I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.


"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished.  The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.


A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies.  At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like.   (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more.  And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )

So let me ask, I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?

Cary,


This explains why the Golf Gods broke your back. You were a beautiful striker of the ball, remember the pure shots you hit with my hickories? Repent and you may play again. I may have just played the worst round at Walton Heath in the history of the course without losing a ball. I'll deal with me later and the course suffered none. Oakmont could have been so lucky.

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Garland,


I am intrigued by your idea of having low handicappers rate for low handicappers and high for high.


Although a four-ball may include both levels of skill, the players are essentially playing different courses.  Not only do they hit the ball different distances, their "margin for error" is different and their targets are different.  Green complexes that are interesting, even exciting, for skilled players can humiliate weaker players.  (For example, the crowned greens of Dornoch or Pinehurst #2.)


I would still argue that the ideal course is "challenging for skilled players but provides options for the less-skilled."  But it would be nice to have raters of diverse skill levels determine how well a course meets that standard.


GD, as others have noted, requires its raters to have an index of 5 or less.  GD's premise seems to be that low-handicappers are better judges of good architecture.  I doubt that is the case.  At best, there might be some weak correlation between a player's skill level and the number of quality courses he/she has seen.  Better to choose evaluators directly on the breadth of their experience with good architecture.


James,


As for N Berwick's test of driving, I think it has many holes that require clear thinking and execution off the tee.  Even #1 requires a decision about how far to play down the fairway and at what angle.  The choice may be strongly influenced by the strength and direction of the wind.  #2 requires a decision about how much of the beach to cut off.  #3 requires a strong tee shot even if the direction is less important than on 2.  #5 tee shot is menaced by fairway bunkers, left and right, requiring a decision about direction and whether you can carry a bunker.  #8 is a minefield, requiring choices on both the tee shot and second...depending on the wind.  #13 poses an interesting question about whether you wish to approach the green on a line more parallel to the wall or more across the wall.  #14 requires a decision about how far to play down the fairway across humps and bumps to set up a blind approach.  #17 requires a precise drive between the fairway bunkers, taking into account the rollicking fairway, or a lay up leaving a longer shot to a dramatically elevated green.


N Berwick is a great course IMHO.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


Of course, I saw the OB on the right.  I do not, however, consider it "very easy to dump a tee shot there."


I would say the proper tee shot, not just the safe one, is toward the left side of the green.  The up-and-down from there is not difficult.  Nor is NB's "valley of sin" as difficult as the one on TOC.  Up-and-down is readily achievable.


The penalties, for me, fall short of what would be necessary to make #18 a good strategic hole.


But let me repeat:  I love NB...and even #18, albeit for different reasons.

I have seen a lot of tee shots fly onto the road on 18....it is a common result and not surprising since a decent percentage of players are going for the green.  I am not saying 18 is a great strategic hole.  It is actually quite a deceptive penal hole with OOB down the right and the proshop left.  What makes the hole interesting and good is down to its reachable length and width.  Folks think the hole is a simple bash and probably 6 or 7 times out of 10 it is, but there is trouble for careless smashmouth play.  The thing is there is no reason to bring trouble into play.  A huge percentage of golfers can earn a 4 there with little problem and shouldn't really score higher than a 4.  Its the penal nature of the hole disguised by short length and width which temps golfers to do more than perhaps they should.  Its a good finishing hole imo.

Cary's comments re Oakmont are exactly what I mean by taking each course on its merits and intentions.  I don't think it is a great idea to have the same criteria for every course.  To me, it isn't reasonable to judge Oakmont based on criteria that the designers never intended to achieve.  Or at the very least the weighting of criteria should be altered to more accurately reflect the intent. 

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf Digest only asks that their raters declare to be a 5 or less. The average Golf Digest rater score while playing a course for the first time is 84...perfectly adequate without being embarrassing. People who shoot 84's are not low handicappers, they are simply avid golfers devoid of physical disabilities. 

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Sean and Cary,


I agree that Oakmont is extremely difficult...for any player, not just less skilled players.  As Sean suggests, that is what Henry Fownes intended.  He was not trying to build a course that all players could enjoy equally.  To this day, Oakmont members adhere to the Fownes vision...and the club has a correspondingly large proportion of low-handicap players.


One might say Oakmont exemplifies the difference between a course that ranks high on "resistance to scoring" as opposed to "playability."  Remember GD defines "resistance to scoring" as "difficult but fair for the scratch golfer."


Yet here is an anecdote that sheds light on how GD views "resistance to scoring."  Ron Whitten once told me, in email correspondence:


[size=78%]"I[/size][/size]f you [/size]don't think Oakmont is unfair from the back tees for a[/size]scratch golfer, I'm not sure you'd think any course[/size]is."


Ron was responding to my rating Oakmont very high on "resistance."


I took Ron's comment to mean that he thought Oakmont might be so difficult to be unfair.  My reply to Ron was that course knowledge is especially important at Oakmont because the penalties can be severe.  For example, a player needs to know to play approach shots to land short of the green in certain cases (#1 and 10 when flags are in front half)...and never get above the hole in others (eg #2). Armed with course knowledge, and sufficient skill to execute, the course becomes more manageable.  Manageable, but never easy.  But, again, that was what Fownes intended.


(I confess to an emotional attachment to Oakmont, having grown up in Pittsburgh and having played Oakmont some as a youth.)

[Garland Bayley]

So Ron 'whitten trades in fair/unfair. As they used to say on Laugh-In "Very Interesting".

[Jim Nugent]

 I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?

A couple of average, i.e. bogey, golfers here on GCA.com have said they love playing Oakmont.  They don't score well, but they love it even so. 

Maybe expectations have something to do with it?

[Jon Wiggett]

Glenn,


the 18th at NB's OOB is very much in play especially in a decent westerly wind where you are setting the ball out in its direction. On top of this, being short right, right or long of the green leaves a very tricky shot. Balls left of the green tend to roll quite a bit away from the green. Playing strokeplay the smart play is laying up well short of the green and going for an up & down birdie. IMO only a fool would regularly play for the green when it counts as the birdie will be difficult to get if the shot does not come off.