[Mark_Fine]

Or Merion to Apache Stronghold or to Talking Stick or to Estancia?


Or Sand Hills to The Country Club? 


How do you compare such diverse golf course designs and say with confidence that one is better than the other?  Well it isn’t easy and we will never know for sure or have 100% consensus but like eating an elephant you do it one bite at a time and you don’t do it in just one sitting - the best courses multiple go arounds and careful study to determine just how good they really are. 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


If only all of us had unlimited time, budget, and access.


But I am actually confident in what I like even on one play. I am not a Kantian when it comes to Gca so what I think matters only for me. As you posted elsewhere, there is no absolute right or wrong.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Correct, no right or wrong.  But I will argue that the best courses can be better appreciated with more than one play.  That is part of the reason the lists are so varied - most courses only get one play and then a final assessment is made.  Can you imagine being the architect working for years on a design and someone goes around once and decides they know enough to judge it 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I will try my same point from the opposite direction. Given that I do not have unlimited time, budget, or access, I am content and confident even when I get only one play on a great course. I actually feel very fortunate that I do have enough time and budget to arrange to play some, if not many, great courses.


Ira

[JMEvensky]

Mark,


I will try my same point from the opposite direction. Given that I do not have unlimited time, budget, or access, I am content and confident even when I get only one play on a great course. I actually feel very fortunate that I do have enough time and budget to arrange to play some, if not many, great courses.


Ira

Absolutely agree with this. It's enough for me that it's "great" by someone's reckoning. I'm happy to let others define how "great".

[Tommy Williamsen]

I often think about your question, Mark. Myopia has some shots you never see anywhere else. It is an intimate routing. The shots into the green require thought and execution if you want a birdie or even par. It isn't long but your short irons better go the right distance. Th bunkering is exceptional. The greens have a lot of pitch. There probably aren't too many pins on each green. At Myopia you know you are at a very special place on a very special course. Number 9 is an all world short par three.


Nanea is on a huge property buffeted by the wind. It is wide off the tee and the greens are large. You better be a good putter because you can have some long putts. Looking out over the ocean takes you breath away. The course was capped with crushed cinder and plays firm and fast. The paspalum is the perfect grass to keep the course playing fast.


If I were to pick a favorite it would be difficult. I think that is where GD's categories help identify it more objectively. It isn't everyone's cup of tea, which is why the three magazines have three different approaches.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira/JM,
We are mostly in agreement.  Maybe an analogy is a restaurant; does one visit and one great meal (or not so great meal/service) define the place and the quality of the food?  No question you can get a pretty good idea but one visit can also be misleading (both positively or negatively).   Same goes for a golf course.  Ask Bobby Jones about The Old Course 


Tommy,
Good descriptions.  I love both courses but they are very different and if you are closed mined about what is great, you might underestimate what are both really great golf courses.

[David Wuthrich]

Mark,


Really good question.  Too bad most people that evaluate the courses only get to see them once.  I know that I have played some top courses that I didn't care for the first time I played them, but after playing a few times, they are now some of my favorites!

[Peter Flory]

Or Merion to Apache Stronghold or to Talking Stick or to Estancia?


Or Sand Hills to The Country Club? 


How do you compare such diverse golf course designs and say with confidence that one is better than the other?  Well it isn’t easy and we will never know for sure or have 100% consensus but like eating an elephant you do it one bite at a time and you don’t do it in just one sitting - the best courses multiple go arounds and careful study to determine just how good they really are.

I've thought about this a lot... and it usually stems from when I play a supposedly mediocre course in an environment like SF and then start comparing it to all of the great courses in Chicagoland.  I question how much we grade on a curve based on the geography b/c we are ashamed to rank someone higher based purely on non architectural elements. 

The way that I try to create an honest comparison in my mind is to imagine that any particular course (including the views, grasses, trees, etc) happens to be right in the suburbs in Chicago.  Then I imagine how popular it would be, what kind of initiation/ greens fees they'd be able to command, and whether that is purely because of novelty or because it is actually more desirable. 

I do suspect that if you placed something like Torrey Pines in Wheaton (including the Ocean), it would be the most desirable club in IL.  And if you included the climate in a bubble just at the golf course, it would probably have a higher demand than any course in the country.  i.e. just think how much the richest Chicagoans would pay to join a club that gave them year round golf with 70 degrees temps in January. 


A different thought experiment would be to image that you had a teleportation device and were granted a full membership to any 3 golf clubs/ courses anywhere in the country (or world), including their climates, but excluding any social aspects, ability to bring guests, or clubhouse access.  What would you pick? 

[Jim Franklin]

Mark,


Really good question.  Too bad most people that evaluate the courses only get to see them once.  I know that I have played some top courses that I didn't care for the first time I played them, but after playing a few times, they are now some of my favorites!

I would love to know which ones. I have played some I initially loved and now they have dropped.

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter: 


What do ocean views, year round golf and the climate have to do with the quality of design?


Sven

[Paul Jones]

Mark,


Really good question.  Too bad most people that evaluate the courses only get to see them once.  I know that I have played some top courses that I didn't care for the first time I played them, but after playing a few times, they are now some of my favorites!

Pinehurst No 2 and Seminole come to mind for me.  I thought they were good when I first played, after playing multiple times they are 2 of my favorites.

[Peter Flory]

Peter: 


What do ocean views, year round golf and the climate have to do with the quality of design?


Sven

Nothing.  The OP didn't reference quality of design, just which one was better than another.  And what I'm pointing out is that if you had a teleportation machine and a free pass anywhere, and you choose one course over another, it is arguably better, all things considered... or at the very least- better for you. 

I'm used to thinking about things from an economics perspective- consumer and personal choice. 

A thought experiment to create the answer that you're looking for would be something like:
- Every golf course in the world is copy and pasted into Iowa.  The copy and past would include everything within the borders of the course, including soil type, tree types, sand type, grasses, and internal water hazards. 
- It would not include anything beyond the border of the course- i.e. no ocean for Bandon, Pebble, no long views at Sand Hills, no town at St Andrews, no clubhouses. 
- The social aspects of the clubs and courses will be gone.
- You are going to be entered into a raffle to win a membership to a course and you have to force rank your preferences. 

In this situation, it normalizes climate, views, and location/ logistics.  But you still wouldn't be picking solely on architecture. 

What if you normalized everything by saying that they all had to be bent grass on heavy soil, every tree had to be native to Iowa, and every course would be maintained going forward with the same maintenance budget.  That would probably change your ranking and it would be interesting to go through the thought process for that. 

A cool thread here might be to show some examples of this in photoshop.  Compare Lawsonia to Pebble Beach for instance with the exact same setting. 

[Charles Lund]

To me, that is the beauty of the Doak Scale. 


Ranking relates to the resources and  effort someone would expend to play the course.  Those with highest rankings would justify spending a lot of money and time to travel there.  Many good courses are worth playing if you are in the area.  Narrative reviews can help match preferences to course selection.


Before I heard of the Doak scale, I relied on the Daruis Oliver book Planet Golf in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand for course selection.  I added another book by the same author for more detailed coverage of Australia.  The narratives and photos helped me.


For me, the question of which course is better seems to mean which course is generally ranked higher and is not the same as which course I would rather play. 


Charles Lund

[David Wuthrich]

Mark,


Really good question.  Too bad most people that evaluate the courses only get to see them once.  I know that I have played some top courses that I didn't care for the first time I played them, but after playing a few times, they are now some of my favorites!

I would love to know which ones. I have played some I initially loved and now they have dropped.

You will have to guess first! 

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter: 


What do ocean views, year round golf and the climate have to do with the quality of design?


Sven

Nothing.  The OP didn't reference quality of design, just which one was better than another. 

Yes it does.  Read it again.  It specifically asks us to compare the designs.

[Peter Flory]

Yes it does.  Read it again.  It specifically asks us to compare the designs.

I did exactly what you said, and it turns out that you were right. 

[MCirba]

I would ask that folks name any courses they've played where subsequent rounds after their initial visit changed their opinion more than 1 point on the Doak Scale. (Or roughly numerically commensurate to however you personally rate courses)


In my experience, Hidden Creek is the only one that comes to mind.  There may be others.

[Paul Jones]

Mark,


As you stated, no wrong answer, so I compare it to something completely different.



I like old historical houses and antique furniture.  Sometimes someone builds a new home and it has some of the same qualities that I like and usually only seem to come in the older homes.  The older homes are usually built better, but the modern homes are better designed for new generations of people living in them.

[Sven Nilsen]

I would ask that folks name any courses they've played where subsequent rounds after their initial visit changed their opinion more than 1 point on the Doak Scale. (Or roughly numerically commensurate to however you personally rate courses)


In my experience, Hidden Creek is the only one that comes to mind.  There may be others.

Its Bandon Trails for me.


The course is loaded with visual deception from the tee.  Bunkers look closer or farther than they actually are, elevation changes obscure landing areas and often your eye wandering to the flag brings more trouble into play than necessary.  I struggled on my first play and walked away not liking the course.  Sure, it was a lovely walk in an amazing setting, but the course seemed too tough for my game.


It wasn't until probably my third or fourth play (over three separate trips) that I had enough knowledge to be able to unlock the puzzle.  From then on its been one of my favorites.  What once seemed like the obvious play I now know is a little too close to trouble.  Its a course that benefits those that play a slightly safe line the whole way around, while allowing for more aggressive play if everything is clicking.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You ask a good question but remember the difference between a 7 and an 8 or even a 7.5 is the difference between a course making most of these lists or being no where to be seen.  You and I have seen a ton of courses so I think that helps a lot but still we (at least I) can't pick up everything on just one visit.  Just think about many of the people who review these courses for these lists and have seen very few of the best courses out there.  The points of reference for comparison are all over the map and their ratings for individual courses likely could change a ton. 

[John Kavanaugh]

For a resort course to be great it should be great on the first play.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I agree but for some course reviewers it is too great on the first play (not just for resort courses) and that is why some courses get "over-rated". 

[Tom_Doak]

I would ask that folks name any courses they've played where subsequent rounds after their initial visit changed their opinion more than 1 point on the Doak Scale. (Or roughly numerically commensurate to however you personally rate courses)

Most of the courses that I rated too low originally were places I saw in the UK [especially Scotland] on my first trip in 1982, and rated for the Doak Scale four years later.  I did not want to take Ran's position that every links is at least a 6 because of the right conditions, but certainly I have been back to a few [Gullane 2, Kilspindie] that I rated too low after seeing them in-between my first visits to Muirfield, Dornoch, etc.  And if those are too low, my ratings for Elie and the other 5's are probably too low, also!


On the other end of the scale, I think the courses most likely to be marked down in future years are the just-opened courses.  Everyone is extra enthusiastic about a new course they like and want others to go see, and in many cases the rater has some connection with the architect, too.  It seems like "6" is the lowest number given to such courses even if in hindsight, they are not so special.

[jeffwarne]

I would ask that folks name any courses they've played where subsequent rounds after their initial visit changed their opinion more than 1 point on the Doak Scale. (Or roughly numerically commensurate to however you personally rate courses)

Most of the courses that I rated too low originally were places I saw in the UK [especially Scotland] on my first trip in 1982, and rated for the Doak Scale four years later.  I did not want to take Ran's position that every links is at least a 6 because of the right conditions, but certainly I have been back to a few [Gullane 2, Kilspindie] that I rated too low after seeing them in-between my first visits to Muirfield, Dornoch, etc.  And if those are too low, my ratings for Elie and the other 5's are probably too low, also!


On the other end of the scale, I think the courses most likely to be marked down in future years are the just-opened courses.  Everyone is extra enthusiastic about a new course they like and want others to go see, and in many cases the rater has some connection with the architect, too.  It seems like "6" is the lowest number given to such courses even if in hindsight, they are not so special.

the dreaded "6" for the shiny new toy.
I think I gave you a hard time over that over a beer or two

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()