[Anthony Gray]

 Do you need several plays to adequately evaluate the quality of architecture?


 What course were you wrong about after your first play?


 What courses were you correct about after one play?


 Did Cruden Bay have you at hello?






 


 

[Britt Rife]

Yes, Cruden Bay did have me at hello.  It seems to me that very fine golf courses present intimations of quality on first play.  Just like a book or other work of art might.  The "great" ones seem about to burst at the surface, as they are so deep.  And even when you can't plumb the depths, you know they are there.  I recall the first time I saw the television show Arrested Development. I laughed at the jokes, but had an unsettled feeling that "this is funny, but I think I'd find it's even funnier if I better understood the grounds for what appears to be self-referential humor."


On a good course, I get a sense that there is a lot to unpack right from the beginning, but can't quite articulate all the various elements.  Only with repeated plays can I do this.  The initial impression usually comes from seeing your ball run in an unexpected and charming way or a neat strategic dilemma.    In some ways, I actually prefer the ineffable initial feel, rather than hammering out the elements.  So I can't say that I can properly evaluate the course on first play in any articulate manner.  Instead, I'm left with "there are some really good jokes in here."I'm left with being able to tell "there are some really good jokes in here."

[David Wuthrich]

I think that my answer would be this.


There are plenty courses that have me at Hello!, but there are other courses, the more I play them, the more I appreciate the design.

[Jim Hoak]

I don't know if one-play is enough, but I do know that you can't judge a course by having seen it on television--or hearing a buddy tell you about it.  This is one of the "grievances" from another thread on here.

[Tim Gallant]

Anthony,



This is a question I've mulled over in my mind a good bit. I always (and maybe still do) subscribe to the notion that you need several plays to truly evaluate a course. But! When I look back on courses I've played multiple times, my initial Doak score rating doesn't often change more than 1 point +- (where no additional work is done).


I'd be curious to hear if others drastically change their DS more than 1 often.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I spoke about this extensively on another thread a couple of weeks ago.


Haven’t the energy to re-post it all… but the gist says that you absolutely need a good number of plays to fully evaluate how good a course is.


But that doesn’t mean you can’t evaluate well on first play (some are better than others at this)… I reckon a Doak score can rise max 2 points on repeat plays and fall max 1 point (unless you’ve been completely conned on 1st play).

[Tim Martin]

Anyone can submit a rating after one play but it’s up to those parsing it to determine how much merit should be attached. Number of plays is rarely used as a qualifier but it probably should be. I would think that the bulk of the Doak Scale ratings in the original Confidential Guide are based on one play or one walk of the subject holes. That isn’t meant in any way to downgrade the opinions as I’m a fan but something to think about nonetheless.

[Sean_A]

Sure one can effectively evaluate a course on one play...and reserve the right to allow for the evolution of opinion.

I think there can be a point where playing a course so often results in rating from memory rather than taking a fresh look each time out. My biggest learning curve is playing courses in different seasons.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Recent thread talked about this but to say it again, the best golf courses need to be studied multiple times to be learned.  I don’t think any architect would be happy for a golfer to come off their course after one round and say they figured everything  out their first time around    It would be ok to say you loved it but that is another matter.  As I said last week in a thread, Bobby Jones walked off The Old Course the first time he played it and called it a cow pasture (he hated it).  It became his favorite golf course in time and he modeled Augusta after it.

[Tim Martin]

The one off rating is inherent with the magazines panels and bloggers because there is always another course to see. That’s not to say that there won’t be another visit down the line but a rating or blog post will ensue after the initial visit because that’s the protocol. A list like the Golf World Top 100 will reasonably only have the panelist making one visit to certain remote international locations and I marvel at how intrepid some of these guys are in making their way around the world.

[Carl Rogers]

No, IMO
Multiple plays under different weather conditions along side of golfers of varied abilities.

[Ben Sims]

Can you evaluate a restaurant after one meal? A song after one listen?


Unequivocally yes.


But the most noteworthy restaurants, music, and other art reveal more and more over time. Golf courses are no different.

[Anthony Gray]

 I played the sacred cow NGLA and was underwhelmed. My expectations where very high and I was really enjoying my playing partners so I was not focused on the architecture like maybe I should have been. I just didn’t get it at that time and that is partly due to my ignorance and lack of experience with GCA history. I wish I could have focused better or even just have walked the course alone. I would have had a better opinion of it. The starter was really cool. A former marine. And the caddy was late 50s early 60s and told me that was his most enjoyable round he had and he had been caddying there since he was a teenager.
 So maybe I should take back some of the things I said about it.


 I think multiply plays of Cruden Bay verify it is a 10 on the fun scale.

[MCirba]

Yes

[Tommy Williamsen]

Of course you can but it takes a while to savor it.

[Peter Pallotta]

For those of you who answered 'yes, you can evaluate a golf course after one play' -- would you trust everyone else to be able to evaluate it too?

Mike C and Tommy W have played 1000+ courses, many of them highly ranked. I've played maybe 100 courses, some of them very good indeed, but only one of them ranked.

Should Mike and Tommy believe that I
too am able to evaluate a golf course after one play? (Hint: I wouldn't if I were them)

[Lou_Duran]

Assuming that this is a serious question w/o an agenda, I think that at this point in time, I usually can.  Learning curve and Bell Curve issues are relevant here.  Being aware of anchoring bias is important, though it can work both ways.


I can think of two well-known courses with big tournament history which I may have gotten wrong on my first play.  One that I have played three times since my initial visit just continues to move downward incrementally in my estimation.  Another, always rated in the top 10, my host warned me that I may not enjoy it, and he was right.  I've had the chance to play the course again, but declined.  I keep thinking that I must have missed something- played reasonably well- but I can't drum up enough interest.


Playing under extreme conditions throws this out of the window.  Royal Portrush and R. County Down in outlier weather are impossible to evaluate, which is probably true of most challenging courses.       

[Bill Gayne]

For 99% of courses I think a reasonable evaluation can be made after one play and I think the biggest exception is the Old Course.


Yes I was hooked on Cruden Bay with the first play. Where else can I play to a bath tub green and then a dog leg par three?

[Ira Fishman]

Am I confident that I can determine whether a course is great, good, or not good? Yes. Would I appreciate all of the strategic and tactical design elements? Of course not.


Before Covid, we would visit NOLA once a year and NYC several times a year. We would invariably dine at Herbsaint and Antonucci’s. Did we ever get to try more than a portion of the menu? Of course not.



The question offers a false narrative. How many golfers, even the most committed here, have the time and luxury of playing multiple courses multiple times? And of that subset, how many preferentially choose courses that they already like based on a play or two?


One play at compelling courses is the most that most of the very fortunate of us gets to enjoy.


Ira

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I think a course can be properly evaluated and the subtleties understood in one play, provided that the golfer takes the time to view approaches from both sides of the fairway, and walk around the entire green on every hole.  This will usually add a good 10-15 minutes to a round, but for a fair evaluation a necessity.  Years ago, Tom Paul came out to Engineers, and drove around spending quite a bit of time walking around every green.  We had a great conversation, and drove out to the first green and walked around the left part of the green.  There are some wonderful subtle slopes on that side of the green, which really impressed him.  By odd chance, that same day, we had a GD rather race around the course in about  1 1/2 hours.  Turns out that he sandwiched us between Creek and Piping Rock, and posh clubs got the high marks over the insufficiently studied superior design!  Of course I love Creek and PR, and have about 150+ rounds on both, but
 Engineers continues to be the Rodney Dangerfield of great courses, and quick evaluations by cart riders has generally been the norm, with more than just the above mentioned race around!

[Niall C]

You start evaluating a course as soon as you step on to the first tee for the first time. The question really should be how accurate an evaluation can you do after one play ? I think the answer to that with most courses is quite a reasonable one that will inevitably change slightly with subsequent plays.


The fact that your opinion may/probably will change over time doesn't invalidate the original assessment IMO.


Niall

[Jeff Schley]

You start evaluating a course as soon as you step on to the first tee for the first time. The question really should be how accurate an evaluation can you do after one play ? I think the answer to that with most courses is quite a reasonable one that will inevitably change slightly with subsequent plays.


The fact that your opinion may/probably will change over time doesn't invalidate the original assessment IMO.


Niall

So if I think I can, who is someone else to say I can’t? It is my opinion we are talking about here, not others. If I don’t think I can afterwards because the weather was crap, played with someone I didn’t enjoy, played so badly for whatever reason that I was biased against it, etc. then I’ll check myself and say “I’d like to give it another crack.


I agree with Niall’s assessment above. I have a first impression which as anyone who has taken a psychology class knows is a powerful anchor. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t change over time perhaps. Although our time in this world is finite with only the promise you will have less tomorrow then today. Enjoy it while not saddling yourself with doubt of forming a true opinion of a course takes multiple plays IMO. Take it or leave it, but I would take anyone’s opinion after only 1 play gladly.

[MCirba]

Our old friend Patrick Mucci used to contend that to properly evaluate a course you had to play it multiple times in various weather and presumably times of day and season.


My response was, and is, how many courses have you ever played a second (or more) time where you changed your rating by more than one point, up.or down, on whatever scale you use?


I can think of only one in 50 years of playing.

[JESII]

I can evaluate well enough to know I don't want to go back.


I likely could not defend a course in a debate after one play.

[Tim Martin]

I can evaluate well enough to know I don't want to go back.

That may be the one that matters the most.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()