What is the threshold for greatness in golf courses?

[Ira Fishman]

There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world.  That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent.  Golf architecture is a well-developed art form.  Are there 400 great courses in the world?  I'm not sure about that.


I thought Yale was pretty special when I played it.  It's big and bold.

John,


If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.

The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame.  (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.

I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses.  I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.


Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.

As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.

John:


I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks.  You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.

[John Kavanaugh]

Raters can’t be sanctimonious because they got no sanct.

[Peter Sayegh]

Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.

The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame.  (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.

I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses.  I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.


Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.

As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.

John:


I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks.  You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.

Whoa Tom. The HOF doesn't suck. Anyone who "loves" baseball or has visited that fabulous museum knows that.

If you have a problem with the inductee process, I admit it can be flawed.

Sincerely,
Bert Blyleven.

[V. Kmetz]

John:

I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks.  You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.

+1...and at the same time increasingly include many players who offer little extraordinary to the narrative of baseball in their times; yes the manner, method and criteria is flawed...not the artifact of the Hall itself

[John Kirk]

John,


If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.


Ira

Hi Ira,

I just checked out my copy of the Confidential Guide, Volume 3 (The Americas, Summer Destinations).  Three out of four experts rated 28 courses 8 or higher and 70 courses at 7 or higher.

Hi Tom,

Maybe there are glaring flaws in the Hall of Fame ballot process.  I can't gauge the sanctimoniousness of the writers.  My point stands that the nebulous concept of greatness may only be assigned by a consensus opinion.  In baseball, statistics help evaluate a player's worth, but you can sometimes see a player excel over the course of a single game.  That happened to me once when I saw Barry Larkin dominate a game in San Francisco.

In golf, it helps to be a seasoned observer to see greatness.  Greatness is (mostly) a combination of the natural environment, the flow of the holes and the quality of the shots.  Like a single baseball game, you might see greatness the first time around, but it's unreliable.  I say the same concept is valid.  If enough smart people think it's great, then it's great.


     

[Sean_A]

John,


If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.


Ira

Hi Ira,

I just checked out my copy of the Confidential Guide, Volume 3 (The Americas, Summer Destinations).  Three out of four experts rated 28 courses 8 or higher and 70 courses at 7 or higher.

Hi Tom,

Maybe there are glaring flaws in the Hall of Fame ballot process.  I can't gauge the sanctimoniousness of the writers.  My point stands that the nebulous concept of greatness may only be assigned by a consensus opinion.  In baseball, statistics help evaluate a player's worth, but you can sometimes see a player excel over the course of a single game.  That happened to me once when I saw Barry Larkin dominate a game in San Francisco.

In golf, it helps to be a seasoned observer to see greatness.  Greatness is (mostly) a combination of the natural environment, the flow of the holes and the quality of the shots.  Like a single baseball game, you might see greatness the first time around, but it's unreliable.  I say the same concept is valid.  If enough smart people think it's great, then it's great.
   

Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again?  I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.


Ciao

[John Kirk]

Sean,

I agree.

[David Kelly]

Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again?  I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.

That gets to the crux of the issue because unless there is a universal definition of greatness, the concept means different things to different people. 
A lot of people will say that Pine Valley is undeniably great but others will ask how great can it be if 99% of golfers can never play it.  Others will say it isn't as great as it was or could be because of the encroachment of trees or the work by Fazio, while still others will say it is too penal so it doesn't fall under their idea of greatness.
Similarly with Pebble Beach.  Although it has unmatched scenery, great history, iconic golf holes and anyone can play it, others will say it isn't great because it costs a million dollars to play, the experience is kind of a cattle call, the everyday maintenance is just ok, there are too many pedestrian holes, etc...
Magazine rankings at least profess to have a methodology and things like the Confidential Guide have individuals behind it who let you know their guiding principles.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.

[Tim Martin]

Everyone has a say as to what their favorite is. If someone tells me there favorite cheeseburger is from Burger King I can’t argue that it isn’t but I can certainly argue as to whether or not it is great. Trying to settle on the definition of great is the rub.

[Sean_A]

Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again?  I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.

That gets to the crux of the issue because unless there is a universal definition of greatness, the concept means different things to different people. 
A lot of people will say that Pine Valley is undeniably great but others will ask how great can it be if 99% of golfers can never play it.  Others will say it isn't as great as it was or could be because of the encroachment of trees or the work by Fazio, while still others will say it is too penal so it doesn't fall under their idea of greatness.
Similarly with Pebble Beach.  Although it has unmatched scenery, great history, iconic golf holes and anyone can play it, others will say it isn't great because it costs a million dollars to play, the experience is kind of a cattle call, the everyday maintenance is just ok, there are too many pedestrian holes, etc...
Magazine rankings at least profess to have a methodology and things like the Confidential Guide have individuals behind it who let you know their guiding principles.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.

Magazines may have a methodology, but that doesn't mean it's a good methodology. It's a different conversation, but I am one to believe in the trust of the rater...screw methodology. I have said this many times before. Sometimes a particular design attributes outweigh the limited outlook of percentage points per category. You go to a place like Oakland Hills and its greens are a standout feature of the course. Enough so that the greens alone may make the course great. It could score zero in every other category, but the greens are something special. I like the idea of a savvy rater being able to defend his rating based on this. Another course may be its bunkers etc etc. I think this approach helps get back to architectural intent. We shouldn't be rating all courses using the same criteria. Hence imo it's best to enlist a relatively small number of trusted raters and let them get on with it.

Ciao

[David Kelly]

Magazines may have a methodology, but that doesn't mean it's a good methodology.

It doesn't really matter if the methodology is good or not because that is to be judged by the individual reader.  The point is that you know the basis of how and why they are calling courses great and you can judge for yourself whether to accept, take it with a grain of salt or reject it. The same way you would do it with individuals after you know enough about their thinking to trust or not trust their opinions on golf architecture.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I'm curious, without mentioning details, when is the last time you got a recommendation from someone on this site and as you walked off 18 you thought to yourself "He's lost his bloody marbles"

P.S.  I don't think even the most objective, rational, logical thinkers would ever agree on a definition of great in this context, but it seems there are a lot of terrific opinions and assessments of courses from people on this site.  To boot a few years back we took a poll of everyone's top 100 courses over the course of several months....and IIRC correctly, it was very similar to the ones listed in the prominent periodicals.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I'm curious, without mentioning details, when is the last time you got a recommendation from someone on this site and as you walked off 18 you thought to yourself "He's lost his bloody marbles"

P.S.  I don't think even the most objective, rational, logical thinkers would ever agree on a definition of great in this context, but it seems there are a lot of terrific opinions and assessments of courses from people on this site.  To boot a few years back we took a poll of everyone's top 100 courses over the course of several months....and IIRC correctly, it was very similar to the ones listed in the prominent periodicals.

I don't recall ever thinking someone lost their marbles. I've been mildly disappointed with some recos, but nothing seriously amiss.

David

The categories and weightings for rankings mean virtually nothing. I think most of the time people decide a course is whatever and fit the numbers to their impression.

Ciao

[Mike Rost]

A good course "fits" within the terrain, is enjoyable and challenging for ~20 handicaps to scratch and when the round is complete, has you reconsidering how you'd play 5-10 holes next time.  A great course meets these same hurdles except the holes you'd reconsider vary after each time you played such that after playing 5+ times, you've re-strategized just about every hole.

[James Brown]

I think the Confidential Guide standard works well for this question.  How far would you go play it.  If it’s worth a trip just to see it, it’s a great golf course. 

[Mark_Fine]

There will always be debate about anything that can’t be quantified.  Growing up, I thought the chip and putt course I used to play was great.  I still do 


We all define what is a great golf course using something called ordinal data and ordinal data has no standard scale on which the differences can be measured.


EVERY ranking of great golf courses uses ordinal data so there is truly no statistical significance to them but that is ok as most understand this. 


James,
I like the Doak Scale as well.  It is a 1-10 scale that many can at least relate to when trying to assess greatness.  But even that scale is all relative.

[John Kavanaugh]

How far is a dead metric coming out of the pandemic. Anywhere, anytime, anyhow.