Ranking Courses in Windy Places, Bad Condition, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Posting this here, partly, to stop the back and forth on the Cape Wickham thread and hope it will go away.  But I have thought a lot about this over the years, and my take is:


A rater should rate the course as he or she experiences it on the day in question.  Anything else is dishonest.


Cape Wickham was one of the courses that forced me to think about the question, when I visited a few years ago.  I was there for a day and a half and the wind grew from pleasant, to difficult, to only the club professionals in the groups being able to break 100.


Many would argue that you should dismiss days like that, and I think that’s the general view of people on the rating panels.  If it happens 1 day out of 100, surely it should be dismissed- but in that case presumably only one rater out of 100 would experience those conditions, and any negatives would be irrelevant.  It’s when it happens 10% or 20% of the time (or even more) that it would start to be a real factor, and that would reflect the real average of conditions.  (This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)


Also, as Tim Gallant noted, a strong wind is the ultimate proving ground for a great course.  Is it still fun and interesting even when things get weird?  If so, that’s a mark of great quality.  Most links courses are better in the wind (within reason) than on a calm day.


The same logic can be applied to turf conditions.  Assuming that conditions are usually better than what you’ve seen is either optimistic or dishonest, but it isn’t representative of how the course plays, and that is what you’re supposed to be rating, isn’t it? 


Golf course rankings should not be reduced to a beauty contest. Rating what you played is the only sensible approach.  Of course, that’s more easily done in a venue like The Confidential Guide, where we would make a caveat about the conditions.

[Bill Seitz]

Many would argue that you should dismiss days like that, and I think that’s the general view of people on the rating panels.  If it happens 1 day out of 100, surely it should be dismissed- but in that case presumably only one rater out of 100 would experience those conditions, and any negatives would be irrelevant.  It’s when it happens 10% or 20% of the time (or even more) that it would start to be a real factor, and that would reflect the real average of conditions.  (This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)

Tom, in that case, would you recommend that a course like Cape Wickham should close on days where wind makes it nearly unplayable, or does it hurt itself in the rankings by being open (presumably) year round even though it is going to experience quite a few very windy days?  Is it at a disadvantage over, for example, locations in the northern U.S. which are closed a good chunk of the year, but which aren't downgraded for that because the weather is predictable?


Let's say Cape Wickham is open 365 days per year, and 120 of them are days where the wind makes the course extremely difficult, bordering on unplayable.  Compare that with, for example, a newly opened High Pointe, which will not even be open for probably 150 days per year or more (not trying to imply that ratings will be at all important to High Pointe's success).  CW is more likely to be played by raters on its worst days, when HP won't even be playable for a greater period of time.  Courses in Northern U.S. climates may not even accommodate rater play early or late in the season when the course is open but not putting its best foot forward.


I don't know what the answer is, and aside from CW telling the rating organizations to ignore or omit from their calculations any ratings submitted on particular days, it seems like a course in that situation will always be at a disadvantage over a course that has some measure of control over the conditions that raters will play under. 


Definitely agree on "rater days", and know of at least one panel that specifically avoids doing or promoting those.  I seem to recall an issue a few years ago when a rater day was held at Lawsonia in May, which probably isn't ideal under normal circumstances, and was particularly problematic given the previous winter (can't remember the exact year).  Doesn't exactly provide for a fair assessment, especially from raters who may not get back to revise a rating for a number of years.

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting thread. Lofoten Links and its position in various recent rankings also comes to mind.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

bill S:


I don’t want this to be about Cape Wickham specifically, so let’s use Barnbougle Dunes or Lost Farm instead.  Or any of the courses in Bandon, where you’ll experience very different (but still good golf) conditions in winter than summer.


I happened on a post by Mike Clayton the other day that noted that against all common wisdom, Barnbougle actually played its best in the winter months - and that used to be true for all of the Sandbelt courses, too.  But for an international ranking, I’d guess it’s highly unlikely that any of the panelists are going to Tasmania (or the Sandbelt) in their winter months.


Counting actual winter closings against a course would be kind of silly, since no one is traveling to play Crystal Downs in February.  If you did it that way, though, Royal Melbourne and St Andrews would kick butt over Augusta or Pine Valley, which would be perfectly fine with me.

[Charlie Goerges]

Agree with Tom. If members or paying customers can encounter said conditions, they’re fair game for the raters too.


Bill mentioned CW’s “disadvantage” compared to the North American courses that “get” to be closed during the worst weather. I see losing half the calendar year as the disadvantage.


If the difficult conditions are extremely uncommon, it shouldn’t affect the course’s rating by much, and if those conditions are somewhat (or relatively) common, then the design of the course should be such that the course is still fun and playable.

[Tommy Williamsen]

.

[Michael Moore]

So negative! Here's an interesting thread from a great writer about the best days at the best courses.
 
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27439.0.html

[Tim Martin]

Like with sideways rain there will be days when a course is closed for unplayable wind. Putting enjoyment level aside there is a safety issue at play.

[Ronald Montesano]

I've never been a rater for any publication, although I do have one local friend who is a rater for Golfweek. I follow his trips on Instagram, but I've never sat down with him and discussed the process.

If I were a rater, I would do a fair amount of research on the course I was about to see/had just seen, so that I would know a bit more about it. I agree with JK on not letting current conditions impact my judgement. That said, 102% of us will consider a best-ever day to be acceptable, and a worst-ever day to be an unfair intrusion. It's akin to what we consider to be our yardage with our seven-iron. Just because we hit it 180 yards once, doesn't make 180 yards the standard, yet we will say that we hit our seven-iron 180 yards!

If you encounter a course on a placid, bucolic day, you cannot extrapolate windy conditions, and that makes impact of conditions a difficult aspect of rating. In addition, if a rater is not used to playing in windy conditions, and does not have the game to adjust to windy conditions, perhaps said rater is not worthy of rating a course under such conditions.

There's lots to be contributed on this topic. I hope that I've added some ideas to give pause.

[Eric Zimmerer]

Outdoor game!


If a rater cannot look at the grand picture of the course then the trouble lies with them not the course.

[Joe Hancock]

“What this course rating list needs is more asterisk!”

[Sean_A]

Posting this here, partly, to stop the back and forth on the Cape Wickham thread and hope it will go away.  But I have thought a lot about this over the years, and my take is:


A rater should rate the course as he or she experiences it on the day in question.  Anything else is dishonest.


Cape Wickham was one of the courses that forced me to think about the question, when I visited a few years ago.  I was there for a day and a half and the wind grew from pleasant, to difficult, to only the club professionals in the groups being able to break 100.


Many would argue that you should dismiss days like that, and I think that’s the general view of people on the rating panels.  If it happens 1 day out of 100, surely it should be dismissed- but in that case presumably only one rater out of 100 would experience those conditions, and any negatives would be irrelevant.  It’s when it happens 10% or 20% of the time (or even more) that it would start to be a real factor, and that would reflect the real average of conditions.  (This is another reason there shouldn’t be “panelist events” where half the people voting see the course on the same day - they are likely to form an inaccurate view, whether too negative or too positive.)


Also, as Tim Gallant noted, a strong wind is the ultimate proving ground for a great course.  Is it still fun and interesting even when things get weird?  If so, that’s a mark of great quality.  Most links courses are better in the wind (within reason) than on a calm day.


The same logic can be applied to turf conditions.  Assuming that conditions are usually better than what you’ve seen is either optimistic or dishonest, but it isn’t representative of how the course plays, and that is what you’re supposed to be rating, isn’t it? 


Golf course rankings should not be reduced to a beauty contest. Rating what you played is the only sensible approach.  Of course, that’s more easily done in a venue like The Confidential Guide, where we would make a caveat about the conditions.

I would fight back against conditions. I don't believe judging the conditions based on one play is wise. As a reader of such comments reflected in a rating I would tend to pay less attention to the rater...unless that person has decent experience playing the course. I played a course after the recent horrible flooding. No chance my rating will reflect those highly unusual conditions. Just as I wouldn't reflect course maintenance taking place as poor conditions. Unfortunately, some raters do and some courses don't want raters to visit during such times. In my personal ranking I virtually ignore conditions unless there is something very weird going on. I prefer to think more in line with presentation which would include condition stuff, but be much more about grass lines, rough & tree management etc. 


Ciao

[Steve Lang]

“What this course rating list needs is more asterisk!”

Agree Granpa,


* A tricky guy designed the Par 3 green's at The Mines...


* Ms Sheila's take-away of Ballyneal is a ball 4 ft from the hole can be blown off the green some days...


* the flies & bugs along the closing holes at Dismal River Red probably are there more than 2 weeks a year...


* enjoy your round, play the shot best you can

[Thomas Dai]

Bit of a generalisation but in calm conditions firm, wide links courses can play pretty easy so if they’re reviewed by raters only in calm conditions then couldn’t they be considered as patsies, not sufficiently challenging tests of golf and their ratings suffer accordingly?
Atb

[Mike_Clayton]

bill S:


I don’t want this to be about Cape Wickham specifically, so let’s use Barnbougle Dunes or Lost Farm instead.  Or any of the courses in Bandon, where you’ll experience very different (but still good golf) conditions in winter than summer.


I happened on a post by Mike Clayton the other day that noted that against all common wisdom, Barnbougle actually played its best in the winter months - and that used to be true for all of the Sandbelt courses, too.  But for an international ranking, I’d guess it’s highly unlikely that any of the panelists are going to Tasmania (or the Sandbelt) in their winter months.


Counting actual winter closings against a course would be kind of silly, since no one is traveling to play Crystal Downs in February.  If you did it that way, though, Royal Melbourne and St Andrews would kick butt over Augusta or Pine Valley, which would be perfectly fine with me.

One other thing against the conventional wisdom but related to wind, is it's absolutely arguable Barnbougle Dunes is more difficult in no wind.
The into the prevailing wind holes (1, 2 -4,7,12,15 - 18) are all 'short' with the exception of 17 and 18. Unless it's a crazy wind they are all relatively easily managed.
The 'long' holes (5,6,8-11,13,14) are generally down the wind so play relatively short - but with no wind they are all longer and noticeably more difficult.
The 200y par 3, 5th for example goes from a 5/6 to a 2/3 iron.

[Niall C]

Also, as Tim Gallant noted, a strong wind is the ultimate proving ground for a great course.  Is it still fun and interesting even when things get weird?  If so, that’s a mark of great quality.  Most links courses are better in the wind (within reason) than on a calm day.

Tom


I was going to add a facetious post to the Cape Wickam thread about playing in a 95 mph round but then I thought the thread was already silly enough as it was. Where I was going to respond was on Tim's assertion that what makes TOC so great is that you can play it in a strong wind. There are plenty of courses where you can do that as I know from playing a lot of winter golf at Gullane and other places over the years. Does that make them all great ?


Probably not but for me at least playing in those conditions is great fun. Does strong wind make the courses better ? I don't think so but the wind does provide an added dimension. How do you incorporate that into a ranking, well I've no idea but I'd expect a rater to be able to make some sort of allowances or they would have no business being a rater. Conditioning is a different matter as I believe that is part of the rating criteria ?


Niall   

[jeffwarne]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, but that's what I do..
Courses built in a normally windy environment that are built to enjoy the challenge OF the course, are far more fun, and in my opinion far BETTER, than those that the challenge is simply to remain ON the course.
I mean who likes looking for someone's ball in gunch on every single hole, worse yet reteeing, or the worst-walking back.
The odd use of a strategic or a penal feature is cool too, it's just that a steady diet of such in your face features becomes redundant and "unfun" for the majority of golfers not at the top of their games that day-or ever-for that matter.


But many raters disagree with me and get thrown off by confusing "challenging" with difficult, failing to understand the subtleties of providing enough room to diabolically sabotage an elite score for one consistently choosing the wide side. (TOC)
The Old course is highly challenging, and has consistently produced as winners the finest players of every era, yet it's not a difficult course to keep your ball on and enjoy for nearly all levels of golfers.Death by a thousand paper cuts.
ANGC, inspited initially by TOC, was once in this category-less so now.
TPC was built to test the elite pros,and was far more difficult in its infancy, especially with balata, blades and persimmon, but I was never a fan of the holes as a collective whole, though I liked quite a few individually(Yes much of the penal features also had to do with the engineering of the site)
Just not for me-however, I see the appeal for some to compare their games to the pros-even though they actually aren't in nearlly all cases.

[Bill Seitz]

Counting actual winter closings against a course would be kind of silly, since no one is traveling to play Crystal Downs in February.  If you did it that way, though, Royal Melbourne and St Andrews would kick butt over Augusta or Pine Valley, which would be perfectly fine with me.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that it's unlikely that Crystal Downs, or let's even say Kingsley since it's probably more accessible to panelists, would volunteer to host when it wasn't likely to put its best foot forward (with the understanding that it could rain, I guess).  But my sense from Barnbougle and CW is that the wind isn't quite as predictable as a northwest Michigan winter, which could put them at a disadvantage. 


Of course, this is all just kind of a silly exercise anyway.  Which isn't to say that the people who put effort into rating and aggregating ratings aren't serious.  Silliness can be important too.  But none of it really means much in the grand scheme of things, so there aren't any hills here I'm willing to die on.  That said, as a national member at a seasonal club, while I miss not being able to use it in the winter, I like the predictability of knowing it's going to be playable pretty much every time I visit in the summer.  It would suck if the 3-5 trips I made there every year were at times when the elements made it unplayable or unenjoyable.

[Rob Marshall]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, but that's what I do..
Courses built in a normally windy environement that are built to enjoy the challenge OF the course, are far more fun, and in my opinion far BETTER, than those that the challenge is simply to remain ON the course.
I mean who likes looking for someone's ball in gunch on every single hole, worse yet reteeing, or the worst-walking back.
The odd use of a strategic or a penal feature is cool too, it's just that a steady diet of such in your face features becomes redundant and "unfun" for the majority of golfers not at the top of their games that day-or ever-for that matter.


But many raters disagree with me and get thrown off by confusing "challenging" with difficult, failing to understand the subtleties of providing enough room to diabolically sabotage an elite score for one consistently choosing the wide side. (TOC)
The Old course is highly challenging, and has consistently produced as winners the finest players of every era, yet it's not a difficult course to keep your ball on and enjoy for nearly all levels of golfers.Death by a thousand paper cuts.
ANGC, inspited initially by TOC, was once in this category-less so now.
TPC was built to test the elite pros,and was far more difficult i its infancy, especially with balata, blades and persimmon, but I was never a fan of the holes as a collective whole, though I liked quite a few individually(Yes much of the penal features also had to do with the engineering of the site)
Just not for me-however, I see the appeal for some to compare their games to the pros-even though they actually aren't in nearlly all cases.

Jeff, the way I’ve heard you describe the Bridge at times on the radio it sounds like a course you could be looking for balls on every hole if your not on your game. Does it have the width it needs? I would imagine it can get pretty windy on the east end of the island.

[Mark Pearce]

The very greatest of courses are engaging and challenging in a variety of conditions.  One of my most enjoyable experiences on a golf course was playing TOC with my eldest son in a 4/5 club wind (so nearing 30mph, I'd guess).  We both hit it well, as a result of which we only lost one ball each.  My 6 at the second featured 4 of the purest golf shots I have ever played.  We halved our match when he hit a 5 iron tee shot on the 18th green but 3 putted.  Crazy golf but great, great fun.  There aren't many courses where we could have enjoyed ourselves that much in that wind, and that is one of the reasons it is a great course.


I'd suggest that playability in the wind does not qualify a course as great on its own, but is a factor to consider and I think that's what Tim was saying.

[PCCraig]

Tom -


I don't have a real dog in the Cape Wickham fight but curious as to why you think you should discount a golf course for being difficult in the wind on the day of your visit, however at the same time you could rate Sand Hills a '10' before it was even fully built? How did you know Sand Hills wasn't going to be too windy of a site for the golf course being built?


Just curious on the rationale.


Thanks.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I was there for a day and a half and the wind grew from pleasant, to difficult, to only the club professionals in the groups being able to break 100.

I generally understand and think the post is perfectly sensible, but I do want to push back on the high-wind playability issue generally. Only for this reason: modern golf tech has changed golf in such a way, that players are hitting the ball farther, and they do that by hitting the ball higher.

I've thought for a long time about what can be done to bring the ground game back into fashion, and the thing I keep coming back to is wind, and high winds. Where this becomes an interesting problem for golf culture is specifically the hedonic treadmill that is pushing the tees back (and boy have they been pushed back!). In high winds, however, suddenly that new TaylorMade BallDestroyer™ (that justifies a 500 yard par four) is worthless because an artisanally crafted launch angle is actually a disadvantage in high winds.

To me, the way to approach courses like that is to throw out the modern clubs, grab a driving iron, play the "silver" tees and approach with a long bump and run. I like this because it's a different and interesting way to play. I learned to play this way along the Firth of Forth in grad school, and every club tournament I've won, has been in 20-30+mph winds, simply because I could play in them while most folks can just moan about them.

In addition, one of my favorite strategic features is (intentionally placed) trees that block or redirect prevailing winds, which opens up different lines of play and to reward players who see the flight of the ball in a more complex way.

Now do I care that the raters rank courses with "unplayable" conditions lower? Obviously not, because rankings have a lot of expectations I disagree with and I think they are silly anyway. What I do find disappointing is how this position seems to de facto endorse this modern version of ideal-launch-angle golf.

Perhaps high-wind courses should have suggested tees based on wind conditions, or at least explicitly encourage/warn players that modern golf sensibilities are intentionally being eschewed and to expect conditions that are hostile to hybrids and 460cc drivers (like how the sign at Bethpage warns people to expect to get their butt kicked). Still, as someone who likes the idea of giving people a reason to throw a 1 iron in their bag instead of another 3 hybrid, "unplayable" windy courses seem like the only way to make that an actual advantage.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Just a couple of thoughts. I have been on the GOLF DIGEST panel since 1992. I judiciously decide when not to play a course. If a course has just had a deluge, I generally will try and go back on another date if I can. Generally, the club appreciates it. 
Over the years, I have figured out how to rate a course that isn't in the best condition. Wet is the most difficult, because of how differently the ball reacts when it hits the ground. Wet impacts a couple of the GD criteria.


I have never had a wind problem, so I can't speak to it.


The one difference between GOLF and GD is the number of ballots necessary to qualify for the lists. GD requires 50 for the top 200. I believe GOLF only requires 10, so a couple of lousy ballots can kill a course's chance for a ranking.

[Tom_Doak]

The one difference between GOLF and GD is the number of ballots necessary to qualify for the lists. GD requires 50 for the top 200. I believe GOLF only requires 10, so a couple of lousy ballots can kill a course's chance for a ranking.

This is a funny way of looking at it . . . as if all courses were going to be in the top 100, and it's bad luck if someone sees them on a bad day!


There is no such thing as a lousy ballot if your panelists know what they are doing.  What bothers me is when there are editorial decisions that panelists should ignore certain factors.  GOLF Magazine doesn't tell you what makes a course great or how you should vote; presumably that should include the negatives as well as the positives.

[Tom_Doak]

Now do I care that the raters rank courses with "unplayable" conditions lower? Obviously not, because rankings have a lot of expectations I disagree with and I think they are silly anyway. What I do find disappointing is how this position seems to de facto endorse this modern version of ideal-launch-angle golf.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post?


All I'm trying to say is that if YOU, as a rater, went to a course and tried to play it as you described, and it didn't work, YOU should rate that course lower.  You shouldn't be told to just ignore the fact that it wasn't playable, because you caught it on a bad day.  Playability is generally one of the main things you should be rating.


I'm not endorsing the modern version of high-launch-angle golf at all.  I try as much as anyone to think up things that will reward the player who can flight the ball longer . . . and all of the players who have to.  Most of those people aren't going to have much trouble in windy conditions, as long as the course doesn't require many forced carries and the fairways are even half wide.