Poor Play and Rating

[Mike Hendren]

Can horribly poor play preclude a reasonable assessment (or rating) of a golf course?  Is there a point at which the rater should abstain from submitting a review due to one of those days?

[Steve Lapper]

Mike, you've struck an interesting chord.

I've played miserably at a few Top 100 courses (especially when I'm just off a long flight or a 3+hour car ride) and not once have I knocked the course for it. Personally, how I play is of little influence, if at all, for how I evaluate a course. The best personal example was the first time playing Crystal Downs. After shooting 15+ over my handicap, and missing the right angles and nearly every line of charm, it was abundantly evident that I'd experienced exquisite architecture that more than excited my critical senses. Same for my first round at Eastward Ho. To this day, both remain two of my all-time favorite and strongly-ranked courses (and don't think I've ever scored particularly well at either!).

That said, I've also been witness to other raters, who's poor playing has ultimately resulted in lower considerations. A good story was the time a foursome (with two GD panelists in tow) at a wonderful well-regarded Walter Travis design. Both single-digits, neither GD rater broke 85 that and walked off muttering how "mundane and pedestrian" this terrific design was. Of course, their vaunted short games fell apart when they perpetually left themselves in difficult spots and on the wrong side of over 10 greens.

I suspect the converse is true as well, as I've seen a great-playing round by a few well-esteemed panelists reflect a higher-than-deserving rating. One GM panelist in particular, had a stellar scoring day and walked off a famous recently restored NJ course and proclaimed it "inside the Top 50!," much to the surprise of the rest of us.

Human nature and confirmation bias seems to be a tough moat to cross.

[Mark Pearce]

On my one play at Kingston Heath, I almost forgot how to swing a club.  I played abysmally.  Embarrassingly so, given that I was playing with a multiple club champion.  But I absolutely loved the golf course.  In fact, I think my personal rating of KH is higher than most of the guides.


Conversely, my one play of Kingsbarns saw me play extraordinarily well (at least 10 shots better than handicap).  I liked the course much less than most rankings suggest I should.

[Tim Martin]

Anyone that associates their scorecard with a course rating is probably ill suited for the task at hand. Many rounds are a one off which normally doesn’t translate into a scoring opportunity nor should the rater expect as much. Should courses like Winged Foot West, Pine Valley or Bethpage Black get dinged on the rating because a player shoots a million?

[Tom_Doak]

Many rounds are a one off which normally doesn’t translate into a scoring opportunity nor should the rater expect as much.

But that's exactly why it's so hard to weed out one's score from an evaluation of the course . . . because of the bias in whether you played good or bad the only time you played there. 


If you'd played it three times, presumably you'd have a more representative sample, but it's impossible to get raters to stay and play a course three times, they are on to two other courses instead.


I do think Steve's assessment is right that GOOD play often biases one's thoughts just as much as poor play does.  If you rate a famous course low, someone's going to ask you if you played badly.  But if you rate an unknown course highly, nobody's going to ask if it's because you played well there.

[Adam Lawrence]

I don't 'rate' so it is kind of moot, but when I see a course I'm going to write about I try to go round at least once without clubs, just a camera and my brain. And when I do play, I always assume that I'm going to suck (because I usually do) so my mood rarely drops because my golf was bad. As long as I don't play so badly I humiliate myself or run out of golf balls, I'm pretty happy.

[Tim Martin]

I’ve played a lot of rounds at Yale with first timers and am always interested in their take of the 18th hole. Most associate the quality with the score they make and coming at the finish with the very real possibility of being a scorecard wrecker makes it a very polarizing hole. For me it’s the most cherished par I could make in the round along with the 10th.

[MCirba]

I've given some of my highest ratings to courses where I've barely been able to get the ball airborne and some of my lowest on courses where I've shot lights out.


If you're out there grinding over score I would suggest that should not be the mindset of a rater.

[Sean_A]

I don't 'rate' so it is kind of moot, but when I see a course I'm going to write about I try to go round at least once without clubs, just a camera and my brain. And when I do play, I always assume that I'm going to suck (because I usually do) so my mood rarely drops because my golf was bad. As long as I don't play so badly I humiliate myself or run out of golf balls, I'm pretty happy.

All my golf is poor except for the odd round here or there. Doesn’t matter at all how I play in seeing a course. I am far more concerned with seeing what is there instead of looking for what I want to see.


Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Mark and Steve, your comments resonate and provide comfort.  After dreaming of Painswick for years I hacked it around in embarrassing fashion.  I absolutely loved the golf course which is easily in my top 10. I think it remains underrated despite being a GCA darling.  It’s so much more than quirky with stellar holes that are more “conventional.”


I’m grateful to have gone around with John, Giles and Steve who were more than gracious.  They enhanced my appreciation of the course.

[John Kirk]

My memories suggest the opposite is true, but my ever-optimistic mind thinks I'm unbiased about my play.  Course rating is important stuff!


I remember a handful of experiences where I have played a course for the first time and played well, and was relatively unimpressed by the course.  In one case, I played a highly decorated course at 7 AM on two hours sleep and a severe hangover, shot 75 and felt the course was overrated.  I came back sober several years later, shot 87 and had far more appreciation for the the course.  Another time, I birdied the first four holes of a course I had never seen before and downgraded it because it should be harder than that.

I can't remember a time when I played well on a new course and immediately loved the course for it.


OOoo, the good old days when I could play a bit, except for the hangovers.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The problem with poor play is that you don't get to see how the course really plays. I very seldom play for a score. I don't want to see how a course plays from the trees. Sometimes, I will throw it out onto the fairway to see how it plays from where it was designed to be played. I like playing with guys of varying abilities. I watch how they play the course.


Poor play can be embarrassing. A few years ago, I played Sherwood with the Superintendent, the chair of the green committee, and a 40-year-old low handicapper. I don't think I broke 90. I wanted to hide. Fortunately, I could see how the course really played. I don't think I ever had a bad round and blamed the course. If I am alone and playing poorly, I will hit a bunch of shots into and around the greens to see how it plays. Of course, I only do that when the course is not crowded.

[Jim Hoak]

I believe that the answer to this question may be more nuanced than first thought.  What if the bad play is caused by a design that is unfair or too difficult for the normal golfer?  Shouldn't that design deficiency be grounds for a lower rating?  Differentiating between poor design and poor play is often very difficult.  But, conversely, poor play caused by poor design qualities needs to be criticized.
Few of us are really able to make that distinction.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I could probably make an argument that a player who plays poorly will be in a better position to evaluate the golf course. If you just hit fairways and greens, you don't get the chance to actually interact with as much of the architecture.

[Mike Worth]

I am not a rater or a writer. But I’ve played more than my fair share of top courses, especially the past few years.



Given that, I find it sometimes hard to be unemotional when looking at a Course if I’m striking the ball poorly.


The metal drill I go through is to think “if I had hit what I thought was a “normal” shot for my game, what would I think of this course?”

[Sean_A]

I could probably make an argument that a player who plays poorly will be in a better position to evaluate the golf course. If you just hit fairways and greens, you don't get the chance to actually interact with as much of the architecture.

One of the most important things for me in evaluating a course is the recovery options. If there is often no chance to have a go for it shot the chances are I will likely down grade the course. This is where stuff such as championship venues come into play. Its difficult to ding a course much if part of its remit is to host championships.


Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

15 handicaps always play poorly. At least half the holes will require a recovery.


Truth is we all know a defined range in which we will rate a course before we ever play. Sand Hills and Cap Rock is a perfect example.

[Ira Fishman]

15 handicaps always play poorly. At least half the holes will require a recovery.


Truth is we all know a defined range in which we will rate a course before we ever play. Sand Hills and Cap Rock is a perfect example.

Yes we do. I somewhat weirdly find that if I am playing relatively well, I forget to pay attention to the architecture and focus on my game. The “problem” generally passes after a few holes as my game reverts to its mean.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Good play has the potential to affect me more than poor play… but I always know I’m getting affected so then recalibrate.

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent do folks do research or enquire with usually like minded friends before they visit a course for the first time? For example, there are folks posting herein whose judgement I value highly and take notice of.
Hence how often do folks as first time visitors go somewhere they don’t think much of?
Atb

[Michael Whitaker]

Many rounds are a one off which normally doesn’t translate into a scoring opportunity nor should the rater expect as much.

But that's exactly why it's so hard to weed out one's score from an evaluation of the course . . . because of the bias in whether you played good or bad the only time you played there. 


If you'd played it three times, presumably you'd have a more representative sample, but it's impossible to get raters to stay and play a course three times, they are on to two other courses instead.


I do think Steve's assessment is right that GOOD play often biases one's thoughts just as much as poor play does.  If you rate a famous course low, someone's going to ask you if you played badly.  But if you rate an unknown course highly, nobody's going to ask if it's because you played well there.

Tom - you are an exceptional analyst and able to evaluate a course by just walking it… never hitting a shot.
Someone who is visiting a course for the purpose of evaluating it should be able to judge its overall quality and generally rank it among their personal breadth of knowledge. Additional visits would allow them to move the course up or down from their first impression, but that’s often not possible for that individual.
Their score shouldn’t have any effect on an observation of what’s on the ground.
But, a LOT of raters are only visiting for the opportunity to play the course. They’re not really “raters.” It’s all about them… not the course. I’ve experienced this quite a bit first hand and it’s embarrassing to listen to one of these raters diss a course when they really have no idea what they’re talking about. Usually it’s just a beauty contest for them.

[Ian Andrew]

Just because you have seen and played the golf course doesn't mean you have to put it on your ballot. If the weather or experience was a factor, you can leave it off. I played an eligible course in a snowstorm. I had the common sense to leave that course off the list.

[cary lichtenstein]

Not all raters are equally qualified

[Paul Rudovsky]

Several years ago a good friend who is a rater for Golf Digest (I am with Golf Magazine) accused me of only liking courses where I played well.  That got me thinking and I quickly realized that the issue was a "chicken and egg" question (which came first?).  I find that I play better on courses I like...I find my senses are far more alert and I am playing better attention to features.  On courses I do not like, and in many (but not all) cases it becomes fairly obvious after a few holes, I absolutely do not play as well.


BTW...the one real exception to the above was about 10 years ago, the first time I played The Creek on Long Island. The 5th green is near the clubhouse and I recall saying to myself ...yes this clearly is a CBM track but not one of his better ones, and almost walked off.  Sooo glad I did not.  When I arrived at the 6th tee I was immediately blown away by the view and the hole.

[Sean_A]

Several years ago a good friend who is a rater for Golf Digest (I am with Golf Magazine) accused me of only liking courses where I played well.  That got me thinking and I quickly realized that the issue was a "chicken and egg" question (which came first?).  I find that I play better on courses I like...I find my senses are far more alert and I am playing better attention to features.  On courses I do not like, and in many (but not all) cases it becomes fairly obvious after a few holes, I absolutely do not play as well.


BTW...the one real exception to the above was about 10 years ago, the first time I played The Creek on Long Island. The 5th green is near the clubhouse and I recall saying to myself ...yes this clearly is a CBM track but not one of his better ones, and almost walked off.  Sooo glad I did not.  When I arrived at the 6th tee I was immediately blown away by the view and the hole.

Are you saying that you rate courses you like higher than ones you don’t like?

Ciao