Post-round Game for discussing the GCA quality of a course

[Jim Hoak]

The recent post on ranking the holes at Pine Valley from 1-18 causes me to remember a post-round game taught to me that can lead to a great discussion on the quality of a course--
After a round, over a beer or whatever, everyone who played takes a scorecard and puts a number of 1 through 18 for the best to the worst hole on the course.  Someone then totals up all the rankings--and that leads to a discussion.
The premise--at least said by the person who taught me this--is that the higher the consensus of opinions, the lower the course should be regarded.  In other words, if there is agreement on the worst holes, then the course has clear shortcomings.  If there is no consensus, this shows a course of consistent quality.
I'm sure this "game" is not perfect--but it is fun, leads to good discussion, and probably has some merit in judging a course.

[Ben Malach]

I have for a long time been using the chess move ranking as suggested by Tom in the confidential guide.


But after some discussion with Zach Carr, I am shifting to using his 1-5 system. It's interesting and very innovative. I wish he would explain and expand on this board about it.

[Matt_Cohn]

Jim, I’ve seen the premise of this game work very well for Cal Club—one of my two least favorite holes there is one of my friends’ top two favorites!


I’ve also seen it go sideways at lesser courses where pretty much every hole is flawed in some way; people’s replies are all over the place. So it probably works best with courses that are already of a certain high standard.

[Charlie Goerges]

As a shorter version of the game, maybe just pick a favorite and a least favorite? I play often with my dad and brothers and that's about as far as we are likely to get discussing architecture before the conversation turns to other subjects. With a bunch of GCA members, yeah, get specific and in-depth!

[Andrew Harvie]

I'm equally interested in someone's favourite holes as their least favourites, especially the better the golf course. If someone can put together a well-thought-out argument about a Doak 8 or above's "worst" hole with a compelling reason why, that's a fascinating topic to explore and I'd be very keen to listen to that over a post-game beer.


I wish Fried Egg's “Design Disasters” podcast/Instagram account was a bit like that. There are some funny holes in the series and some real head scratchers, but I'd be a bit more interested in the concept if they mixed the small town examples with some notably iffy holes on good-to-great golf courses and explained why. Right now, it just feels like punching down a little, but I still enjoy seeing it on my feed every-so-often and I get the limitations of picking mediocre holes on good golf courses.

[Sean_A]

I'm equally interested in someone's favourite holes as their least favourites, especially the better the golf course. If someone can put together a well-thought-out argument about a Doak 8 or above's "worst" hole with a compelling reason why, that's a fascinating topic to explore and I'd be very keen to listen to that over a post-game beer.


I wish Fried Egg's “Design Disasters” podcast/Instagram account was a bit like that. There are some funny holes in the series and some real head scratchers, but I'd be a bit more interested in the concept if they mixed the small town examples with some notably iffy holes on good-to-great golf courses and explained why. Right now, it just feels like punching down a little, but I still enjoy seeing it on my feed every-so-often and I get the limitations of picking mediocre holes on good golf courses.

Yes, I will pay attention when notable courses are discussed. I have no interest in listening to people kick around courses that were never meant to be aspirational places to play.

Ciao

[James Bennett]

Jim Hoak


I undertook this exercise at my club on Saturday (Royal Adelaide in Australia).
Three of us participated, and all of us found it challenging.
I asked them to put in order the par 3's (3 of them), the par 5's (3 of them), the shorter par 4's (up to 350 metres, about 380 yards , 5 of them) and the longer par 4's (over 350 metres, 7 of them).
Then they were to do the whole course, which enabled them to utilise the preliminary work undertaken.


I used the standard deviation of the results to identify the outliers, and it was very easy to identify whose opinion was the outlier.  The discussion started with the outlier explaining their rating for that hole.


There were 7 holes that arose, with to having large variations and 5 with significant variations.
one respondent had 4 outliers, I had 2 (including one of the large variations) and the other had 1.


It was a good exercise.  I will repeat it, but with some players of different ability.  I wonder whether there will be more or less variability with participants with greater range in ability.


James B