Ally,
We all know ranking golf courses is extremely difficult if not impossible yet this site constantly bashes them especially GD’s list. Why not just embrace them for what they are, interesting lists of courses that 99% if not 100% of the courses are worth at least some study if you get the opportunity to play there. Instead we bash the panelists who participate in the ranking process as well as the magazines/organizations who post them. It drives those people away from this site.
This thread was to point out an example of how difficult it is to judge courses and even individual holes when informal tees are part of the design concept. As you say, how do you really know for sure the ideal starting point for each hole and who is that ideal starting point for? As such how and where do you judge the hole/course?
GD asks panelists to judge courses from the perspective of a scratch golfer (that still doesn’t tell with certainty what tees one should play or judge from). GM panelists supposedly “know it when they see it”. I have no idea what tee or tees they are judging a course from. GW seems to focus on the overall “walk in the park”. They use a host of criteria but but from what tee/tees their panelists judge this from I don’t know.
What I am certain about is judging courses is very subjective as much as we would all like it to be objective and yield the “right answers”. I wouldn’t call it a fools game as Ally did, but I also wouldn’t crucify the efforts made to present a list by those making a sincere attempt to provide something interesting and worth talking about. These lists bring attention to design and golf architecture and a site like this should embrace that and want to hear from those people who spend countless hours traveling around the world to contribute.
By the way, does anyone have the right answer where all these panelists who rate courses for all these lists judge a course from? And from where should they judge course like those mentioned where there are no formal tees? Should it be from a defined spot, should it be from where they feel most comfortable playing, or should they not even play the course and just look at it from the aspect of all or certain levels of golfers,…?
Years ago I once asked, why is Pine Valley almost universally considered the greatest golf course in the world. I love it, but as I said back then, if the golfers I used to play in a golf league with had to play all their weekly matches at Pine Valley, 90% would quit the game and take up another sport. They would get tired of losing a half dozen balls every time out and only finishing two thirds of the holes. How could a course like that be considered the best in the world? From what tees and for what level of golfer are all these lists judging a course like this? By the way, in the past there used to be only one set of tees to play from at PV and yet it still made the top of every list out there. Food for thought
