[RJ_Daley]

I agree with Pat.  I agree in part with Adam- the part about walking it after the round too!

With the ease of slipping a small digital camera in one's pocket, one can snap plenty of pictures as one walks with no inconvenience at all, holding no ones game up for long photo posing or framing time.  

I'm no rater, but I am serious about writing a decent report to explain a new course or an old one to my friends, as I have done a few times here on GCA.  I have done it both ways - taking notes and taking quick pics as I go.  The pictures are much better to remember how certain features were oriented more precisely.  

I am also disturbed about statements of playing a course in the morning, rating it, and moving on to another round in the afternoon.  Maybe I am just intellectually and memory challenged, but I can't believe you are going to remember important nuances about a course in one blow through.  Then to make formal recomendations or ratings is a bit too much for me to get on board with.  Usually, the genius of design are in the subtleties, and I for one am not smart enough to see them all in the 10 minutes or less it takes to play one hole.

How do you know the true character of a green and it's unique putting contours and surrounds quality and various approach possibilities in relation to such in one play with one look at a pin placement while not experiencing the other?  

Mr Klein, make them walk it first, take notes, play it take pictures, and walk it again after to confirm what is out there, use the dog trainer collar liberally and with zeal.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Scott:

Your reply does not make raters look very good.  To paraphrase ... "I don't have time to be thorough because I'm trying to squeeze in 36 holes a day."  Think about it.

Whoa, wait a second there.  You're saying that 10-16 hours of daylight in a day is not enough time to play 2 courses, while inspecting the architecture (and other relevant things) as you play - "being thorough" - for a thoughtful analysis?  I have to disagree.  Most people play most of their golf in the warmer months when the daylight is more in the 12-16 + hour range.  I think there's plenty of time.

And when it comes to whirlwind rating of courses, you wrote the book, literally.  The Confidential Guide has a decent chunk of the ratings based on your admittedly whirlwind cart tours (not even playing them, no less).  Doesn't your quote above basically discredit your book?  How often was this done for your course ratings for Golf Mag?  Which side do you believe?  Only when it doesn't apply to you?

[RJ_Daley]

Scott, I'll stick to my guns about "most" people not being able to understand a course well enough to rate or assess it in one blow through.  But, when it comes to challenging your memory, I am not that big of a idiot.  You're either the best and fastest research geek on the net, or you got one hell of a memory there...

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dick,

It's not like that.  He stated so in the book.  Here's a quote from the 2nd paragraph in the Introduction:

"So I scoured every available source to find new golf courses worth seeing, and checked them out for myself, sometimes three or four in a single day."

Some specific 'whirlwind cart tours' were mentioned in the individual course reviews.  Here's one (not even from a cart) from randomly opening to any page:

(Pennsylvania)
"Hershey CC"

"They were 'too busy' to let me walk around this course, which was once in GD's 100 Greatest.  But a quick drive around the perimeter led me to believe that it's not in that class, though many in eastern and central PA swear by it.  A 5 or maybe a 6, tops.  [8/92]"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

In a game of honor, I don't think integrity requires a house arrest collar.

I would imagine that most raters would like to do both, walk the golf course and then play it.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Heck of an idea.  Just a couple things:

a) many courses won't LET us peon raters do more than just the cursory play, at pace; and

b) is it ok if I RIDE on that second look tour?  Many courses would we have to rate would kill me to walk, especially after playing.  Have a heart.  

Smartass comment b) aside, this seems to me to be another in a long line of ideas presented in this forum that works great on paper, but not very well in reality.  Methinks Brad Klein has the best idea in this.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

We outfit each rater with a GPS beanie and a dog collar, all of it connected via radio-controlled communications to a large, wall-sized monitoring device in my living room that tracks the whereabout of all 300 raters. The GPS beanie is hooked up to a pedometer, and if the requisite 3-4 mile course walk is not racked up before the appointed tee time (which, of course, I also track) then I activate the dog collar and the rater is momentarily incapacitated, thereby WDing and forgoing their tee time.

Thanks Brad ! I needed a great laugh to finally close my jaw after seeing one of g-d's greatest boobs, during Halftime yesterday.

I was thinking of working on a tiffilin model that would not only monitor but also send pics.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Adam,

Unfortunately, I got up to go to the can right when Timberlake started his number.  I didn't know he was about to, uh, 'pull off' such a memorable "wardrobe malfunction" (his words).  And here I thought it was the commercials I'm not supposed to miss.

[THuckaby2]

I do, however, agree that raters should walk whenever allowed - without exception.  Walking provides the contemplation time necessary to analyze the course. Zipping through on a cart doesn't cut it, IMO.
 

Concur, oh great one.
But ye shall likely find soon enough that carts-mandatory is part of this game also...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Obviously, the dictates of the club must be adhered to.

Sure, go ahead and ride around the golf course.

The point is:

The powers of observation often get sidetracked by the play of one's golf ball, and two bites at the apple are better then one when trying to establish a data base and analyze a golf course.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

All very correct.

I've just found that the instances where such wouldn't be allowed outnumer those where they would be, by a pretty big margin.  Most courses are happy to have you, but at a lot of them it's on their rules and they want you out as soon as they can....especially public courses and resorts...  That could be just my experience... Thus my question of the practicality of this, that's all.  In a perfect world, heck yeah - walk it first, play it second, get the full, measured picture.

Interesting, this is how we do course rating in the slope/course rating definition of such... look/rate in the am, play in the pm... except we do ride from point to point in the am!

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, I'm not talking about "vainly" taking photographs and holding up play by getting just the right filter, exposure, and angle, etc.  I'm talking about recognising a certain nuance, hump, hummock, hollow, LZ speed ramp, bunker shape, green surround, slope or hidden pot at the rear, etc., and quick snapping it as you go.  I always have a digital camera in my pocket when walking a new course.  Not that my pictures are any great shakes, but look at the Sutton Bay write up I did.  I needed them for going back and referencing little nuances that I then commented on in the write up to double check my memory that I got the comment right.  I played it 3X in two days, but I still require the photos to be sure of accuracy of memory.  Please don't say that lack of memory of nuances is somehow a sign that the design wasn't all that strong.  Instead, it is a sign that there is so much there to observe that I doubt many mortals can imprint it in their mind on one take.  But a photo sometimes reveals what you didn't see first hand too.

Maybe that is why you are a lawyer.  You have an excellent memory.  But, I for one need a little photo reminder to jog certain images more accurately in my mind - like just how deep was that bunker on 17SH.  I remember that it was deep but, I look back on my picture and see a fellow in our group looking like a little figurine standing in it, and I remember the perspective all that much better.  

If I don't hold you or the other players up when I snap my little pictures as I go, what do you care?  

[ed_getka]

Dave,
  You have stated very clearly your distaste for people taking photos on a golf course (I obviously drive you crazy). However, you cannot possibly remember every feature of a hole without some general photos, unless it is your home course. If you would like to test this theory, I would be happy to quiz you about Sand Hills, which I know you played multiple rounds on. I don't take pix to memorialize holes, I take pix to look at the holes later and remember different features, especially when explaining to someone who is interested what I like about certain holes.
    I will still take pix when you are unfortunate enough to be paired with me, but I won't take any of you recovering from hazards (which BTW I only do for scale purposes, not to embarass you).

[RJ_Daley]

 :'(Ed, don't ask him to do Sand Hills, he has Lou's set of pics from there. (sorry I ratted you out on that one Dave)

But, how about our round at Maderas?  I have to consult the yardage book to remember certain things.  I had a fun set of pics and had you on several great ass shots with course nuances in the frame, but alas, I got wasted in the Union Hotel Bar that evening listening to Neal and Gib hold court and wound up leaving my digital cam on the waincoat rail behind us, and lost all the good rememberances.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Ed,

Actually, some people do have photographic memories in this realm, admittedly you apparently are not one of them, so it seems hard to believe that someone else could.  And one does not need to have this photographic memory of every feature of a hole/course 1 year or so later (as you pontificated of Shivas), just immediately following the round as mental/jot down notes and within the next day or two following to make a well-thought-out analysis.

After every round I play on a new course, I go over the course in my head immediately following the round to make sure I remember every hole (admittedly, not every hole is memorable!), and this wasn't even for a magazine rating, just my own memory.

[RJ_Daley]

Gents, might there not come a time when you are too old to play, or have a stroke or some misfortune and can't get out on the old sod any longer?  What will you value more then, your memory, or a series of photos depicting some of your favorite golf scenes, or ass pics if you like?   What pics are they going to put up on the memory photo board at your funeral to share what were some of old grandpa Dave's favorite places in the world?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Pat, I'm afraid that I don't see why the golfer with a mind that is capable of thoughtful analysis of a golf hole is not capable of separating his golf game from his analysis of the course.  That seems like a rather simple proposition to me.

Let's say you're a rater at GCGC where rounds must be played at a rather fast pace.  Are you trying to tell me that you can play your ball, and at the same time study all of the other potential plays of the hole at the same time ?

I don't buy it.

Now maybe those who require or choose to focus exclusively on their game during a round (such as endless pre-shot routines before THEIR shots, looking at THEIR putts from every conceivable angle and fidgeting THEIR cheater line down to within 1/100th of a degree of the THEIR intended putting line, studying THEIR options on the tee, etc.) would have a difficult time within the contraints of 4 hours finding the time for thoughtful analysis of the course itself.  

But those who really couldn't care less about their score or their game on any particular day (except for the couple seconds prior to the shot and while the ball is in the air)

I don't know of any golfers who don't care about their score.  But, let's say that you don't, then why play the golf course

should not have any problem finding enough time while their playing companions dilly dally their way through all these superfluous and ineffective crutches for THEIR games to analyze a course without resorting to the methods you suggest.  

I, for one, find plenty of time to study a course that I'm playing by simply using the 15 seconds necessary to hit a shot about 80 times for the total of 20 minutes per round needed to play golf, leaving the other 3 hours and 40 minutes for viewing and analyzing the course.  But that's just me and my brain dead way of playing shots.  I find plenty of time to consider nuances other than whether my cheater line is 1/100th of a degree off my intended line.

Dave, with all due respect, the above statement is absurd.  You don't linger for 5 minutes before and after your shot, evaluating the architecture and alternate play of the hole, you have to move on, to keep pace.

Let's take NGLA as an example.  If you follow the route of your ball, how can you possibly view and envision play from the myriad of alternate routes and distances ?

Tell me how, for example, on the first time you play # 2 and push your tee shot far right, how you're going to evaluate that hole ?  Likewise # 3.

On # 4 let's say you pull hook your tee shot way left of the green and bunker ?

I could go on a hole by hole basis where you'd never get a peek at all of the general and sublte architectural features and alternative methods of play.

But, I''l pose the same question to you that I did to A Clayman.  Do you equate the exercises of 1. Only playing a golf course once, and 2.  Walking the course first, and then playing it, for the purpose of evaluating the architecture and the play of the golf course ?

Do you feel that the same thought and information is gleaned from each exercise ?    

[W.H. Cosgrove]

This is all great if not impractical.  

1) I would love it if course operators would simply allow raters to walk.  It is almost impossible to give a complete rating from a cart path.  

2) LAW of LARGE NUMBERS.  This is the reason things like insurance works.  If you have a large enough sample the average is a very good indication of a true value.  This happens to be why the GW Raters events can be quite a risk for operators.  Instead of having 10 ratings, the course suddenly has 30 or 40, resulting in an average number that will vary little following the event.  We don't need to throw out the high and low.

3) Impractical as walking another 18 either before or after playing, I sometime ask permission to take a cart to go back to certain holes.  Maybe I didn't have time to take a really good look the first time, or maybe I played the hole from the weeds and have little or no idea what the hole did.  This can help those of us without photographic memories.

This is all supposed to be fun.  I will guarentee that disagreements are common and ratings are less important than nuclear disarmament.

[Rick Shefchik]

Like it or not, the time element for raters is and always will be a consideration, as long as the magazines continue to use the system in place now: unpaid volunteers, rating courses on their own time.

A better way would be to use a smaller crew of professional raters who were paid by the magazine for their time and their expertise. In that situation, the magazines could and should demand that a rater pre-walk the course, and perhaps play it three or four times, and post-walk it, before forming and filing his rating.

Does anyone really doubt that golf course ratings would be more reliable under such a system? But we all know that's not going to happen, so hats off to the amateur raters who have the time and the inclination to thoroughly study a golf course before rating it. Let's just not be too hard on those who don't -- this flaw is built into the system.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Patrick,

While I hasten to start something with someone who refuses to be wrong in your own mind no matter the evidence against him, I will reluctantly go again.

Pat, do you think it takes 4 hours to execute your own personal shots in a foursome?  No, of course, not.  It probably takes, what, 30 minutes tops from start to finish of all 70+ shots per round.  The other 3:30 is comprised basically of doing 2 things, waiting for others to hit, and walking the course.  Why was this not obvious to you?  Those two tasks and that large amount of time is a LOT of time available to look at all of the features in view on a course.  While some courses such as NGLA have severe topography in places so as to not be able to picture different angles of play from one side of the hole to the other, it can be done in plain sight on most holes, especially by people with highly analytical minds.

Example 1:  I can see from my bad angle in the left rough with a sloped lie, behind the fronting bunker, that the other side of the fairway, where it's flatter and the better angle provides an optimal line to an opening to the green, is the better play and is the strategy of the hole off the tee.  Not terribly difficult to see while walking the hole and waiting for others to hit.  And yes, I do and can see these things during play.

Example 2:  I was away on the green, lagged up and tapped in to hole out.  Holding the flag to replace it, now I have several minutes while the other 3 line up, mark, hole out, etc. to look around at the green complex and the next hole.   Hmmm, I can see that hitting into that right bunker with the green running away from you is a no-no.  And check out that chipping area back there....  Hmmm, the steep hill on two sides of this green looks very difficult to recover from so that I'd rather miss in that front bunker yielding an uphill lie.


It's not rocket science.

I will admit that your idea is optimal for best analysis, but it's very impractical and it's certainly not out of the question to get in most, if not all, of the features of the course by a single play.

I'm going to hazard a guess that perhaps 75% of all courses reviewed by magazine raters have been played (and only played) a single time.

[JakaB]

Is there a course in the country with mandatory carts that is in any top 100 list...if they make you ride just enjoy the free golf and give the place the average rating it deserves.  

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Kapalua Plantation.  There must be others.  And no, that didn't effect my rating of the place, other than it got the first zero I ever gave for "walking" criterion.

Of course if one wants to be a big enough prick, NO course is carts mandatory.  Me, I just kinda do what they tell me to do.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

Patrick,

While I hasten to start something with someone who refuses to be wrong in your own mind no matter the evidence against him, I will reluctantly go again.

Since you opened your comment with that remark, let me just say that I refuse to address a query by an individual to obtuse to understand the answer  

Pat, do you think it takes 4 hours to execute your own personal shots in a foursome?  No, of course, not.  It probably takes, what, 30 minutes tops from start to finish of all 70+ shots per round.  The other 3:30 is comprised basically of doing 2 things, waiting for others to hit, and walking the course.  Why was this not obvious to you?  Those two tasks and that large amount of time is a LOT of time available to look at all of the features in view on a course.  While some courses such as NGLA have severe topography in places so as to not be able to picture different angles of play from one side of the hole to the other, it can be done in plain sight on most holes, especially by people with highly analytical minds.

Example 1:  I can see from my bad angle in the left rough with a sloped lie, behind the fronting bunker, that the other side of the fairway, where it's flatter and the better angle provides an optimal line to an opening to the green, is the better play and is the strategy of the hole off the tee.  Not terribly difficult to see while walking the hole and waiting for others to hit.  And yes, I do and can see these things during play.

Example 2:  I was away on the green, lagged up and tapped in to hole out.  Holding the flag to replace it, now I have several minutes while the other 3 line up, mark, hole out, etc. to look around at the green complex and the next hole.   Hmmm, I can see that hitting into that right bunker with the green running away from you is a no-no.  And check out that chipping area back there....  Hmmm, the steep hill on two sides of this green looks very difficult to recover from so that I'd rather miss in that front bunker yielding an uphill lie.


It's not rocket science.

You're right, it's called MENTAL MASTURBATION

I will admit that your idea is optimal for best analysis,

So, despite your initial comment you agree with me

but it's very impractical and it's certainly not out of the question to get in most, if not all, of the features of the course by a single play.

What did CBMacDonald say about evaluating a hole or a golf course ?  The answer can be found on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift"

I'm going to hazard a guess that perhaps 75% of all courses reviewed by magazine raters have been played (and only played) a single time.

What does that tell you about quality control ?

[ChasLawler]

Is there a course in the country with mandatory carts that is in any top 100 list...if they make you ride just enjoy the free golf and give the place the average rating it deserves.  

TPC at Sawgrass

[ForkaB]

Nobody asked me, but......

I don't give a rat's ass whether or not raters even play the courses they rate.  Just spending an hour or so on this site, reading a few books and looking at a few pictures will give them as much knowledge of most of the relevant courses as they might get from playing any of them once or even walking them too.

It is a all a little game of fun and numbers that reminds me more of the scientists on the Island of Laputa in Gullliver's Travels than of Isaac Newton or even Professor Irwin Corey.

Have a nice day!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()