Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Yannick Pilon on June 14, 2006, 10:55:01 PM
-
One of Tom Doak's posts on the thread "How many Doak points do you have" got me thinking.
In his post, Tom says: "There's probably someone out there with more "Doak points" than me, because I have not played nearly all of the courses I rated myself. I have probably only played 60-65% of the courses in the book."
Do you guys feel you can have a good understanding of a course without actually playing it?
Have any "raters" on this site rated or ranked courses for publicized rankings system without playing them?
Is this fair for the courses that are rated this way, if any? (Oh no, I used the F word! ;D)
Yannick
-
Playing the course is preferable, but I would rather hear about a walk through from someone who's opinion I value than not to hear about a course at all.
-
Yannick:
Some people aren't going to really understand the course unless they play. Others will possibly understand it better, because they have time to look at the options instead of just where they happened to hit it.
It's impossible to get a clear picture of a course if you play badly, because you're always out of position and you are in a funk. And you're probably unduly favorable toward a course if you happen to play it well, too -- or maybe it's just a coincidence that nearly every Open champion rates the course he won on among the world's top ten. :)
-
Tom, good point about the inability to rate a course when you play badly. When I rate a course for Golf Digest, I'll hit a couple of drives and a couple of shots to the green and then putt to different pin places. It also helps me focus on hitting better shots when I play with a member or one of the pros.
-
Not one panelist is going to admit they rated a course and didn't play it.
I was told many years ago by a panelist that the first time you play a course you should always play it down the middle of the fairway. If you hit it in the rough, just move it out. I have tried to use that, and Winged Foot is the best example from my personal knowledge. I played it all the way back which was a huge mistake and then played terrible and can hardly remember any hole.
-
Yannick:
Rating courses requires a divorcing if you will of what you do personally when playting. Too often people will associate a rating with the outcome of their own game when playing. I do agree with those who have already stated that.
However, it takes a very a FINE eye to rate / evaluate a course without playing any golf shots. I don't like to base my conclusions when doing it from that perspective alone. For example -- I based some preliminary findings on two NJ courses that are either open or set to open with the likes of Bayonne GC and Liberty National GC respectively. I stated that my findings were nothing more than a quick glance and nothing more until I finally played them both.
While evalutations can be done by eye -- the ultimate mechanism to see actual outcomes from actual strokes played is the final barometer to see if what is designed does what it is supposed to do.
All in all, I plant my conclusion only after my actual playing a particular course. It's no different than people making a quick assessment of a movie from the trailer alone and bypassing the actual film in its entirety. You may be right much of the time but there will be clear instances when such findings are a good bit out of step from what a playing experience will indicate.
-
Sean: Which part of my post was rubbish? The part where I say some people can evaluate a course without playing it, or the part where I say that it's impossible to get a clear picture of a course if you play it badly?
If it's the latter, there are plenty of people around who will insist that you can't get a clear picture until you have played a course multiple times in all weather conditions, blah, blah, blah ... and that may be true. It's hard to miss whether a course is a 5 or an 8 after one round, but to say you really KNOW it, if you've played it once and not played well, is silly. I'd be more inclined to believe you if you had just walked around.
Matt: Your explanation is fine, BUT you assume that the person in question is the quality of player who is supposed to achieve the desired results. This is where the ego of raters gets in the way.
Let's say the rater cannot hold the ball on the green from the left rough on the first hole at Winged Foot. Why does he assume that he was supposed to, or not supposed to? The design intent may be to reward a 2-handicap but not the 14-handicap; but it may be to let the 14-handicap get away with that bad drive on the first tee, or it may be to not let anybody but Tiger Woods slide if they go left. Nearly all raters judge courses based on their own game, and honestly believe that is who the course should be designed for.
-
"In his post, Tom says: "There's probably someone out there with more "Doak points" than me, because I have not played nearly all of the courses I rated myself. I have probably only played 60-65% of the courses in the book."
You mean to tell me Tom Doak didn't play all the golf courses he rated and critiqued in his book----that he only played maybe 60-65% of those he rated??
Well, I'll be damned---I sure didn't know that.
That sure as hell sucks.
Another good reason all rating and ranking sucks. The only thing that pathetic endeavor is good for is a bunch of people (raters) trying to play golf courses they probably couldn't otherwise and for golf magazines to increase their sales.
I'd like to see the premier golf courses of this world start to ban raters from their courses and also refuse to condone any magazine's ranking of their golf course.
PVGC should start. They oughtta say: "Maybe we have been ranked #1 in the Nation and in the world for years but we'd like to be taken off the ranking lists for good." ;)
-
Tom:
Nice try with your counterpoint but I'm not buying what you're saying 100%.
I simply said that a walk-thru of a course can be done but such findings are at best preliminary -- the final conclusions should be field tested with actual shots. I never said the person playing must play well or even count score. Dropping balls in any number of locations will give the person a better idea on what the architect was attempting to do.
I don't doubt your eye of the beholder comments (handicap level) in your last post. However, I generally play many of the courses I visit with a guy who sports a 17+ handicap and likely can't carry the ball in the air more than 200 yards. He and I play the game from two very different perspectives. I watch his game and see what tactics he tries to employ when playing. Ditto he with my game. We then discuss the playing angles, the reward / penalty dimensions, et al, of the course in question. In many cases we come to the same conclusion because the elasticity of the course is that good.
It's very easy to assume that all low handicap players simply don't get it when talking about the merits of the course from a high handicap perspective. That's quite easy to say but it's not applicable across the board as you did indicate with your "nearly all raters" statement.
-
Tom P: If all raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses, then why fault me for not insisting to play them all?
Mark: Does your statement mean that all courses are of equal merit?
-
I actually think the best way to rate a course is to walk it. You tend to pick up on more details. You get to see the hole at more angles and really take in your environment. Playing the game of golf is a pure crapshoot for most people. Even if you play 5 balls per hole I still don't think you will notice as much opposed to walking it.
I wonder if it is just me but when I slice the hell out of a ball off the tee I tend to do the same thing when I give it another whack.
Brings back memories of sending two balls into a Lexus dealership within 30 seconds of each other. ;D
-
I don't know how you can rate the greens without playing the course.
Everything else, yes, but the greens, no.
A true rater should BOTH play and walk the course.
-
Having gone through this process now I think I can chime in and make a recommendation. Do your base ranking via forward and backward walkthroughs taking your time to hit a few bump and runs and maybe some putts. Then play the course and enjoy it. I wish all raters would put the same level of thought and analysis in their ratings as John Percival does. I even wish they would use his approach. He is by far the most thorough and truly thoughtful raters I have ever met and I respect his opinions, even the ones with which I disagree. I wonder if we could get John on this site?
Cheers!
JT
-
I've never rated a course that I didn't play (I'm a Golf Digest panelist.) I'm a one-handicap, and hit it pretty long, so I'll almost always play from the back tees. I like to hit plenty of extra shots from different parts of fairways and from likely trouble. I rarely play with more than one other person, so I have time to hit the extra shots and look around, and I also try to play during non-peak hours. When I'm rating a course, there's really no such thing as playing well or playing poorly, as my score or how I played doesn't much matter. When the pro allows, I'll play the course a couple of times, once exploring it as I've mentioned above, and then once to really play it for a score (which I'll also tend to do a bit more of when rating a course after the first time I've seen it, when I'm more focused on condition and how the course might change from time to time as conditions change.)
-
Well at least now I know how to start a riot at the GOLF DIGEST summit in December if I want to.
-
"Tom P: If all raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses, then why fault me for not insisting to play them all?"
TomD:
I don't believe I said 'all' raters' only goal is to get to play famous courses. I believe I said 'a bunch of raters only goal....'. ;)
Frankly, of the 35-40% of the courses you DIDN'T play, I'd take your critique over most all of the 800 (or whatever) magazine raters most magazines do have who've played a course once, twice of even five times.
I'm sure you have a great eye for how a course may play even if you've never played it but I'd still make you write at least five comprehensive paragraphs about any course you didn't play just to see how your critique stacks up hole by hole to those who really do know a golf course---eg like its members.
I don't care how good any architect or rater is there is no conceivable way he can know the way holes of any course play compared to those who play it all the time.
Don't try to split hairs---you know that's true. ;)
-
"Well at least now I know how to start a riot at the GOLF DIGEST summit in December if I want to."
TomD:
Forget about a riot---what you or someone needs to start in the world of magazine ranking is a total f....ing revolution. In my opinion, magazine ranking doesn't hold a candle to something like your Confidential Guide which at least tells readers something they both would like to know and need to know about architecture (even if you didn't play 35-40% of the courses you critiqued in your Confidential Guide).
I'd endorse magazine rankings if the magazine, the editor or whoever it is who's responsible for the ratings and rankings of the magazine wrote a comprehensive critique of WHY any course's architecture was good, indifferent or bad---and I mean hole by hole!!
Oh right, I know, I've heard it a million times----eg golfers aren't interested in reading about architecture etc, etc, etc.
Just show them a list of names and numbers with no real architectural information as to why and why not something is good, indifferent or bad.
Face it, ranking, the way magazines are doing it today suck----there's just no question of it. ;)
-
"I don't doubt your eye of the beholder comments (handicap level) in your last post. However, I generally play many of the courses I visit with a guy who sports a 17+ handicap and likely can't carry the ball in the air more than 200 yards. He and I play the game from two very different perspectives. I watch his game and see what tactics he tries to employ when playing. Ditto he with my game. We then discuss the playing angles, the reward / penalty dimensions, et al, of the course in question. In many cases we come to the same conclusion because the elasticity of the course is that good.
It's very easy to assume that all low handicap players simply don't get it when talking about the merits of the course from a high handicap perspective. That's quite easy to say but it's not applicable across the board as you did indicate with your "nearly all raters" statement."
Matt Ward:
You can try to sell that crap to others but you ain't gonna sell it to me and plenty of others on here.
You think you can go out on some golf course one time with a 17 handicapper, and you observe his game and he observes yours, and then you sit down and discuss it and come up with an intelligent and comprehensive rating or ranking of a golf course??? ;) Do you look for a 17 handicapper who knows something about golf architecture too or is that unimportant?? ;)
I'm not criticizing you as a rater/ranker per se, Matt----I'm just saying rating and ranking sucks. Do you really think you know any golf course you've played once even 10-20% as well as someone who's played the course 50-100-400 times?? ;)
No way. What you need to do on the reality of magazine rankings, which is bullshit no matter how you slice it, is learn to smell the coffee. ;)
-
Tom: I do agree with most of what you say above, including that magazine rankings suck.
I've made it a point to write in any of our consulting reports that there is no way I can know how the course plays as well as most of the members who have played it hundreds of times, but that sometimes a fresh eye can point out a few things which have just been accepted without question by the members.
Just do not make me write hole-by-hole descriptions of golf courses because there are only a few courses in the world which deserve such in-depth treatment. Most courses have only a few holes of real note, and for the rest a general ranking is enough -- that's why The Confidential Guide worked, although Bernard Darwin had proven that point well before I was born. :)
One of the hardest parts of writing the book was in condensing my ideas about courses I had recently seen, so they wouldn't get much bigger and wordier reviews than the ones I'd seen ten years earlier. Ran seems to have the same problem on this site -- his early reviews were more to the point but now he seems compelled to narrate about 15 holes out of 18. I don't believe for a minute that the subject courses are any better, he's just getting lazy at editing himself as we all do!
-
"Tom: I do agree with most of what you say above, including that magazine rankings suck."
TomD:
You do?? Are you serious? Well, in that case I completely rest my case on rating and ranking. ;) And furthermore, I'm taking that quote above and memorializing it on here until Kingdom Come.
Look, I know you know that most of what I constantly say about rating and ranking is just putting you (and others on). However, that does NOT mean I'm ever going to be a big fan of rating and ranking.
How can you deny that if someone (anyone) who knows golf course architecture could both come to REALLY understand the great golf courses of this world and also write comprehensively about why they, their holes and the nuances of their holes are good, indifferent or bad it would be the best reference and education any and all of us could possibly have?
Don't bother to explain again why that doesn't happen---I've heard it too many times. And that's why I say it should be done right or not done at all. ;)
That's why I like your book so much better than magazine rankings---at least you took the time and effort to WRITE relatively comprehensively about the architecture of the courses and their holes.
-
Tom: you criticize magazine rankings...yet you headed up the GOLF mag panel for years!
-
Paul: And I'm still part of that panel (I think), and I've got a couple or three courses ranked somewhere or other. But magazine ratings still suck. They are right up there with political polls; they don't explain anything, but they wreak great havoc by failing to inspire true leadership.
Mark B: I have always maintained that the true mark of greatness in a golf course is that it has a character of its own, and usually that character is a byproduct of its location and topography and vegetation. But if you haven't noticed, a lot of golf courses fall completely short of that mark, and some stand out a lot more than others: Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, St. Andrews. No other course is anything like them. That's why they're great.
-
This thread proves a long-argued point on this site that rankings don't mean anything. No matter which magazine you choose, book, etc. THEY DO MEAN A LOT. Just look at the passion in this thread....
-
Mark: They matter a lot to a handful of architects, and to all the architects who aren't getting rich off rankings as well. But I would have to disagree that they MEAN anything. Just because something provokes argument doesn't make it meaningful -- did you ever watch Jerry Springer?
-
I have always maintained that the true mark of greatness in a golf course is that it has a character of its own, and usually that character is a byproduct of its location and topography and vegetation. But if you haven't noticed, a lot of golf courses fall completely short of that mark, and some stand out a lot more than others: Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, St. Andrews. No other course is anything like them. That's why they're great.
Tom
I'll give you TOC (because of the greens) and Pine Valley (because it is the conventional wisdom to say so), but Merion and Shinecock don't really stand out in terms of look and feel and playability. In those regards they have lots of peers (for Merion, look at any Doak 7+ USA parkland course, for Shinnecock, look at the UK, or even Bandon Dunes.... ;)). They each have a unique and pervasive history on their side, but that should be irrelevant, no?
Also, if uniqueness=greatness, then put Painswick, Stone Harbor and Old Head up in that pantheon of yours!
Rich
-
I'll give you TOC (because of the greens) and Pine Valley (because it is the conventional wisdom to say so), but Merion and Shinecock don't really stand out in terms of look and feel and playability. In those regards they have lots of peers (for Merion, look at any Doak 7+ USA parkland course, for Shinnecock, look at the UK, or even Bandon Dunes.... ;)). They each have a unique and pervasive history on their side, but that should be irrelevant, no?
Also, if uniqueness=greatness, then put Painswick, Stone Harbor and Old Head up in that pantheon of yours!
Rich
Rich,
For Merion, I would probably split the difference between you and Tom due to the quarry holes at Merion. They are unique, at least to me. Winchester does not have those. ;)
Should Victoria National make this uniqueness = greatness category. I have never been there, but those pictues are very unique and Barney's Golf Digest buddies seem to think it is great.
-
Mike
I strongly doubt that Merion is the only 7+ course in the eastern USA with "quarry" holes. ;) In any case, to me the essence of the character of Merion is in the previous 15 holes, particularly the greens. 16-18 are awesome from the tee, but less so for the second shot (unless standing next to Hogan's plaque on the 18th causes you fainting spells.....). :)
-
"16-18 are awesome from the tee, but less so for the second shot (unless standing next to Hogan's plaque on the 18th causes you fainting spells.....)."
The greens and topography make the second shots on 16 and 18 great. Perhaps if there was a painted backdrop of a sea or ocean it would be even better ;) If you have a second shot on 17 other than a putt--and some putts can be very difficult in terms of speed and line, it is pretty dramatic as well.
The sandy waste area in the quarry on 16 is pretty unique for its environs especially when the Scottish broom is in bloom. Yes, it is a bit reminiscent of Pine Valley (it was made so after Wilsons and Flynn completed 12-15 at Pine Valley in the earliest 1920s). Prior to that it was either mowed grass or a flat sand pit completely sanded over. Both 16 and 17 have steep valleys at the front of the greens and acute upsweeps into the green.
The finishing hole fairway has undulations up to the green and one of the most unique greens in the country with the first half back to front and the back half front to back. This green design should be replicated more in modern designs. It demands a precise approach trajectory depending upon pin position.
Rich, I think the character of Merion is found in all the holes with some escalating demands on the last three holes. Though as I've said before, I think modern technology has had a significant negative impact on the difficulty of 16 because the pros can hit 3 wood/8 iron now. But a new tee could be built behind the entrance road into the driving range parking lot. A number of big trees would have to come down but it would add about 20 yards or more, actually with the slight change in angle it would play longer than that, and add a bit of temptation to hit driver.
-
That's fine Wayne. I wasn't at all saying Merion isn't great, just that it is not particularly unique (within the context that all courses are unique, but some are just more unique than others ;))!
-
Paul T said to Tom Doak;
"Tom: you criticize magazine rankings...yet you headed up the GOLF mag panel for years!"
Paul T:
In that case who's in a better position to be critical of the magazine rankings? ;)
TomD:
You are on a roll. Go for it. ;)
I realize all the reasons given every time this subject comes up why magazines who rate and rank golf courses or their architecture don't want to get into in-depth architectural analysis but the fact that they don't do that or refuse to do that for whatever reason should be no excuse. The fact remains numerical rankings of golf courses with no real in-depth explanations of why is not a positive thing for golf course architecture and the understanding of it.
-
BillV,
The rating and ranking of a course is just that, of the course. It is a single number. How does it evoke interest and debate on individual holes, features and shots?
-
BillV,
That was a pretty feeble endorsement of rankings. I agree with you that deep and broad discussions lead to better understandings of golf architecture. These single number rankings may promote debate, however I think it dictates thoughts much more so than inspiring weighty discussions.
"You would be surprized how effing ignorant even members of (dare I say it!) Flynn courses can be about architecture, agronomy and strategic golf principles."
I am not surprised at all. These same ignorant members you cite are more predisposed to following the lead of others through the ranking systems than making up their own minds. This is not a good thing in my mind.
Rankings are, as I've often said, self-serving to two groups alone, the magazines in terms of sales and the rankers in terms of access.
-
How about ranking cat houses instead?
-
How about ranking cat houses instead?
Pete
there's a great old joke about that which cannot be repeated on a family site such as this, alas..... :'(
-
I think it's a whole lot of fun and can be extremely gratifying to educate golfers into some of the nuances of golf course architecture. Occasionally you run into people who later say they consequently look at golf and golf courses in a whole new and far more fascinated light.
However, in no case----no case at all, would I ever even remotely imply that before they willingly launch into an education of the finer points of golf architecture that they are ignorant!
To say or imply such a thing to any other golfer is both arrogant and pompous and in almost no case do golfers take well to someone who acts that way.
People get out of golf and golf architecture what they want to get out of it. That's any golfers' good right and they should be respected in any case.
If I've never informed you of golf and architecture's over-riding philosophy redanman, I will now. It is;
"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big world and there really is room in it for everyone." ;)
Otherwise known as "The Big World Theory".
At the very least it serves the important purpose of suppressing patent intellectual arrogance and pomposity which does nothing much more than almost automatically piss people off. :)
And why does it almost automatically piss people off? Probably because no matter what reasons anyone plays golf fairly dedicatedly they seem to do it and take it remarkably personally. In that phenomenon is apparently golf's (and architecture's) greatest seduction as well as its greatest riddle. ;)
-
TEPaul:
I don't visit a course simply for the purpose in knowing what makes it unique -- I believe the value comes from being able to provide a comparative analysis against other similar type courses.
You say one visit isn't sufficient -- that's fine. How many qualities Tom? 50, 500, 5,000?
If that's the case then comments from just about anyone can be labeled as being incomplete because the great bulk of visits -- including the ones Doak did in Confidential Guide -- came from just a single visit -- some only from the walking perspective.
I glean plenty of perspective from talking with people on this site about the courses I visit. They have in fact played the subject course(s) a good bit more than me and I can learn from their comments on what I saw and what I may have missed. Ditto what I put forward and may even enlighten them on what I saw and how the holes / course played.
The guys who have a piss fit with rankings don't understand that it is the main item of conversation for a good number of people who play the game. If you can't understand that or simply want to snipe about those who do so be it.
Ratings and rankings are not going anywhere because the interest from those who play the game is clearly there and will remain so for as long as people enjoy playing golf.
-
I have yet to run into "a good number of people" for whom golf course rankings/ratings are a "main item of conversation". :(
But like Mucci said, I live in Montana, so what do I know?
Like I said long ago, we might as well rank Interstate Highways...
-
Craig:
You must hang out with a different bunch because the golfers I know are always interested in talking about the merits of the courses they play and the ones they would like to play.
If that's not the case with you and your golf pals so be it.
-
"The guys who have a piss fit with rankings don't understand that it is the main item of conversation for a good number of people who play the game. If you can't understand that or simply want to snipe about those who do so be it."
Matt Ward:
I'm sure plenty of those who don't like rankings do understand that it may be a main topic of conversation amongst many golfers. So What? There are plenty of things in this world that may be a main topic of conversation amongst some that aren't worth a damn either. ;)
"Ratings and rankings are not going anywhere because the interest from those who play the game is clearly there and will remain so for as long as people enjoy playing golf."
I'm sorry to hear that. I was sort of hoping to see all the magazine rankings go down the shitter. ;) I guess it just proves Lincoln's little adage;
"You can fool all the people some of the time---some of the people all the time---but you can't fool all the people all the time."
I realize that ratings and rankings are your main interest and primary modus operandi with golf. I wish I could help you on that but apparently I can't. Rankings suck---it's as simple as that. ;)
-
"TEP old man, you and I are closer to each other on this than you think. If players like a Robinson course complete with landscaope features and water falls sufficient to cause the Emporer Apolpexy, all the better. (Except for poor old Nacco). More folks playing and enjoying different kinds of golf the better."
redanman:
We are? You could've fooled me with much of what you say about most golfers' ignorance about golf architecture.
For my part, I would never tell any golfer they are ignorant about golf and architecture vis-a-vis what they like.
I merely tell them my "Big World" theory that there should be plenty of stuff out there for everyone. If they really like Robinson courses with water-falls and artificiality or whatever I merely tell them that's just fine----that's OK, and that there should be plenty of stuff out there for people with really bad taste too. ;)
-
I accidentally discovered a fairly reliable way to judge a golf course without playing it.
Last week I was a scorer for a foursome playing in a charity scramble tournament at Minnesota Valley, one of three Seth Raynor courses in Minnesota. I had played the course about 20 years ago, but remembered very little of it. Walking the course with four decent players in a scramble, however, I think I got a very reliable sense of the course's qualities and quirks.
In a scramble, of course, you are following the advice advocated earlier in the thread by Joel Stewart to move every shot to the middle of the fairway, but that doesn't eliminate the difficulty and shot values created by the architect -- it just eliminates the recovery shots. The bunkers and water features are always in play, dictating strategy -- you just don't have to face the music if you hit into them.
You also get several perspectives on the greens when choosing where to putt from -- is the downhill/sidehill nature of a green so severe as to make the longer uphill putt a better choice?
I'd rather have played Minnesota Valley, but I believe I got a very thorough exposure to a classic old golf course without hitting a shot. (Well, I did hit one shot, but that's another story.) I could rate/rank MV if I were so inclined; but I think I agree with TEP -- ratings suck -- so I won't. Let's just say it's definitely worth a play.
-
It baffles me why several people want to move the ball back into the middle of the fairways to judge a course. How the course treats recovery shots is a big part of the game. My point about playing poorly was only that one never got a decent look at what might have been, but how the holes play from the rough is just as important.
Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.
-
Rick, I think the best way to learn about a course without playing it is to spend a few days watching play during a tournament. You plant yourself at select holes - or each of 'em, if possible - and watch a bunch of groups go through. Then you see a lot of different shots by a lot of different golfers.
The surprising thing is that even pros hit the ball with a far greater variety than most on here seem to believe. They are not robots who knock every iron within 10 feet every time, not even on a short par 3. What pros do that is amazing is get up and down with an unbelievable frequency.
And I think the worst possible way to analyse a course is strictly from the fairway.
:)
And Matt, what us rankings-haters truly find frustrating with rankers is the obsession with the comparison, with little discussion of what actually goes into the comparison. That is one area I give you a tremendous amount of credit: regardless of whether or not I agree with you, you certainly provide reasons for your thinking.
-
"TEP
I love your density."
8)
redanman;
Your posts are so frequently filled with mistakes and muddled thinking I'm sure you meant to say clarity rather than density. ;)
-
Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.
This should be in BOLD PRINT in all of the rating guidelines.
-
It baffles me why several people want to move the ball back into the middle of the fairways to judge a course. How the course treats recovery shots is a big part of the game. My point about playing poorly was only that one never got a decent look at what might have been, but how the holes play from the rough is just as important.
Plus, you'd be better off evaluating a great course from the left side of the fairway and then the right side, not from the center.
Tom:
I said in my original post that the first time (and in many cases the only time) you play a course you should play down the middle. I'm know as an architect you design for a variety of angles and penalty shots but if a panelist is only going to see the course once, you have to view the course from the centerline. Agree?
-
Frankly, rating a course is easier when you are not playing. You can look at different angles, imagine different shots, and take time to study certain holes and shots longer. When I shattered my arm roller skating a few years back, I had occasion to visit several courses and felt the inability to play turned out to be a plus in some ways.
Bottomline — I feel that a trained "eye" on golf architecture very likely has the ability to form decent impressions, either while playing or not playing. The key is taking time to spend with the course and give it a proper and decent look.
I disagree with the notion that one must play a course to adequately rate it. I feel it really depends on the person, their background and training. Some raters probably should be required to play — for that may be their only ability to look at a course.
-
Joel: I think I disagree. If you are playing and you hit one way offline, you should at least go back and look at how the hole would have played from the fairway -- but how the approach shots play from the centerline is no more important than how they play from everywhere else, because most people are "everywhere else".
-
"EVERYBODY" rates golf courses everytime they play one. Even guys like Tom Paul do it. Some just don't have the National or Global forum as others do, to present their assessments.
-
Mark,
You will never get a perfect group of raters. I'm just saying we all rate courses when we play them.
I look at the lists as guidelines, not gospel. Having played most of the courses on these lists all I will say is that you would be doing just fine if you only got to play those courses on these lists. And if you can find time beyond that, there are many more great ones just as worthy!
-
Many architects have stated that parts of their golf courses turn out to play differently than they intended. They often go back and tweak things. That being the case, I don't know how someone can make the claim that they can know how a course plays without playing it because not even the architects themselves know as they're building them how they'll play. This would seem especially clear around the greens. At least that's the way I see it.
Let me give an example: I think I know a green with a nasty break when I see it but if I just toured around Pasatiempo once without stopping to hit some putts, I would have no earthly idea how much break there is in, for example, #11. I'd tour that hole, take a look, and think "well, you don't want to get above the hole here" instead of "holy @#%%^%@#, you simply CANNOT EVER, EVER get above the hole there". Those types of differences add up.
You simply can't know "a fooler" until you've been fooled, or at least seen someone be fooled. That's the bottom line.
Can't you just drop a ball on the green and let it roll?
-
Joel: I think I disagree. If you are playing and you hit one way offline, you should at least go back and look at how the hole would have played from the fairway -- but how the approach shots play from the centerline is no more important than how they play from everywhere else, because most people are "everywhere else".
Tom:
I find myself playing down the middle and then walking to the sides unless the obvious angle from the tee is to the right or left.
Mark:
I don't think anyone will say playing a course 1 time you are going to make an "accurate judgement" on a course.
-
The more time spent on a golf course - playing, walking, building - the more you strengthen your evaluation of a golf course.
I believe Tom D once employed a weighting system with his GM raters. Walk a course only and your rating was 50%. Play it - 100%.
In a perfect world your assessment of a course has probably gelled after your third play so maybe that should be the 100% weight. 50% for courses played once, 75% twice and 100% for three or more.
JC
-
The more time spent on a golf course - playing, walking, building - the more you strengthen your evaluation of a golf course.
I believe Tom D once employed a weighting system with his GM raters. Walk a course only and your rating was 50%. Play it - 100%.
In a perfect world your assessment of a course has probably gelled after your third play so maybe that should be the 100% weight. 50% for courses played once, 75% twice and 100% for three or more.
JC
It would seem to me that using the Doak weighting system if you walked it once and played it three times that would be 350%. Just about every course would be a "10", no?
-
Does anyone believe that they could rate Winged Foot based upon what they saw on television this past week? The fairways were narrowed and the rough was up where it was never intended to be making for near impossible recovery shots. The strategy of the course was changed dramatically with the intent of making it extremely difficult but I doubt that Mr. Tillinghast had that in mind when he designed the course. Sure, things have changed since his work but the strategies of the holes are still important and it would be hard to judge the course as played for the Open.
-
Jerry,
Winged Foot current has an 8.17 average rating from GolfWeek....Do you really think anyone would need to play the course to come up with a much different number. We're not talking Lakota Canyon here.
One visit unaccompanied is more than enough for rating purposes...
-
I don't know anything about the ratings for the most part, except that normally considering the task they are reasonable. There are courses that I have played and have thought that they were out of place one way or the other. I don't know how many times the courses are played by the raters, but I definitely think that one time is not enough. I would think at least twice is necessary, but at the same time, how feasible is this? The only othee thing is I have never understood how walkability is even a factor at all. I can't imagine any explanation being good enough for this category. I would think that walkability ranks right up there with teetimeability in importance.
-
Glenn,
When does it stop...There is currently a rater along with his son and friend playing a course where I am a member. I hosted the guy two years ago before he got his card and now he is collecting his first free round. Why not just give the guy a natiional membership so he can bring the rest of his buddies next time he is in the area.
If you don't know how you feel about a course the first time around you just don't have what it takes...It is not life and death.
-
Winged Foot current has an 8.17 average rating from GolfWeek....
What does that mean? I no nothing of this rating game, and I haven't picked up a nationally published golf magazine in a few years. I understood courses to be ranked 1 to 100, with a couple of categories thrown in. Now I see a numerical rating, is it like a doak score?
-
John,
Go to the America's Best section on Golfweek.com.. They currently have a numerical score next to every course. It is simply a way to give a course a score so you can place it in the rankings where you think it belongs. 6 is around the bottom of the top 100 and 9 is like top 10...Since they published these numbers I don't think anybody even needs to play anymore to know what number fits their preferences...
I'd say that if you are offended by the new work at Winged Foot but don't want to be rude to your host you can give the course an 8 and be pretty safe..
They have nothing to do with Doak scores..
-
Glenn,
When does it stop...There is currently a rater along with his son and friend playing a course where I am a member. I hosted the guy two years ago before he got his card and now he is collecting his first free round. Why not just give the guy a natiional membership so he can bring the rest of his buddies next time he is in the area.
If you don't know how you feel about a course the first time around you just don't have what it takes...It is not life and death.
John,
Well, I don't know when it stops, but someone is screwing something up if Crooked Stick is 74 and Muirfield Village is 18th. The comps are a strange situation because GD sells a bunch of magazines with the list issues and the courses can drive up the price of the membership Nationally and locally based on being rated in the Top 100. Golf Digest isn't going to stop selling the magazines, it falls on the golf courses to stop worrying about ratings, but the GM doesn't want that, so I don't think that it ever ends. If 6-10 people can give us the NCAA field, I am comfortable in saying that 6-10 people can rate the best golf courses in the country, why not pay these people 100k a year and rate the courses as 2 foursomes and be done with it. Too many cooks will spoil the soup!!! good Stones song by the way.
-
Glenn:
You've hit upon likely the single most discussed and returned-to topic in the history of this board. Folks are quite interested in the rating game.
The general consensus has been that your suggestion of a paid board would be the best way to do this. However, I really believe it has as much chance of actually happening as me transporting to Germany and getting the USA the two goals we so desparately need right now.
So, the magazine ratings are what they are, warts and all. What sucks is what you also alluded to - how seriously they are taken. IN a perfect world, they are left as the curiousities and conversation pieces that they really ought to be, and no more. But the world remains imperfect.
Note one thing also: re walkability, Golf Digest used to award bonus points for it, but does no more.
TH
-
John: You are suggesting that everyone will generally recognize the top quality course and rate it the same. That would be reasonable if you were listing the best courses alphabetically and not ranking them. Those rating the courses and those being rated take them very seriously and although the difference in rating could be ever so slight, the end result can be dramatic. This is especially true when you reach the cutoff line - does this course rank in the top 100 or does that - the difference is indistinguishable but one gets in and the other does not. There is also the question of which of the top courses is the best - can you really say that one is better than the other - I would suggest that the answer is no. Can you really say that Cypress Point is better than Pine Valley - you really can't define what makes one better than the other. What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills and does it really matter - there are many who care but in the end, does it matter just so long as they are mentioned in the same breath. Just recognizing the effort in designing and constructing the course and the fantastic result should be enough.
-
What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills
There is exactly zero chance that Ballyneal ranks higher than Sand Hills on any list.
-
JC - you really think so? Why?
Love to hear your reasoning on this... from what I can see in pics, and have heard in reports, I was guessing it had at least a decent chance to do so...
Send via IM if you don't want the world to see. I can be trusted.
;)
-
What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills
There is exactly zero chance that Ballyneal ranks higher than Sand Hills on any list.
Jonathan
Since you are in charge of one of the lists, isn't that a bit premature? :o
I like the pictures of Ballyneal better than the pictures of Sand Hills. More of a golf course and less of a tour de force. ;)
IMVHO of course.
-
Rich - I'm in charge of no list. My statement is purely my opinion. The inertia that Sand Hills has in the rating game is too much for either Ballyneal or Sebonack. (I'll bet Sebonack ranks higher than Ballyneal!). Pure speculation on my part but I'll bet Ballyneal debuts by just making the top 50 GW modern list while Sebanock will be top 15.
JC
-
Glenn:
You've hit upon likely the single most discussed and returned-to topic in the history of this board. Folks are quite interested in the rating game.
The general consensus has been that your suggestion of a paid board would be the best way to do this. However, I really believe it has as much chance of actually happening as me transporting to Germany and getting the USA the two goals we so desparately need right now.
So, the magazine ratings are what they are, warts and all. What sucks is what you also alluded to - how seriously they are taken. IN a perfect world, they are left as the curiousities and conversation pieces that they really ought to be, and no more. But the world remains imperfect.
Note one thing also: re walkability, Golf Digest used to award bonus points for it, but does no more.
TH
My personality is somewhat original, my thoughts usually are not. ;D
-
Glenn - you and me both, brother. No hassles.
;D