Standards for Course Reviews?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The Ron Whitten off his rocker thread got me to thinking about posting a non personal idea - Are there standards for course reviews in the industry?  

what should be included?  Certainly a description of the best and worst holes , I suppose.  How about strategy, maintenance, design difficulties, etc.?

Overall impressions? That is what a golfer will take home with them, but it does invite bias to come in.  Does a Whitten or Klein presume that that most of their readers are repeat readers,and have played at least one course he has reviewed and somewhat understands the reporters bias, if any?

Who should do them? I think newpapers send reporters generally favorable to the genre out for reviews- if I reviewed a rap concert, I couldn't do it justice, and I guess the same could be said for a travel or golf design writer.  Would he/she generally have to like new design work to review the new courses that their readers would likely not have played?  

I suspect that the universe of about a half dozen course reviewers won't be starting their own professional society soon, and that there really shouldn't be too many formulas for review, but it would be interesting to hear a Brad Klein or Ron Whitten explain generally accepted standards, if any.

[Brad Klein]

Jeff, I can tell you two things. I love it when local writers review courses because they usually make a complete botch of it and review hole by hole how a pro plays the hole - bearing no relationship to how real golfers do. I've also always followed a rule of writing - never describe a golf hole. Readers who haven't been there won't get it and readers who have been there won't need to revisit. Hack writers also make a serious mistake when they judge a course or a hole on the basis of how well or badly they play it.

It's also good to avoid a whole bagful of cliches: signature design; championship course; signature hole; playable by all classes of players; risk/reward; minimalism, "Open Doctor," "build it and they will come;" a course you could play every day and never get bored; links-style.

Generally, I try to convey how the place looks and makes golfers feel, and sometimes I'll convey a hole in terms of its aesthetics and the sensibility it evokes, as well a sits local cultural flavor. I also try to convey a sense of the developmental journey by which the land was converted from whatever it was to whatever it has become. And I also think it helpful to indicate a few obvious weaknesses, since every course has them.

Comparing to other courses in the architect's repertoire or to other, similarly-styled courses can always help. I think it helpful to remember that most of the readers who rely upon these have not been to the course, are not championship goflers, and are simply trying to decide if it's worthwhile for them to go. The tug has to be emotional and aesthetic, not technical.

Along the way, I also try to be a little didactic, that is to teach readers a little about the nature of design, about criteria of good and bad design, and how to evaluate courses, and how this one I'm reviewing fits into the overall set of standards and critieria.

[Dan_Callahan]

Jeff,

Unfortunately, I think there are different standards for reviews depending on the publication. I know firsthand that the smaller, regional magazines will rarely if ever print a review that is overly critical of a course. These magazines generate virtually all of their revenue through ad sales and are petrified of offending anyone.

I know less about the business model of the national magazines, however that is where objective, "critical" reviews seem to have the best chance. With their enormous subscription base and preference for real journalism (rather than puff pieces), they can state an honest opinion.

That gives us how many possible avenues for real course reviews? Three? Golf Magazine, Golf Digest, and Golf Week? Am I missing one? (I am intentionally leaving out of the mix all of the thousands of player reviews available on the Internet.) Given only three possible review sources, it would be interesting to know if the reviewers share standards or methods on how they evaluate.

[Dan_Callahan]

Brad,

I've always liked the way you break down the courses by category (routing, setting, conditioning, etc.). I'm curious how these individual pieces help you arrive at your overall rating.

For example, when you reviewed Baltusrol, you gave the course a bunch of 8s and 9s, two 10s, and two 6s. Added together and divided by 10 (the number of cetegories) would give the course an overall rating of 8.3, yet you gave it a 7.5. Do you weigh some categories more heavily than others? Do you allow for a course to be more (or less) than the sum of its parts?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

To answer your question quickly I assess courses through a five-prong test right at the get-go.

1). The terrain -- where a course is located and the property is has is the first among equals in my book. Likely, 60% of the equation is weighed with this element. If the site is a solid one the opportunity for a great course is enhanced considerably. Few totally flat sites (see the bulk of Florida) can cross this hurdle.

Will Rogers said it best when asked the value of land -- "It's quite simple -- they don't make any more of it."

2). The overall routing -- how well does the architect maximize the features of the site in question? Does the architect make it a point to provide for the widest use of the natural features that a given site provides with creating reduncancies or other such repetitive actions. For example -- the architect should have a routing that allows for the course to play in a similar manner no matter which way the wind blows. In addition, the architect's routing will keep players from honing in on a certain style of holes so that no discernable pattern is easily deduced.

3). Shot values. At the end of the day the game evolves around the type of shots that are required to handle. I don't doubt the architect must factor in shot values to handle the wide array of skill types that will be playing. Courses need "elasticity" to handle the myriad of players who come to a layout.

I look at shot values and define that as the wherewithal to do the following:

a- shot control -- the ability to move the ball in different directions -- not only left-to-right and right-to-left but high as well as low shots when needed. The player is also faced with a wide variety of holes that dovetail with what I just said.

b- the totality of all clubs used -- the great courses make it a point for a player to use the greatest number of clubs in their bag when playing.

c- proportionality in terms of results. I like to see courses that reward / penalize to the degree of the quality of the shot produced. Courses that provide 100% reward or 100% penalty on most of the shots encountered are likely poorly designed layouts. Great courses have the unique formula in providing for proportionate results to the shots that are played. The great courses provide clear distinctions and reward / penalize accordingly.

4). Memorability -- if you play a "super" golf course you should be able to remember all the holes quite easily. If you can't it's likely the course you played wasn't that good to start with.

5). Conditioning -- courses need to be properly prepared for daily play. Too many courses -- and this STILL applies in a big time way in the Northeast -- are overwatered. The main concern for these layouts is how they "look" rather tha how they "play." In years past I didn't weigh conditioning as much but now it's an item I take very seriously because no matter how solid the overall design if the conditioning doesn't mesh with what the architecture has provided you will not get the full value of what the architect originally envisioned.  

[George Pazin]

For example -- the architect should have a routing that allows for the course to play in a similar manner no matter which way the wind blows.

Not trying to threadjack (or nitpick, for that matter), but this seems counterintuitive to me. I'd rather see a course play different in different winds, for variety.

Thoughts? (Matt, would you care if I started a different thread based on this statement? I'm really looking for opinions, not trying to be mean.)

-----

As for the original topic, I like Brad's reviews a lot, much more than Whitten's, for instance, but I think I prefer Ran's to everyone else's I've read.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

No doubt the course will play "different" when the wind direction changes. However, the overall impact of the design should not be changed to be too "easy" or too "hard" simply because the wind blows in one direction as opposed to another.

You simply misunderstood when I said the word "similar."

I have played courses when people will say you should see the course when the wind blows from the "x" direction. To me that's a simple way of saying the course only plays to its fullest design sense when "x" wind is taking place.

Great courses are calculated to provide for a quality experience no matter which way the wind blows.

[George Pazin]

You're right, I misunderstood your use of "similar" - thanks for the clarification.

[John_Conley]

Brad,

I've always liked the way you break down the courses by category (routing, setting, conditioning, etc.). I'm curious how these individual pieces help you arrive at your overall rating.

For example, when you reviewed Baltusrol, you gave the course a bunch of 8s and 9s, two 10s, and two 6s. Added together and divided by 10 (the number of cetegories) would give the course an overall rating of 8.3, yet you gave it a 7.5. Do you weigh some categories more heavily than others? Do you allow for a course to be more (or less) than the sum of its parts?

Dan, I guess I'd look at the "scale of 1 to 10" as linear and the total as a logarithmic number like the Doak.

[John_Conley]

if I reviewed a rap concert, I couldn't do it justice,

True dat, homie.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, I think your methodology is quite well presented and balanced.  I have one question about c.

c- proportionality in terms of results. I like to see courses that reward / penalize to the degree of the quality of the shot produced. Courses that provide 100% reward or 100% penalty on most of the shots encountered are likely poorly designed layouts. Great courses have the unique formula in providing for proportionate results to the shots that are played. The great courses provide clear distinctions and reward / penalize accordingly.

Are you getting at the element of quirk above?  Anotherwords, if a shot demand is specific and calls for a cutting long iron approach, or a drawing one (doesn't have to be approach, just that there is a specific demand) and the shot is well executed, yet there is a chance due to a feature (like a foregreen poof) that can send it to a penalty; or the contrary, that a shot that doesn't quite come off as demanded, yet there is a feature of forgiveness (like a hidden collection area that offers easy recovery) how do you assess that?  Do you recognise the element of quirk, positively or negatively  (if I understand you correctly above quoted)?

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

Luck is part and parcel of golf -- what I said in terms of proportionality is that luck / quirk (call it what you will) cannot be the dominant aspect of the design. If it is then you don't have any game that ties itself to skill -- it just becomes a contest of randomness and quality architecture doesn't tie itself to a complete reliance or desire to such an outcome(s).

Too often the more penal courses may be quite taxing and demanding but they are simply overdosing on the difficulty side without providing for the nuances that quality design provides. It is these types of courses that usually provide an "either or" type outcomes and frankly these layouts can often be quite predictable and boring after a few rounds or even less.

Top notch design has a scale of proportionality because the architect fully understands that shot "X" will get only a certain percentage of reward / penality in proportion to the level of execution demonstrated. Top designs are not simply vanilla and chocolate in their outcomes / appearances but provide for a wide shade of greys and other colors.

Clearly, proportionality is a difficult thing to accomplish because all areas of the design and the land itself need to be assessed on "what ifs." For example, what if the ball lands in this area as opposed to another area -- how does the totality of the design break down these individual areas and provide the proper awarding of award and penalty.

Give you an example of a course you will be visiting soon -- Greywalls. I was told Mike DeVries personally toured each green site on numerous visits. You can see the details because Mike has provided for the kind of proportionality in the assessment of how well a player executes. You don't get 100% of the reward if the shot executed is only 50% well played. The well designed layouts have a real sense in making sure that nearly all the outcomes are thought through in order to maximize the skill factor and keeping the luck / quirk to a more manageable and preferred level.

[Brian Cenci]

Matt - I have a little different vies as far as terrain and routing is concerned and their interaction.  I sort of look of them as the same.  In my opinion if a course maximized it's terrain by getting the most out of it then just because another course has better terrain that didn't get the most out of it, that course with better terrain shouldn't be better.  

Take Crystal Downs vs. Bandon Dunes for example.  As a blanket statement Bandon Dunes is a great golf course with a perfect setting.  Crystal Downs is in my opinion is a perfect golf course in a great setting.  How do you compare the two?  In my mind I look at what the course had to work with and did it maximize that.  I've said before I don't care if a course is in the middle of the country or hanging over the pacific, if its good its good...regardless of some terrain being better.  I had a similar discussion in reference to Prairie Dunes, which I feel is a perfect golf course for the terrain that it is on.  Many may feel the Bandon courses are better because they have better terrain, in my mind Prairie is somewhat handicapped because it doesn't have that terrain so thats how it can make up for it on an overall level when compared to Bandon.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, well explained.  I think that the "either/or" predictability that only offers certain severe penalty is also a humdrum for repeated play.  And, the more one designs of the predictable or certainty of a dead end outcome (without the provision of a recovery that is "proportionally penalized"  the more boring and one dimensional the course, IMHO.   Oh, one can take their penalty drops from the unrecoveralble water hazards, and one can take unplayable lies in the thick underbrush, but then, what next?  Is your drop penalty shot again a do or die?  Is there a recoverable strategy to a safe harbor after the penalty?  I've played courses where it is one penalty drop without a shot to reasonable recovery after the next.  Water to waste, waste to deep and penal bunkers on line to more no-recovery, waste to more water carry, false fronts rolling into no chance water, bunkers, waste, rocks, etc.  

Again, I like your overall assessment criteria.  When your criteria are explained in "long hand" rather than numericals (as some others seem to gravitate towards) I find the method comprehensive and valuable.

[RJ_Daley]

Also Jeff asks, who should apply course reviews.  That is a question I would think generates controversy and elitism to some degree.  In my mind, a competent course reviewer should at a bare minimum have a fundamentally sound understanding of golf course construction techniques.  Then a sound understanding of the history of GCA, an understanding of maintenance and finally a decent understanding of the game as it is played recreationally and competitively.  I don't think you have to be a touring pro, or a skillful competitive amatuer per se, if you know what the shot demands are and the skill level needed to make them.  But, skill in the game is a BIG plus.  You don't have to have experience building or maintaining courses, per se, but again any of those experiences help.

I know plenty of skillful players that haven't a clue of GCA, construction demands to build various features, or what it takes to maintain them optimally.  Their course reviews would be very shallow in my opinion.  

The other intangibles are a sense of the artistic, and an understanding of nature and geography.  

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Partner, you missed my point. Land is the key element for any golf course. Take two solid courses -- the one with the better land will likely be the first among equals in my book.

Also, there is a vast difference in terms of the land used for golf and the type of routing that is eventually used. Two completely different variables and items IMHO.

Brian -- I never said ocean setting courses have the edge or advantage over those that are not. You must be confusing me with others here on GCA.

Let me mention Black Mesa -- just outside Santa Fe. BM doesn't have an ocean but the land it occupies in conjunction with its routing makes for a stellar course. In my mind, I would rate it even with Pacific Dunes -- knowing full well -- that PD gets a few brownie points because of the constant view of the Pacific Ocean.

Brian -- try to stay with me on this OK. The land is the first among equals for me. Take Florida golf and the first downside is the relative flatness of most of the courses. When you have a site that is not that great -- the architect then must overcome this through a superb routing and by having shot values throughout the round that are simply outstanding. Few courses can overcome the "minus land" handicap. That's why when choice properties become available all architects are tripping over themselves to see who will get the assignment.

You asked me how I compare courses of quality. Like I just wrote before I apply the formula I outlined. When you really begin to study a course -- all the elements -- the movement of the fairways -- the contour of the greens -- the general wind velocity and direction, etc, etc, you can begin to get a good read on what makes one course more unique than another.

In my mind, Crystal Downs is a wonderful course but it's one that has gone increasingly towards the overal narrow fairways with harsh rough included. I don't think such a daily set-up is needed given the pedigree of the original design. Frankly, when courses add more rough it's likely a sign that the existing architecture needs some "help" from man's hand. Crystal Downs doesn't need such help from anyone.

RJ:

Applying course reviews can be done by anyone who has the capacity to see beyond their own games. Many can't or won't.

I often play with a mixed bag of players and I try to connect with them through an assorted array of questions on what they think about a given course. I often use their feedback in processing my own understandings and eventual conclusions.

[Brian Cenci]

Matt - we are speaking of the same thing just explaining it different.  Your "minus land" element for an architect is what I was reffering to when I think that a course has made up for that element, then that should mean a little something when comparing to a property with great land, i.e. prairie dunes.

As far as Crystal, what narrow fairways?  Certainly not like classic courses such as Olympia, Oakland, etc. and modern major courses like Hazeltine?  #1, #2, #5, #8 (because everything slopes to the fairway), #10, #12, #16, #18 I would classify as wide fairways.  Depending on some of your shot angles and trajectories some may be narrower but most of the holes I think have wide fairways.  I played C.D. last fall and the rough was as it always was as I played it from 94' to 99'.  Certainly not as thick as a Hazeltine or Oakland Hills.  Thats one thing I've always liked about C.D., it maintains (as I've played it at least once a year since I moved on from working there) the same type of playability.  I was amazed that they added another tee some 40 yds. back on #13 when I was there last fall.  That hole was hard enough.