The Golf Club Atlas rating criteria

[Richard Choi]

Pat, what's up with your nurse?

Seriously, if you are rating a category related to architecture, the views or location should have no effect on the score for that category. However, there should be an additional category for the views and surroundings since that does effect your entire experience at the golf course.

The problem I have with lists like GD is the fact that people routinely count in non-architecture stuff like views and surroundings into architecture categories.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat, what's up with your nurse?

Seriously, if you are rating a category related to architecture, the views or location should have no effect on the score for that category. However, there should be an additional category for the views and surroundings since that does effect your entire experience at the golf course.

The problem I have with lists like GD is the fact that people routinely count in non-architecture stuff like views and surroundings into architecture categories.

Richard - I'd agree with the first part.. it's what I've been trying to get Mucci to understand for years - but re the second, how do you know this?

I've always found it pretty easy to answer the questions given; they give us a specific definition for the criterion, we use it to give a 1-10 value for said criterion.  One can argue the validity of the criteria - as so many people have.  But how do any of us know what goes into each rater's take on each criterion?  How do you know that people routinely count things they are not supposed to count?

You might be right, of course for some.  But then again you might not be for many.

[Mark_Fine]

Richard,
Do you realize how influencial the "surroundings" as you call them, are in the routing/design of many golf courses?  The same goes for "wind" or the rising or setting sun,...  All these things play a role in great golf courses and are factored into the design by thoughtful and creative architects.  It's ashame most golfers don't understand this.
Mark

[Anthony Gray]

Was it designed by a gca favorite, even if you have never seen it?  Add 10 points

Designed by Fazio, Rees, etc., but have never played it? Subtract 1,549,034,987,204,847 points........

   

[Norbert P]

If this website got into constructing some "GolfclubAtlas" rating criteria I would expect the criteria would work off this essential principle of GCA contained in Ran Morrissett's own description on this site's homepage:

“The courses included are ones from which the author believes there is much to be learned.
... Many of the courses are not 'championship' courses (whatever that means)
... or necessarily the best conditioned courses,
... but they share a single important characteristic: they are inspiring to play,
... be it by yourself, with your dog, family or friends.
... Enjoyment is the primary theme of these descriptions,
... but when taken together,
... these course profiles hopefully trace the history
... and improvements/setbacks in golf course architecture.”

So, to break down Ran's prose into a checklist.  His paragraph would translate into these categories . . . (I hope)

Educational
Charm
Conditioning
Inspiring
Friendly atmosphere
Fun
Overall experience
Reverence to history
Evolution/Devolution of golf architecture

Since IMing Garland, what should be reiterated and emphasized, is that the overall rating of a course is not and should not be the sum total of valuing a course.  His main objectjive is to create a usable database for individual values.

THE MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE A USABLE DATABASE FOR INDIVIDUAL VALUES.
(I don't think Garland wants this system to even have a ranking of courses.)

Example :  The Movie,  O Brother! Where Art Thou.

Plot      10
Theme  10 
Originality  8  (It IS a variation on Homer's Iliad)
Fun       10
Action    8
Suspense 9
Humor    10
Music      10
Acting      8
Editing    10
Continuity  9
Popcorn    7

Etc. etc. etc.

With perhaps opinions on obscenities, nudity, or appropriateness.

If you add these things up it merely makes a grey slurry of ranking. Not Garland's intent.
(But I'm sure I'll be corrected by the man if I'm wrong.)

[Garland Bayley]

The Craig Sweet rumpledness criteria. To what extent is the course clothed in rumpledness.

[Rob Rigg]

Garland,

Clothes are mandatory for any golf outing I attend - too much humor before the rounds detracts from the events occurring over the next four hours.

An architects ability to work with the natural environment is obviously not the be all and end all, but important . . . IMO.

Even if the surrounds are isolated, the aesthetics and symmetry of the routing with the bounds of the property is vital for "inspiration creation."

Time to drink some Oregon Pinot and support the local economy.

[Tags:]

Tags: