Feature Interview with Joe Passov is posted

[JR Potts]

. How does Medinah manage to cling to the top 25 (and higher) year after year, when it fails the “Design Variety” and “Memorability” tests? As a championship test, its credentials are impeccable. As a golf course you yearn to go back and play again—no. So why is that “great?”

uh oh.

There's no uh oh as I tend tend to agree with a lot of what he says.  My defense of Medinah has always dovetailed into the point Bill has made in this thread....and that's what is the intent of the course.  I thinks it's often overlooked and often forgotten.  Medinah (and others) have always been designed and redesigned with one purpose....to be an impeccabe championship test....nothing more....nothing less.

Seems to me, given Joes admission, it meets that standard quite well...and maybe thats what makes it great.

Less skilled golfers seem to be given cover when assessing difficult courses as "not any fun" because the majority of golfers lack skill.  Well, many of the so-called greats aren't very much fun for the good golfer as they've been made impotent due to distance et al....can those courses really be considered great then?

It's a delicate balance and in my opinion, intent means a lot..and one must merely look at the history of the club and usage of the same to quickly determine the intent.

Great interview though.

[Sean_A]

Do folks really think there is as much variety in golf courses as there is in beer styles, types of cheese etc?  I don't think it is even close.  A golf course for the most part is a golf course.  There is far more similar about courses than not.  I couldn't say the same for beer or cheese.  My bottom line is always that any two courses can be compared if the person is doing the comparing is bright.  If you somebody says two courses are so different that comparing them is apples and oranges, then they are either lazy and/or don't really understand the courses they are talking about.

Ciao  

Sean:

Of course you can compare any two courses ... the problem is that an honest comparison would draw conclusions that one course is superior in some respects, while the other course has the edge in other aspects of the game.  It's going from that to a black-or-white "which is better" that's the contentious part.

Tom

We seem to be caught in a loop and are now back on first with Who.  Of course there must be subjectivity in all critical analysis dealing with golf or beer and its up to the reader to find which critic bests suits his taste.  Personally, I don't find it very helpful when a final judgement  is delivered.  Either it is self evident or the quality of the courses in question are close enough that its a toss of the coin based on what one values in golf design.  I would much rather know if a course is good enough to be recommended and to what degree, not unlike your Confidential Guide attempts - which is why I don't believe a better system of "rating" has been devised by any panel.  As you mention above, emotion tends to be melted out of the picture by magazine panels and that combined with experience is at the heart of course rating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmvkO5x6Ng   

Ciao  

[Jud_T]

As Tom and Sean alluded to it's much easier to know where one rater's coming from and compare your bias in relief to his.  I like Robert Parker's wine reviews.  I know he tends to prefer big, high-alcohol upfront fruit-bomb type reds, as do I, so I can pretty much take his recommendations and be confident that I'll have a high hit ratio of those wines that I'll like.  The same can be said for the Confidential Guide, although critically the actual write-ups of individual courses are just as insightful, if not more so, than the numerical Doak rating.
It's the amalgamation of these individual biasas where it becomes difficult.  Bill, I appreciate your desire to put mathematical rigor to the process.  I think it's the all-in-one process that's the issue. Frankly, I think if you simply rated every course on Mike Nuzzo's Fun, Pretty & Challenging scales, or some variation thereof, AND PUBLISHED EACH LIST, then one could target their own biases or cross-reference accordingly.  Then a course like Medinah gets it's proper due as one of the top Challenging courses, places like Old Head and Tralee get their due as scenic tracks and courses like Kingsley get recognized on the Fun list.  Of course places like Pebble or Pac Dunes which would rate highly on at least 2 of the 3 lists become even more attractive to those who want pretty/challenging or pretty/fun etc..

[Jason Walker]

Uh oh...the annual golf course architecture critic meets wine and/or beer critic thread....if nothing else should be fun to watch...

[PThomas]

i had the pleasure of playing with the prolific Mr. Clasby today...who is a very down to earth guy and a pretty good player as well