[ForkaB]

Pat

I really think you are onto something on that last post.  Maybe waking up at 5am has a positive effect on your brain!

Perhaps, if we want to "rate" golf courses, and do so recognizing the incredible variety of those pieces of land that are "golf courses," how about rating each course in three categories:

1.  Ability to identify and challenge the best players in the world
2.  Ability to challenge and interest reasonably competent golfers (single digit handicap and below?)
3.  Ability to provide enjoyment and challenge to higher handicap players.

Under this regime, Pine Valley might remain #1 on list 2, but be only #25 or so on list 1 and outside the top 100 on list 3.  NGLA might be top 5 in category 2, out of the top 100 in category 1 and #1 on category 3.  Pebble Beach might be top 5 in category 1, top 50 in categories 2 and 3.  And so on......

From the little snippets I hear on this thead about Tallgrass itself, I might conclude that the course was well outside the top 100 in category 1, maybe a 100-300 course in category 2 and possibly top 100 in category 3.  Pretty much like what I read about Rustic Canyon.

Thoughts?

PS--Thanks, Mike.  Our posts crossed.  Since you know the place, and have some affection for it, why do you think it does not get enough respect?

[Mike_Sweeney]

#10 LIN - I love this Par 5, possible to get there in 2 but prevailing wind typically prevents it. Directional, principalish nose bunker for second shot. TG short 4 can't hold a drive on the green so 6 iron off the tee. LIN wins, TG +2

# 11 LIN Very nice 3 over water 160ish, steep bank in front, interesting green and collection area behind the green. TG very nice 4 dunes right, sand left, nice green, can be blindish with bad placement of tee shot. Both good holes, even TG +2

#12 LIN - some may like it, but ackward 4 with water right short and long left off tee, then green sits over water. Just doesn't work for me. TG Driveable par 4 fun hole to go for it. TG +3

#13 LIN - Lake right off tee, uphill shot to green that falls away, sorry but blow it up and start over. TG - nice buker at angle to clear on mediun 4 tee shot good hole TG +4

#14 LIN - great long 200ish downhill par 3. TG short well bunkered par 3 but LIN get the nod, TG +3

15 LIN - uphill blindish shot to a downhill green, not my favorite. TG Par 5 downhill tee shot water right off tee, not a great hole, but it beats LIN 15, TG +4

16 LIN - He forces you to hit a draw around a tree that he left on purpose. Long 4. Second shot into green surrounded with Irish type mounds (big ones). Some may not like it, but it is a real 4 and I do. TG as mentioned earlier the driving area has a strange alignment, nice second shot to nice green with room to the right to bounce it in. Tee shot is too screwed up, LIN wins, TG +3

17 LIN another long 4 on a tough closing 3 holes. Some may not like the shaping of the fairway, with a fall away to right. TG 17 - 200ish par 3 green is blindish with crown fairway at 170 - bounce this one in to the right of the flagstick which you can see the top half. Call it even. TG +3

18 TG, not crazy about the tee shot, need to play a fade off the tee, which is my shot, but it just doesn't set up well for me. Nice shot into interesting green. LIN long Par 5, need a big one off the tee, very shaped fairway that some may not like, but the ball can roll to a bunch of positions. 3 shot hole, LIN wins the last hole to finish TG +2.

[Mike_Sweeney]

PS--Thanks, Mike.  Our posts crossed.  Since you know the place, and have some affection for it, why do you think it does not get enough respect?

At the end of the day, I would only "Rate" it a Doak 5 similar to Southampton GC. If you stick SGC or Tall Grass on Hilton Head Island, they go to a 6. On the East End of Long Island most probably think 4 or 5. Let's tell it like it is, when I can play the "Big Ones" out there, I drive by them just as fast as every one else .

Then again, what the hell do I know. I don't think St Joe's is the #1 team in the nation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

I've always had my own categories for golf courses.

They are:

Championship
Sporty
Membership

Each category has sub-sets, but I don't want to get into that at this point.

With diverse purposes, I don't think you can lump all courses into one ranking category, and agree with you on this point.

I was up at 4:00 am, but business emails come first, GCA.com postings second....... on certain days.

[THuckaby2]

Come on Huckaby, are you man or mouse?  You know that our discussion was and is about why courses like Tallgrass don't get the respect they deserve.  Come out from under the table and face the scorn.  It only hurts for a minute.
__________________________

 

Good one, Dave.  But this fish isn't taking that bait.  I've said what I have to say, and in all sincerity I am interested in your answers/suggestions, beyond just "scrap the whole thing."  If that's all you have, then fine... but I'd think a creative, devoted guy like you could come up with more. My feeling is this is best handled by IM or over on the Egghead thread, where you have been directly challenged, but hey, whatever you wish.  I just do remain interested in your thoughts.

Mickey Mouse Huckaby

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick,

What impact would your classifications have on ratings?  In other words is a "great" championship course better than a "great" sporty course which is better than a "great" member course?  

I would think Ross' Holston Hills CC would be a great member course that rates highly, for example.

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The ultimate test, or ranking, for me is:

Do I want to go back and play there again, how soon, how often and would I want to be a member there ?

One way to illustrate that relates to my first time playing Maidstone.

I was staying at my hosts house in Easthampton for the weekend with my children and a friend.  Our plans called for us to play in the morning, have lunch, stop and shop for charcoal briqquetes and other Bar-BQ paraphenalia then go back to his house for a Bar-BQ.

We both played exceptionally well that morning with a nice breeze, holed out on # 18, looked at each other, nodded, walked a few paces to the 1st tee, and teed it up for another
18.

Upon arriving home, we were not greeted by happy faces.
And, I dare say the dispositions were worse.
Looking over the sea of scowls, I said,
"Is this the greeting we get trying to make everyone happy ?
Is this the way you treat men who took the time and effort to drive the length and breadth of Long Island looking for charcoal briquettes, only to come up empty handed ?"

But, we knew this was the reception we'd get, the price for another round.  But, the play of Maidstone, the second time, addresses all of my criteria for determining merit, or rating/ranking in my own mind, which, is the only one that is important to me.

So, I say to you, that preference is subjective and self directed, and each golfer must establish their own personal criteria.  However, the magazines do that for you, and if you become a rater, you must accept their categories, their system.  It would be chaotic if every rater adopted their own criteria, so one standard must be maintained.

I view the magazine ratings with interest, and make my personal observations regarding each golf course that I've played.

To each his own, unless you accept the King's schilling or its equivalent, and then you must do the King's bidding.

[THuckaby2]

Wow.

I am flabbergasted.  I'm not speechless, because that is impossible  , but that is one fantastic post there by Mr. Mucci.

In my mind, all talk of ratings and rankings should just be referred back to that post.  The whole issue simply cannot be assessed any better.

So thank you, Patrick.  As one who does accept the King's schilling and do a little bit of his bidding, all I can say is that it's not difficult, nor is giving the King the answers he requests, as he asks specific questions.  But when it comes to making choices of what courses to cash in marital capital for, what courses are worth going into debt for, what courses are worth getting on one's knees for... well... the King's questions sort of get at that, but not really.  That remains unique to each individual, whether doing the King's bidding or not.

So I too view the magazine ratings with interest, do the King's bidding as instructed, but also make my own choices based on my own criteria, which is amazingly similar to yours.

The only tiny problem with all this is how seriously the rankings are taken in the golf world... even though the best way to view all this is exactly how you say.... how can one change the perception out there, bringing it in line with your very wise, very sane way of looking at this?

TH

[Mike Benham]

I view the magazine ratings with interest, and make my personal observations regarding each golf course that I've played.

[/b]

No further questions your honor ... the defense rests.  

Ps:  Patrick - the aforementioned charcoal briquette story may lead to a whole new topic, I am sure we all have our "charcoal" golf-related stories

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Agreeing with my positions usually takes a circuitous route,
ala TEPaul, or it can come in the form of an epiphany, like yours, but over time, the results are the same, some just have sharper learning curves  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

TOUCHE!  Love it.  I'll go with the slow learning curve for myself, on top of the epiphany.

My only regret is this is happening outside of the watchful gaze of Tom Paul.  His rebuke/rebuttal to both of us here would be well worth reading.

 

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

Perfect reply.

In fact, I think it jibes with Ran's perceptions of great courses (not that I can speak for him).  He has always said to me when arguing   about a great golf course that it needed to have great golf holes first and foremost.  After that he always would ask where would you rather play a round of golf regularly or become a member.  Golf is supposed to be fun too.  That I think is part of the reason Ran would rank a Maidstone ahead of a Muirfield or a Bethpage Black. Its really hard to argue with that perception and I hate it when he uses that trump card.

 To keep somewhat within this discussion this is one reason I really like Gil's body of work from Craighead to Inniscrone to Applebrook to Rustic Canyon they are fun to play and have great golf holes on them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

I don't want to speak for Ran either, but I believe that we're both on the same wave length with respect to the ultimate test for a golf course.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich asked ... "Can somebody out there (Tommy?) who has played both Tallgrass and some other comparable course do a "Match Play" and tell us how they score the match, and most importantly why, on a hole by hole basis?  This might be a learning experience, at least for me."

Fair enough since I have played both courses.

I'll start with a match-play assessment ...

1st hole -- RC 1 Up ... RC has the better overall hole in this match against opening par-5's -- RC at 541 and TG at 521 yards recpectively. You have a more demanding tee shot than TG and the option to go for the green in two has a bit more at-risk elements than it's LI counterpart. Also the green is a bit more demanding.

2nd hole -- Hole halved (RC still 1 Up) ... Both holes are demanding -- RC plays 457 yards / TG plays 424 yards. RC has its famous "bath tube" bunker to conmtend with and the green has a good share of contours to keep you honest. Tallgrass is equal to the task.

3rd hole -- TG wins hole (Match even) ... The 3rd at TG is 419 yards is quite good because the tee shot and green are both good. The 3rd at RC is a fine short par-4 but the demands for the tee shot are not as compelling for a hole of this type.

4th hole -- TG wins hole (TG goes 1-up) ... Fine redan like par-3 at TG -- the 3rd at RC features a fine putting surface but the greater challenge resides with TG.

5th hole -- RC wins hole (Match even) ... the par-5 5th at RC plays 535 yards and is a wonderful risk'nreward type hole. The green is perfectly shaped and positioned to defeat all but the most pure of plays. The 5th at TG -- a short par-4 of 375 yards is quite ordinary.

6th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 1-up) ... superb par-3 at RC which plays 216 yards with a fall-away green that makes any frontal pin placement a real chore to get close. The 7th at TG is a driveable short par-4 under the right conditions but the strategic aspects are really quite plain IMHO.

7th hole -- Hole halved (RC remains 1-up) ... Both are par-4's -- the 7th at RC is 330 yards and features a 220 yard drive over an angled ditch like area. The 7th at TG plays 405 yards but is also rather ordinary.

8th hole -- Hole halved (RC remain 1-up) ... Both are fine par-3's -- RC at 127 yards and TG at 186.

9th hole -- Hole havled (RC remains 1-up) ... Both are good par-5's and they each have unique putting greens that don't give away E-Z birdies without some effort.

10th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 2-up) ... Short par-4 at TG is merely pedestrain type hole. The 10th at RC is a straightforward par-5 of 572 yards but the green is again the key because it is nicely angled and is quite deep.

11th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 3-up) ... RC features a 435-yard par-4 that has a devilish green -- especially when the pin is cut deep left. The 11th at TG is 384 yards and has a number of features between sand and contour movement but the greater demands rest with the hole from Moorpark IMHO.

12th hole -- Hole halved (RC remains 3-up) ... Both are short par-4's -- RC at 340 and TG at 323 yards. Not much of a difference between them in my book.

13th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Good par-4 at TG playing 418 yards that features a well-placed fairway bunker but the overall intricacies are with the par-5 13th at RC which is 555 yards. The fairway bunker there and the delicious green make for a more challenging and fun hole.

14th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 5-up) ... Superb long par-4 at RC plays 480 yards and the downhill dog-leg left tempts you to cut-off a bit more yardage than is prudent if you're not careful ... the fall away green is also well done. The short 143-yards par-3 at TG is well done but just a notch below what you see at RC.

15th hole -- TG wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Solid three-shot par-5 for most people at TG with hole playing 541-yards. Must watch out for H20 and plenty of sand. Uphill par-3 at RC is simply an OK hole -- the overall demands are just not as thorough as the other par-3's.

16th hole -- Hole havled (RC remains 4-up) ... Two tough long par-4's -- RC at 479 and TG at 472 yards. The 16th at TG would be the better hole if / when the high fesuce grasses come in on the right hand side of this dog-leg hole. The 16th at RC is also good because of the nature of how the green is shaped.

17th hole -- TG wins hole (RC goes 3-up) ... A battle between two part-3's -- RC plays downhill to 189 yards and TG is 217 yards. TG takes the hole because of the neat hump that serves to make the approach even more daunting. TYhe player has to decide either to bounce or fly the ball directly into the target.

18th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Interesting dog-leg right at TG at 418 yards but the green lacks the fire to serve as the finale. The 18th at RC is 460 yards and requires the player to hit a very well played slider tee shot that can follow the fairway. The green is also the better of the two with a myriad of different contours.

I'll follow-up with a breakdown of hole groupings (e.g. par-3's, par-4's and par-5's and additional comments on overall terrain and routing.

[Michael Moore]

From what I've seen the seventh hole at Rustic Canyon has definitely been "halved".

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Great match.

I wasn't fortunate to play Tallgrass,only a tour, but I liked what I saw. Match play would then be an impossibility for me in this regard.

But as far as dramatics, of course I love Rustic. There is something about being out in the canyon in the late day that does this to me. In relation to Tallgrass, I like the Moorland feel of the place. The bunker left of #3 reminds me of something one would see in Hutchinson's British Golf Links, in fact, the whole course reminds me of something in Great Britain, circa 1896. I think thats what they were going for too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()