Pat, My first reaction is that those are good places to start an evaluation.(save for "shot value") How these variables are introduced seems just as important as having them.

Have you ever golfed a course that was technically sound in it's engineered design, but failed to incite one ounce of emotion or inspiration?

Should painting be based solely on technique?

I don't look at Monet's ability and technique, but I always sit in front of every Monet and daydream.

All art produces an emotional reaction, including golf.


Ratings should be based upon what ever personally effects you most about golf. If a designer can tap into that emotion or feeling, then they must have been successful.

For example, both Friar's Head and Pacific Dunes made me glad to be alive on that day. Pebble Beach and a few other well known courses did not effect me to that level. Are they better course, I honestly don't know, but I like them more because of my emotional response to them.

How can some list of items find the measure of that response

Should ratings/rankings really matter?  

They really don't because they are so personalized and are interpretive.  Whatever the individual wants the factors to be is fine and everyone else be darned.  Why should there be a universal framework?  

I can see why raters think ratings are important as it makes them important and they gain access.  I can see why the magazines like ratings, it sells; but that isn't very meaningful.

Pat,

Paintings ARE interactive. Have you ever stood 6" from a Monet (and looked at dots) and slowly walked back 10 feet (and felt your inside the canvas). Art is interactive, it's just less than golf. But golf is for the godless heathens anyway.

Good views are found all over Pebble Beach, but I still perfered Pacific Dunes. Why? You just feel like the course is the right course in the right place. If we all knew why, we could all do it every time. But truthfully even the best can't do it everytime, because some of it comes from the area of the brain that doesn't measure or quanitify anything. It's from the part of the mind that "just does" because instinctively that part knows.

It's like some of the greatest shots every played involved little calculation, and were hit with pure feel.

I don't need to question someone when they say "I don't know why it's great, but it is." I may not agree, but I know what they are feeling. So what is wrong with the mysterious factor in golf rankings?

Pat,

I played a small muni that hosted a US Open qualifier a lot of years ago (I was there to caddy). The course was stratigically perfect for risk and reward, balance, etc. But it did nothing for me. The setting was dull, and the architecture was dull. So why judge shot values only, when it is only a small part of a bigger experience.

Mr. Mucci -

My understanding was that you did not believe in strategy and options for hacking raters, or even for the woeful 8.5 indices of the world.

Are you saying that if Joe Rater is not good enough to deserve strategy and options, that he should attempt to view the course through the eyes of the golfer who has earned the right to consider strategy and options?

I am confused.

I would agree that a variety of intriguing "shot values" makes for a fine course.

 

Not exactly, though i would support your basic premise.. however, you need to lighten up a little bit and include a fun factor in there..  like when one goes to play resort courses or hidden gems in the forests or mountains or where topography is otherwise extreme.. was it fun and would you go out of your way to do it again?

Patrick,
  It would really make my day to see you occasionally acknowledge a point someone makes. Ian brings up a valid point regarding viewing a painting, but you brush it off as something that hardly anyone does. How many people do you think would rate a course purely based on the criteria you list? I would guess not many, but I wouldn't disregard your idea out of hand. I think the criteria you list should be a majority of what is evaluated, but not the sole criteria.

Pat
What strategy and options?
As Sam Snead said, you gotta dance with the one you brung (or something like that)
As a wise man explained to me, there isn't much on the way of strategy OR options for the vast majority of players.

Pat said, "Should a golf course be rated solely on the values it presents, in the form of shot values, strategy and options?"

My answer takes a slightly different tact -- I start my assessment on any course based on the land / site it occupies. What makes golf so fascinating to me is that each course generally occupies a piece of earth that is fairly distinctive -- or so it should be in order to keep my interest in returning.

After the quality of the land I then focus ont he nature of the routing -- how the architect uses the compelling elements of that particular site to the fullest range of golf shots / holes, etc, etc.

The final element is the totality of the shot values -- the sum of the unique demands that are presented to the player through the course of time spent there. Comprehensive shot values are the surest means to fully itemize the success / failure of the player throughout the round.

If a course is an "A" in all three categories -- then for me at least -- it is a course of rare distinction worthy of return play over and over again.

Patrick,
   Ian wasn't making an analogy between "chemicals" and the "interactive" aspect of golf. He was saying that a more important determinant of rating a course for him is the impact it has on him emotionally. I think the strategy, options, and strategy are more important and should be weighted the most in any evaluation of a course. However, things that make my heart sing and bring a smile to my face are an important consideration. When I think of NGLA, Sand Hills, Cypress Point, Dornoch, etc it isn't the strategy and shot values that is bringing a smile to my face, it is the pure joy of having experienced those courses on a visceral level and looking forward to the moment in time when I do it again. So, no shot values, strategy, and options should not be the sole criteria IMHO.
   Any validity to that opinion?

Shivas;

A thought, and a question..

1) I believe that the reason for the sub-categories is a good and valid one.  It's sort of a cross-reality-check...if you find yourself giving a course 4's and 5's on a bunch of these more narrowly defined, qualitative criteria, it makes it tough to then say, oh yeah, the course is a 7, even if you really, really liked it for some "gut", instinctual reason you can't quite explain and visa versa.

2) Where's this course you're describing?  

shivas

In this case (and this case only!) you are right and Pat is wrong.  Unless, of course, you understand that shot values, strategies and options are all relative and experientially based (particularly in terms of time dependency).......