Should ficticious golf courses be ranked ?

« **on:** March 12, 2006, 11:00:37 AM »

Composite golf courses that are rarely, or never, played during the season find their way into the rankings.

I recall Congressional and Ridgewood creating composite courses for tournament play, and, I'm sure other courses have or could do the same.

But, shouldn't a golf course stand on the merits of its routing for everyday membership play ?

TCC ranks 22nd on the list with a score of 7.97.

But, how can TCC have more than a 1 in the ease and intimacy of routing category ?

Wouldn't a low score in that category alone, doom it's ranking ?

Or, does that category get conveniently overlooked because the golf course enjoys "MFN" status ?

The composite routing is convoluted at best, and one of the holes is a combination of two holes. You tee off on one hole and play to a green on another hole.

So, I ask, how can you rank a golf course that isn't normally played. And, even if you rank this gerrymandered golf course, how can you overlook or disregard one of the vital criteria for establishing a ranking ?

« **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:05:09 AM »

excellent question

« **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:13:35 AM »

Yes Pat but think of it this way...

would the TCC be in the top 30 the way it is played (ie--not the composite course)??

From what I hear it would be, all the raves about it...

Also, if the raters were to judge just RM west you dont think it would be in the top 10 world??

I have not played these but by the raves they get from everyone who plays them me thinks they would still be way high in the rankings.

Do you disagree??

I think the idea of a composite course is more to define the greatness of two courses rather then just one. Say, maybe there are several holes worthy on one course and several more on another combined to make an awesome composite course. This can do many things, but it is probably good to make a composite course because rather then two courses being lower in the ratings it combines to make one higher course, and that shows excellence to both courses, or in TCC holes from all three of its nines. Another good thing about composite courses is that it doesnt showcase mediocre holes that probably dont deserve to be in the rankings.

Composite courses may not be played too much, but isnt it true that ANGC isnt played too much, as some of the other super ultra private courses...?

« **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:15:51 AM »

I think this shows how much influence tournament play has on the ratings, though it's never acknowledged as such in the criteria -- unless you count "tradition."

If it's a "course" that I can't play unless I'm one of the top 200 players in the world, what do I care where it's ranked compared to courses I can play?

« **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:18:43 AM »

Let's make a composite course with NGLA and Shinnecock or how about Sebonack, NGLA and Shinnecock? Or Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton. Who says the composite must be of the same club?

« **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:19:00 AM »

Pat,

You asked, "But, shouldn't a golf course stand on the merits of its routing for everyday membership play?"

Good question, but take it a bit further, which routing? Which is a better finishing hole, #9 or #18 at Augusta? Would the course be viewed differently if the nines were played AS DESIGNED AND ROUTED?

If yes, then why change the routing?

I have no problem with ranking &/or rating a "composite course" as long as it has hosted a championship on that layout.

« **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:40:40 AM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 12, 2006, 11:13:35 AM

Yes Pat but think of it this way...

would the TCC be in the top 30 the way it is played (ie--not the composite course)??

NO

From what I hear it would be, all the raves about it...

From whom do you hear this ?

Also, if the raters were to judge just RM west you dont think it would be in the top 10 world??

I've never played RM so I'm unqualified to make an evaluation

I have not played these but by the raves they get from everyone who plays them me thinks they would still be way high in the rankings.

Do you disagree??

YES

Since you haven't played TCC, in what context would you judge my responses ?

I think the idea of a composite course is more to define the greatness of two courses rather then just one.

That's absurd.
Each course should stand on its own merits

Say, maybe there are several holes worthy on one course and several more on another combined to make an awesome composite course. This can do many things, but it is probably good to make a composite course because rather then two courses being lower in the ratings it combines to make one higher course, and that shows excellence to both courses, or in TCC holes from all three of its nines.

Another good thing about composite courses is that it doesnt showcase mediocre holes that probably [size=4x]dont deserve to be in the rankings.[/size]

You can't pretend that the mediocre holes don't exist, and as such, they don't deserve to be highly ranked.

Composite courses may not be played too much, but isnt it true that ANGC isnt played too much, as some of the other super ultra private courses...?

NO, that's not true.

Jordan, why have you avoided answering the critical question dealing with the rating criteria, specifically category # 1,
Ease and intimacy of routing.

Phil Young,

The routing at ANGC hasn't changed, only the order of play.
And, if conditions permit, you're free to start on the 10th hole.[/color]

« **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:47:37 AM »

Pat:

I agree. TCC is proably the main culprit.

Frakly either in Championship or regular set-up I really don't feel there is a top 50 there.

The first six holes are good, three of them very good, number two is a bad three and a too short four. Th efinishing four holes are great. But, regardless of the set-up, there is a muddle in the middle.

I just plain do not get Congreesional, it is unappealing in general and dependent on the Opens for it's rep, much like the lower at Baltusrol.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2006, 12:13:47 PM »

Patrick - this subject has always baffeled my evaluation of TCC. Walking around with Curtis Strange in 1988 brought to mind how important the sequence of holes play in evaluating the architecture of a course. It is sort of making sense of the memory of each hole one plays.

I compare this to the changes made to Philadelphia Country - Spring Mill, where Sam Snead had his horrible loss of the Open in 1939. That famous 18th finishing hole is now the 3rd hole, and the sequence of holes is really messed up due to the routing after building the club house in the 1950's. For example, the old 16th, which is now #1, had to be drastically changed because it was such a tight little green nobody could get off the tee because the hole played so slow. But what a great short par four it was before the rerouting.

« **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2006, 12:47:38 PM »

Pat,

I agree with you.

Composite courses are shams when it comes to the rating process. It's rather like getting Audrey Hepburn to wear a padded bra.

Bob

« **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2006, 01:15:24 PM »

I'd say if you can play it you can rank it.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2006, 01:47:49 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 12, 2006, 01:15:24 PM

I'd say if you can play it you can rank it.

Tom,

How many of the composites allow this?

Bob

« **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2006, 02:01:32 PM »

Quote from: michael_j_fay on March 12, 2006, 11:47:37 AM

Pat:

I agree. TCC is proably the main culprit.

Frakly either in Championship or regular set-up I really don't feel there is a top 50 there.

The first six holes are good, three of them very good, number two is a bad three and a too short four. Th efinishing four holes are great. But, regardless of the set-up, there is a muddle in the middle.

I just plain do not get Congreesional, it is unappealing in general and dependent on the Opens for it's rep, much like the lower at Baltusrol.

That tiny green on the downhill par 3 at TCC. To me that's a novelty hole. The blind second to another 1,500 ft green on #9 springs to mind as well.

But if we're allowing composite routings across neighboring courses.... since everyone pegs the 4th and the 8th as the weak sisters at my home course (New South Wales) how about a couple of the strong coastal holes from St. Michaels? Of course, you'd probably run into an eastern brown snake going through the ti-tree brush, substantially reducing ease of routing and walking scores for the rest of the round.

The memorability index would be sky high though.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2006, 02:14:07 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on Today at 10:31:40am
I continue to be mystified by a few things.

How does a composite golf course, that is rarely, if ever played, get so highly ranked ?

Where would TCC be ranked if evaluated as it was designed, constructed and played ?

Why are there no voices of dissent on GCA.com regarding this issue ?

I've always blindly gone along with this as well .

Why are these two courses (TCC and RM) always given a free pass when in effect they really don't exist?

Why not then consider a composite course of NGLA and Shinnecock?

Is Royal Melbourne West the best course in Australia or is it the composite course only which is considered to be among the best in the world?

Where would RMW fit in the world rankings as a stand alone course?

« **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2006, 02:14:19 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 12, 2006, 11:40:40 AM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 12, 2006, 11:13:35 AM

Yes Pat but think of it this way...

would the TCC be in the top 30 the way it is played (ie--not the composite course)??

NO

From what I hear it would be, all the raves about it...

From whom do you hear this ?

Also, if the raters were to judge just RM west you dont think it would be in the top 10 world??

I've never played RM so I'm unqualified to make an evaluation

I have not played these but by the raves they get from everyone who plays them me thinks they would still be way high in the rankings.

Do you disagree??

YES

Since you haven't played TCC, in what context would you judge my responses ?

I think the idea of a composite course is more to define the greatness of two courses rather then just one.

That's absurd.
Each course should stand on its own merits

Say, maybe there are several holes worthy on one course and several more on another combined to make an awesome composite course. This can do many things, but it is probably good to make a composite course because rather then two courses being lower in the ratings it combines to make one higher course, and that shows excellence to both courses, or in TCC holes from all three of its nines.

Another good thing about composite courses is that it doesnt showcase mediocre holes that probably [size=4x]dont deserve to be in the rankings.[/size]

You can't pretend that the mediocre holes don't exist, and as such, they don't deserve to be highly ranked.

Composite courses may not be played too much, but isnt it true that ANGC isnt played too much, as some of the other super ultra private courses...?

NO, that's not true.

Jordan, why have you avoided answering the critical question dealing with the rating criteria, specifically category # 1,
Ease and intimacy of routing.

Phil Young,

The routing at ANGC hasn't changed, only the order of play.
And, if conditions permit, you're free to start on the 10th hole.[/color]

Pat,

You are way more qualififed on this type of topic then I am.

You are probably right, but I was just asking some questions, thats all.

I didnt know why composite courses were ranked, and ranked so highly at that, so my questions were simply to find out why.

I think I at least have a better understanding of what you mean and what you were getting across to me. Thanks!

« **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2006, 02:38:14 PM »

Quote

Is Royal Melbourne West the best course in Australia or is it the composite course only which is considered to be among the best in the world?

Where would RMW fit in the world rankings as a stand alone course?

I believe most Australian rankings rank RM West and RM East as separate courses. And RMW still ranks above Kingston Heath as the best course in Australia. I have only played the West Course but I would agree with that assessment. So theoretically, RMW by itself would be at least 20th in the world. BTW-RM East is usually in 7-8th place.

The main reason they play it as a composite course is not to take out weak holes on the regular course and replace with holes from another course like TCC, but too restrict tournament play to the one 'paddock' in which all the composite course holes sit. Of course, someone like Michael Clayton is more quallified to tell you if any of this impacts the course raters.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2006, 03:51:48 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 12, 2006, 01:15:24 PM

I'd say if you can play it you can rank it.

Are you suggesting that Medinah should be evaluated on the basis of the 18 best holes in the complex ?

Baltusrol, BCC, Firestone, Congressional, Mirasol, Doral ?

But, return to the core issue, how on earth can TCC get a 7.97 rating if the course fails miserably in catergory
# 1, "ease and intimacy of routing" ?

The composite course is woefully lacking in ease and intimacy of routing, so how does it enjoy a score of 7.97 ?

Are the raters ignoring this category when it comes to TCC ?

« **Reply #17 on:** March 12, 2006, 03:56:25 PM »

RMW is a Doak 10, so I can't see any reason why it wouldn't make the top 10-15 in the word.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 12, 2006, 04:35:02 PM »

Yes/No/Maybe.

Until I make up my mind can someone help with with some relevant info. When the Ryder Cup was played at Walton Heath (1) they used a composite course from the Old and the New. Can anyone say which holes were used? I'm playing there with Brent Hutto this summer and I think we should be told.

« **Reply #19 on:** March 12, 2006, 04:41:47 PM »

27 hole facilities get the strangest pass of all...

« **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2006, 05:07:46 PM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on March 12, 2006, 12:47:38 PM

Pat,

I agree with you.

Composite courses are shams when it comes to the rating process. It's rather like getting Audrey Hepburn to wear a padded bra.

Bob

Bob

this is also called 'the millenium dome syndrome', after the short-lived attempt in London as part of the 2000 celebrations to establish the dome as a popular facility.

The common complaint (as I have been told) is that it looked so big on the outside, but when you got inside, there was nothing there (a ka padded bras).

James B

« **Reply #21 on:** March 12, 2006, 05:11:26 PM »

I think the course should be rated as it is set up for everyday play. If a complex has 90 holes its not realistic to rate it based on its "best 18", yet that seems to be done in some cases with 36 hole complexes. There is one I've played locally that has an East and West Course. Until recently I've never had anyone play the "composite" course, which is also the original 18. They're doing it for the Hooters Tour event coming in May, and also for a high school tournament immediately following. I'm excited to watch the events, but I have no intention of considering it the "Knollwood CC" composite course. (Talking about the Knollwood in Indiana vs the couple of others by the same name in other states).

« **Reply #22 on:** March 12, 2006, 05:21:18 PM »

The West Course at Royal Melbourne is the best course in Australia in my opinion.
The 9th and 16 -one of the best long par three's I have seen - holes are two wonderful holes not on the composite course and 13 is an excellent little par three.
14 is a good driver,pitch,15 is called a par 5 but it's about 475 yards and if would deflect a lot of the criticism aimed at it if they called it a par 4 - not that it would alter its architectural quality a dot!

I don't think it would drop that far,if at all,on the rankings if it was ranked alone.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 12, 2006, 06:14:25 PM »

Pat,

With these clubs that have composite courses, don't they run composite course competitions during the year?

I believe Royal Melbourne do this.

Also, I'm sure there would be more than a few members of RM who play the composite themselves, on an everyday, non competition basis, when the chance arises.

If these clubs only run half a dozen or so composite competitions are year, why shouldn't they be ranked ahead of clubs that only have very few members - maybe 200-300 - and which their course possibly sees less rounds than a large membership playing a composite course?

« **Reply #24 on:** March 12, 2006, 07:17:14 PM »

Mark,

The configuration of the holes would make it difficult, if not impossible for normal member play because you'd take out all three nines and only have 18 holes, not 27 available to the membership, thus, you'd limit availability, which can't be popular during the heart of the season.

But, again, that's not the issue.

The issue is how do the raters evaluate rating criteria # 1,
"ease and intimacy of routing" on the composite course.

Brad Klein,

What's TCC's score in that category ?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

cary lichtenstein

Jordan Wall

Rick Shefchik

wsmorrison

Phil_the_Author

Patrick_Mucci

michael_j_fay

Willie_Dow

Bob_Huntley

TEPaul

Bob_Huntley

Anthony Butler

Gene Greco

Jordan Wall

Anthony Butler

Patrick_Mucci

Chris Kane

Tony_Muldoon

John Kavanaugh

James Bennett

Andy Troeger

Mike_Clayton

Mark_F

Patrick_Mucci