On another thread, someone mentioned that they would like to explore the idea of designing for raters a bit more closely.  So, I obliged!

We have enough gca's and raters on here to get a balanced perspective of what any one rater looks for, and what any one gca thinks he looks for and how that affects a potential design.

I can't say that I design for raters, but of course, any and all awards are welcome.  And, winining one of those Best New was certainly a goal whenever I had a site good enough.  

I have relayed the points made in the old newsletter about my par 3's being the same length and changed that.  Typically, those comments were so general, and included things about maintenance, cart girls, etc. that they were useless as guideposts for design.

Otherwise, comments from any direction - mostly a stinging one ten years ago that too many of my holes were similar - from a client who picked another gca got me to realizing that my designs needed to be more exciting overall, even in the public sector.  That started me writing down my real thoughts on design and looking for ways to vary my individual holes.

I also benchmark my stuff to winners.  I have openly said that seeing Tobacco Road just before the design of the Quarry influenced me to be bolder than I might have been a few years earlier.

Other than that, I can't ever recall saying " A water fall here would wow the raters!"  Like Ron says in his article, there are too many trends going on at once.  I have concluded that unless on a spectacular site, minimalist designs aren't likely to do well and that site does determine the winners as much as anything.  I have a very interesting design that finished tenth this year, but its within housing and near railyards, and flat to boot.  10th place was an accomplishment and about as high as I figured it could get.

I would love to hear a synopsis or anecdote from any gca regarding their involvement in the GD competitions.  

I would also love to hear the same from any of the GD or GW raters who participate here. I somehow doubt there will be any consensus regarding experiences, but maybe a few patterns will emerge that will be interesting (or useful )

Tom,

I am aware of the 800 rater problem......which is why I asked for anecdotes or specific recollections of when you might have had an "aha" moment and realized you rated highly for a specific feature, or vice versa.


As to the point system, GW has some pretty defined categories, too and for any system, I believe its possible to rank on gut feel and then work the numbers backwards a bit isn't it?  I rate for the   Dallas Morning News and just finished this years ballot a few weeks ago.  I have to say I probably use the "know it when I see it approach."  It seems more logical to take last years ratings, and then approximate where new course X fits in relative to other courses you have given ratings too, whether one overall category or ten distinct ones.  

BTW, I have seen Ron Whitten's presentation on rating Augusta National using points the way they are supposed to be used. I think I understand the system, perhaps better than at least some of the panelists!

Also, please recall I am asking this, having had the same question/response to a comment that Jim Engh designs for raters as John Cullen did.......I've had my fair share of wins and placements on GD, so its not like I am really trying to improve my performance via golf club atlas.......

And, this is a discussion group. A few commented they might want more discussion, so discuss!  Perhaps I framed the question wrong and should retitle it "Any random thoughts on the rating system you care to share?"

Tommy,

Do you ever give a thought to your predisposition (ie if you are a Fazio fan, you think you will like it before you get there)  And, is that course more likely to meet, exceed or fall short of your expectations, based on your experience.

What about first impressions when you see the course.  When the guy told you the course really started after the third hole, were you yacking in the pro shop at the view of the first?

Jeff:

I am certainly not trying to stifle discussion in any way.  I just really was confused as to what you were asking.  I still am.. that is unless you really do want random thoughts on the rating process!  And you can't want that, as talk about a topic that has been beaten to death in here.

So I guess I have nothing to offer here, other than just go with what Tommy Williamson says.  Hell when I do these things - and it's not all that often that I do - I just read the criteria and assign a 1-10 number based, all based on the definitions they give us.  Obviously I have my own biases and likes and dislikes, and that likely goes into the numbers I assign... But outside of that, these ratings are pretty far afield from how I feel personally about any given course.

My apologies.  I'msure others will give you a lot here.

TH

Sometimes it is difficult not to bring preconceived notions to a course.  There are some architects I like better than others.  I am not a big Fazio fan generally and I need to talk to myself before I play one of his courses.  I like Pete Dye and before I played Bulle Rock I was excited until I played it. It was hard to be objective, because I was so disappointed.  

There are other courses I want to be good.  I really like Art Hills and Rees Jones as people. I want there courses to be good.  I try hard not to let that influence me but it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

When I played  two of your courses in Northern Minn I wanted them to be good because of how you conduct yourself on this site.  I was happy because they were even better than I hoped for.


 

Tom,

The basic difference is that GD pretends it's a science, whereas we know it's a matter of taste and informed judgement.

Brad:  I agree with that completely.

But again, since the GD way is scientific, and the criteria are all out there to see, I still don't see what insight Jeff attempts to glean from this, at least as pertains to GD.  

But Tommy W. is giving him some, so I shall shut the hell up!

 

One of my favorite golf articles ever was in the paper in Myrtle Beach when I was working down there.  Someone designing a course up the road (I think it was Tom Jackson) had made it his goal to design a GOLF DIGEST Top 100 course, so the writer spent part of a day with the architect on site, during which time he repeatedly pulled a clipping of the GOLF DIGEST critieria out of his pocket to refer to them while making adjustments to the course.  

Amazingly, the course didn't win any awards!

Personally, I can't believe this thread has gone on for even this long without a mention of sexy bunkers or of multiple fairways.  I think 99% of multiple fairway holes are efforts to impress panelists with how ingenious the designer is.

The most consistent aspect of winning courses is that pretty much all of them are designed at a HUGE, sweeping scale that was almost unthinkable 30 years ago.

Tommy W:  Your last couple of paragraphs are honest, but also disturbing.  A personal relationship with the architect should have no bearing on your votes, even though we all know they do.

From the outside looking in, is there any of the "Rain Man Effect" involved?

Take a good actor, give him a role where he can mimic instead of act (which, according to Spencer Tracy, was about listening, reacting, and not bumping into the furniture), and then give him at least two scenes where he can chew up the scenery (in close-up, preferably).  Come Oscar time he's sure to get a nod, if not the golden statue itself.

A goofy way to ask the question, I know - but an honest one, i.e. can any criteria or ranking system preclude the appeal that a showy performance seems to have on an audience?

Peter

Tom - thanks. But I don't know enough about golf course architecture to know if you mean that as a good thing i.e. if the fact that showmanship is the LEAST one needs to win awards these days is part of a general raising of standards in modern golf design. I know my tastes tend to run to quieter designs, but that doesn't mean much.

Peter  

Tom,
Is that the case, or do we just not hear about the quieter designs?

Also, with land being the major cost anywhere near a large metro area wouldn't a business model that called for spending a few more dollars on flashier features in order to create significantly more revenues make sense?


Obviously this would not be the case where land was less expensive.

Jeff I cannot imagine why an architect would put that on his screen of things to consider. I think that is something that is put in later as part of how the course is packaged and promoted. You know when you are able to do a project that is on a good piece of land with a client that let you do your best work. I guess I should combine that with good shapers, construction and grow in team. Most of us will see the quality that flows from that fact situation.

Tom,

I guess you haven't seen any of the criteria we regularly publish and publicize through GW. Hardly your "know it when I see it" type. Which isn't a guarantee that all raters follow the guidelines -- any more than the GD ratings are a guarantee that you do.

I'm sending Jeff Brauer a PDF copy of our Raters Handbook that is part of the standard rater package.

Brad, send me a spare copy if you don't mind.

cowley@bellsouth.net  

The problem with rating is that there is no data from which you can draw your conclusion/opinion.  You look at the par 3s and say on a scale of 1-10 where are they - relative to what - which course has the best par 3s and why - what if you've never played it? The condition of the course - how good is it - as compared to what - what is the best conditioned course - if you haven't played it then how do you say this one compares to it?  So designing for raters is foolish because there is no way to be certain that the raters will like your work.  People were quite surprised that Ballyneal didn't come out higher in its initial ranking - well maybe the early raters who visited the course like the white sand look as I call it and they didn't rate it that high.  Does it really matter - no - the people who join there are doing so because of the experience it offers and not some rating.