ps to George - this highlights with great clarity why the Michelin system is boring.  Hell yes they're all three stars, but that kinda ends the conversation, doesn't it?  

I've been thinking about this statement. I think it highlights why so many of us dislike rankings.

Even under the limited categories the Michelin represents, this most certainly does not end the discussion. One can discuss whether or not a course belongs in a certain category, what one course has or another lacks that puts them in different categories, and, perhaps most importantly but certainly not limited to, what are the common characteristics that these courses share that cause them to be in their respective categories.

Rankings discussions, other the other hand, tend to simply focus on which is "better" as perceived by whomever, not why.

Look at this thread. We have a bold statement by Rich, some reflection by Huck, some questions from Matt - and yet precious little discussion as to the reasons behind the rankings, other than the boxing category analogy, which doesn't really mean a whole lot.

Rather than ending the discussion, I think a Michelin system or no system at all would allow for more meaty discussion. Look at Ran's course profiles - nary a single mention of ranking, just excellent analysis on what makes each course special in the eyes of the author.

Mike H:

My real name is Mickey Wright -- the one who would get "pounded" by Michelle Wie -- according to Carnac (aka Shivas)!

Gents:

I have always been a big time boxing fan -- long before the sordid involvement of such types as Don King and Bob Arum. The boxing divisions are a very practical and easy way to categorize the quality of fighters and measure them against others provided they stay within their comfort zone. I think the same can apply to golf courses -- notwithstanding what my good man George from Pittsburgh may think.

When you move a fighter up in class it becomes a very difficult matter. Although I still personally believe that Roberto Duran (he of the famous "no mas") is still one of the all-time greats because of his range of skills against different classifications. Nonetheless, Roberto could not begin to take on the likes of people higher up in classification. His inability doesn't mean he is less of a fighter it's just that those in the other divisions have more bang with their punch.

There are very few courses of minimal length (6,200 or less) that can hold up against a course of equal architectural heft of say 6,900 yards. The only aspects that may level the playing field is the quality of the land in combo with a deft routing plan.  But, it would still take a Herculean effort to do so IMHO.

I have always liked the way Tom Doak described Shinnecock Hills in Confidential Guide with his last sentence (forgive the paraphrase) -- "a proven championship venue capable of everyday play -- few courses can say both."

Courses that fit that description are the ones I make a point in either playing for the first time or returning as often as time permits.

George P:

If you want some semblance of a definition for greatness let me start that I have never played a superb layout that didn't contain the following:

1). A superb or unique tract of land for the 18 holes.
2). A dynamic routing that maximizes all aspects of the aforementioned property.
3). A total challenge that calls for diverse shotmaking blending power, finesse and accuracy with a high degree of shotmaking control through and through.

George -- some people shy away from ratings and the like because they don't want to be "on the spot" for whatever the final outcomes are. That's their prerogative. But in life we rate things everyday -- the car we drive -- the neighborhood we live in -- the food we eat -- etc, etc. I like it when people differentiate things provided they have some standing in order to back-up their opinions with firsthand experiences.

I enjoy when people categorize aspects within golf -- it gives me an idea on what that person places emphasis on. I may disagree with it -- but provided it is well thought out I know I can certainly learn something from it.

George - well of course you want to read that, hell so do I.  But come on man, who has time for such lengthy tomes?

Yes, that is the perfect world of all this - someone very familiar with a course writes a piece explaining why it's great, hopefully including some pictures.

But the world isn't perfect, and for the remaining 99.9% of the time where sucha tome isn't done and yet the course is still discussed... well... I can live with Rich making that statement and leaving us guessing as to all of the whys.  In fact to me that's a bit more fun than expounding ad nauseam... Leave something to the reader's thoughts and discretions rather than preaching.

So I guess there is a happy medium here....

But one way or the other, I sure as hell see no harm in rankings discussions.  Those who don't like them need not participate!  And if they are gonna exist, just give me something more than 3 stars, ok?

TH

I'm surprised at this news.

When I was at Turnberry in early October, the people I spoke with in the golf operation were absolutely convinced the Open was coming to Turnberry in 2007. The only outstanding issue in their minds was the R&A wanting to reconfigure one of the roads leading to the resort for better traffic flow.

Tom H

I've explained to you many times why the Michelin system is a 5-point system.   Go back to your room.

George P

It is impossible to do a "My Favorite Course" type of description on a course (Carnoustie) that I have only played 5 or so times (even though I have walked it another 5 times in SCottish Opens' etc.).  My Dornoch description relies on the fact I have played and walked that course hundreds of times, and thus have much of its nature and subtleties embedded in my brain.

I make my judgements on Carnoustie based on the limited experience I have there, comapring it to simmilarly limited (but not insignificant) experiences on most of the other courses I listed.  It's not rocket science, or even complicated Math.  All you need to do is be able to count to 3 (or 5), and have an idea in your mind as to what 1, 2 and 3 really mean.  To me Carnoustie is at or near the top of those threes due to:

--routing (mix of holes, changes in direction, use of the land, coherence, flow)
--strategic options for the player (central hazards, alternative routes to the green, wimp-out areas, "green complexes" which are complex)
--challenge (need for length and accuracy off the tee, high risk/reward ratio for thre quality of approaches, good short game tests if you fail the first two challenges)
--mutability (influence of weather/wind, how the course "changes" if you misplay any shot)
--holism (sense of integrity of the experience, a course that is, as the Irish would say, "Itself.")

Tom B

I respect your right to an opinoin, but, as fun as it is, North Berwick couldn't hold Carnoustie's jock strap, as they used to say........

Rich:

I went to my room, now have come back out.  Please explain again why this is, or isn't, a five point system?  You;ve changed your thinking on this so many times, well,  I want to know what today's version is.  

In any case, I can dig all those criteria.  But even using them, any of several courses comes out superior to Carnoustie.  Once again, I could be wrong, but you are.

 

TH

"Cheerfully wrong" - that ought to be my real first name.  Appreciate the thoughts - it is nice to be loved.

 

But.....

Man, no matter how I look at this, I can't get this to five caterories... I can see four (0/1/2/3) but how in the heck do we get this to five, sans pluses and minuses on the stars (ie *-, **+, etc.), in which case it's gonna be more like 12?

I realize this isn't gonna cure cancer, but for some strange reason it matters to me.  0, *, **, *** just is too "light on the differentiation", as Matt says.  It's just too simple and yes, too boring... Sure, there will be good conversations as on the difference between ** and ***, for example; but SO many courses are gonna fall in each category that well, if we use this, we can't really have the Carnoustie conversation we're having right now!  That is, every course you list is ***, so where does it go beyond that?  "High ***, low ***"?  That's a bunch of crap and so many words for just saying it's #20, #15, #8, whatever, without having the balls to make that fine distinction.

That's the weakness of this Michelin system.  It's gutless and thus boring.

Now back to Carnoustie's place in the world.... You conveniently disregard Brian's very valid points regarding the "misery" felt there.  Yes, that does fall very well under it's holism - it is itself, that's for sure - but if itself evokes misery - as it does for SO many golfers, than how truly "great" can the course be?  The game is supposed to be fun, after all.

TH

Rich:

No wonder I didn't remember - that is absolutely silly.  So there's a difference between "zero stars" and "not in the guide"?  Forgive me for not acknowledging the difference between zero and not existing.  Good lord, zero stars has some value?

I stand even firmer in my opposition to this gutless system. It just figures to be preferred by one who so easily forsakes his country, though.

 
Man even when I try to be a prick I can't actually pull it off, using a horrid leap of logic!

As for Carnoustie, we gave you one solid argument why it fails compared to others in the three star category.  It's your choice to ignore it!

Hey, do remember this also - I love Carnoustie and came away quite joyful last summer.  BUT... it does evoke misery for LOTS of others, for exactly the reasons Brian states.

And to me, that's enough for it to fall from the very top - which is what we are discussing here.  It doesn't fall FAR, but fall it does.

But what the hell, why does this matter anyway?  It's a 3-star, like at least 50 other courses, right?

 

TH

To me Carnoustie is at or near the top of those threes due to:

--routing (mix of holes, changes in direction, use of the land, coherence, flow)
--strategic options for the player (central hazards, alternative routes to the green, wimp-out areas, "green complexes" which are complex)
--challenge (need for length and accuracy off the tee, high risk/reward ratio for thre quality of approaches, good short game tests if you fail the first two challenges)
--mutability (influence of weather/wind, how the course "changes" if you misplay any shot)
--holism (sense of integrity of the experience, a course that is, as the Irish would say, "Itself.")

I wasn't really expecting detail approaching your opinion pieces. In fact, I'm happy that you fleshed it out this much - it's definitely more satisfying than simply saying Carnoustie might just be the best (regardless of Huck's lust for simple sound bites that leave much to the imagination ).

Huck -

I'm happy with JB's report, too - I find it also much more satisfying than "Carnoustie might just be the best". Interesting, thought provoking, certainly a well written way of getting his point across. I'd say he's the next Grisham (lawyer turned writer), but that would be an insult.

And I know you said above that you like the statements that leave more to the imagination - don't make me dig it up on the terrible quote machine.

Last attempt at clarifying my thoughts (I swore just last night I was going to post less often with more quality - oh well):

I never said we should limit ourselves to any of Rich's statements - not the first quip, nor the last elucidation. I teased him about saying Carnoustie might be the best, since I remembered his previous posts vis a vis rankings. When you said that limiting ourselves to the Michelin system stifled any further discussion, I tried to say that we should all be discussing the "whys" and not the "wheres". I'm not fully satisfied with Rich's later explanation (I rarely am with anyone's posts, I'd always like to read more), but I can accept it and find it more compelling than his earlier statements. Brian and JB's posts were indeed terrific - I never said we had to limit ourselves to pure critical analysis of the course in question.

No more about rankings from me.




Till tomorrow at least.

That is one of the best things about Rich, he doesn't judge you...he may take the piss out of you but he doesn't judge you.

...and best of all he gets you thinking...and I hate playing against him.

Brian

I have never played a course that tests every aspect of your golf game better than Carnoustie. It does not need the USGA to separate the best from the rest. I hope the R&A leaves it alone too. This is the course of all courses that does not give the big hitter a huge advantage over the short accurate golfer. Or the master of the short game over a solid balanced golfer. It is your mind that in under attack there. Almost every hole has great strategic options, that weigh upon you and make staying the course so hard. It is like body blows to a boxer, at some point you just fail to take the last one and fall or you finally pause for a moment and the left hook takes you down. I love the place for it is golf from a time when character and mental strength are as if not more important than athletic ability. Carnoustie is not meant to be fun golf. It is the true test of golf.

Good post. Says it all, quickly.

I like what Tom Doak said about Carnoustie. Something along the lines of "not excessively penal, just depressingly efficient at revealing the weaknesses in one's game."

p.s. It will be interesting to see how Hoylake in '06 and Carnoustie in '07 compare to each other. They both have some Charles Bronson in them.