A simple system...

Play 36 holes a day for five straight days, then evaluate how much fun you have...

Most courses, after the second day, you're packing your things and going home...

Great courses are fun even ten times in a row..

Good idea.  It should also be a requirement to walk at least half those rounds.

Scratch:  See what happens when you actually try to answer the question?  You bury the thread!

I'll throw out some percentages of my own to get everyone talking again.  This is just off the top of my head ... I haven't been perfecting it for years like GOLF DIGEST:

15 - Challenge tee to green
15 - Strategic interest tee to green
15 - Short game interest
15 - Fun to play for all levels of golfers
10 - Variety: internal [length and shape of holes]
10 - Variety: external [course has a unique character or individual holes which surpass those on other courses]
10 - Conditioning:  proper maintenance meld [copyright T. Paul]
10 - Esthetics:  not just having scenery but using it in the routing of the course

Damn!  I forgot to include two points for walkability!

I suppose you could wrap it into "fun to play for all levels of golfers" ... many golfers are avid walkers and if they can't walk it's not fun to play.

I do disagree with five points for ambience/feel/tradition; I think they're going to sneak into the scores for other categories and you don't need to double them by also adding a separate score for them.  But the first course that did come to mind while I was evaluating my criteria mentally was Tobacco Road -- I think it would rate higher by my points scale than I would rate it compared to other courses, because it's too untraditional for my tastes.

I'm much more inclined to rank everything on a fun scale as Phillipe suggested.

The walk is very important to me.
I want to hit every club.
I want to "see" high shots and low shots, plus fades and draws.
I want a wide variety of challenging short shots and putts.
I don't want to lose my ball out of bounds or in the water.

On good courses, I briskly walk to the next tee, eager for the next interesting challenge.

As I mentioned in another thread, I believe most golfers place a very high emphasis on great playing conditions, especially fast, smooth greens.  They are a true luxury for the average guy.

A few years ago I began to play in Bandon a few times a year.  I now place great value on the firm sand based surface, which to me is vastly superior to other playing surfaces.  I can't understand why Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes are not rated higher compared to their peers.   Not only can you roll the ball a long way, you can also pinch a wedge downwind and stop it on the firm greens.  Pebble Beach and Cypress Point are gorgeous places, but I can't imagine them offering the same quality and variety of golf shots.

Tom,
I have not had time to read some of these threads but I did take notice about your 15 points for "fun to play for all levels of golfers".  With your criteria, do you make an exception for courses like Pine Valley that are clearly not fun to play for all levels of golfers?  
Mark

Mark:

   Pine Valley now has three sets of tees - the regular tees, the forward tees and the Crump tees - which should help golfers of all levels get around.

It makes me laugh out loud when I hear people creating "the list" -- the sure-fire way to assess the qualities of a golf course.

Like somehow there is some sort of silver bullet criteria listing that will provide some sort of magical result.

It's not the listing but the person doing the calculations.

My assessment of courses is fairly straightforward ...

LAND -- how good is the existing site for 18 quality holes ?
*In most cases the land issue if no less than 50% of the equation for me.

ROUTING -- does the land used maximize all the ingrained features for the widest array of unique and fun holes ?

SHOT VALUES -- does the course promote the widest level of skill for the 14 clubs used and does the course test the player to deal with power, finesse and accuracy accordingly throughout the round ?

I may be wrong but I don't think Tom was after a magic bullet in starting this thread.  

More likely that if we have to have rankings what would be the formula/system used (that would get his golf courses higher on the list)  


I am of the opinion that Tom Huck's attempt is the most suitable.  However I would discount challenge tee - green 4 points.  Also aesthetics under this system includes routing which deserves greater weighting.

10 - Challenge tee to green
15 - Strategic interest tee to through the green
10 - Short game interest
15 - Fun to play for all levels of golfers
10 - Variety: internal [length and shape of holes]
10 - Variety: external [course has a unique character or individual holes which surpass those on other courses]
10 - Conditioning:  proper maintenance meld [copyright T. Paul]
15 - Esthetics:  not just having scenery but using it in the routing of the course
5 - ambience/feel/tradition:  a feeling or reverence and awe the course evokes; this can come from historical events that have occurred there, or traditions being upheld, or easy walkability, or many other ways.

I think challenge tee to green is also awarded points in the fun to play for all levels category.  For some of us just playing the game is a challenge.  To score high points in both these categorys (total 25points) will seperate the good from the great anyway.

In fact 40points for Challenge, fun and Routing/Aesthetics sounds about right.

Sean:  

I like that - that's a good improvement.  Balance works better now also - well said and well done.

BTW, in answer to Matt Ward's refrain that super-raters would make all this unnecessary, I'd say this:  yes, we know how perfect your eyes are and how infinite your knowledge is, but it helps the rest of us to know your methodology.  So while this is intuitive to you, in your perfect grasp of all architectural nuance, well... us slow dunces need help to see just how you go about this.  So bear with us, and follow the formula, ok?