News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Ryan Farrow

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2006, 08:43:54 PM »
Quote from: Shivas on June 17, 2006, 05:49:53 PM
Many architects have stated that parts of their golf courses turn out to play differently than they intended.   They often go back and tweak things.  That being the case, I don't know how someone can make the claim that they can know how a course plays without playing it because not even the architects themselves know as they're building them how they'll play.  This would seem especially clear around the greens.  At least that's the way I see it.  

Let me give an example:  I think I know a green with a nasty break when I see it but if I just toured around Pasatiempo once without stopping to hit some putts, I would have no earthly idea how much break there is in, for example, #11.  I'd tour that hole, take a look, and think "well, you don't want to get above the hole here" instead of "holy @#%%^%@#, you simply CANNOT EVER, EVER get above the hole there".  Those types of differences add up.

You simply can't know "a fooler" until you've been fooled, or at least seen someone be fooled.  That's the bottom line.


Can't you just drop a ball on the green and let it roll?
Logged

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2006, 12:35:10 AM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on June 17, 2006, 12:21:29 PM
Joel:  I think I disagree.  If you are playing and you hit one way offline, you should at least go back and look at how the hole would have played from the fairway -- but how the approach shots play from the centerline is no more important than how they play from everywhere else, because most people are "everywhere else".

Tom:

I find myself playing down the middle and then walking to the sides unless the obvious angle from the tee is to the right or left.

Mark:

I don't think anyone will say playing a course 1 time you are going to make an "accurate judgement" on a course.
Logged

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2006, 06:09:20 AM »
The more time spent on a golf course - playing, walking, building - the more you strengthen your evaluation of a golf course.

I believe Tom D once employed a weighting system with his GM raters.  Walk a course only and your rating was 50%.  Play it - 100%.

In a perfect world your assessment of a course has probably gelled after your third play so maybe that should be the 100% weight.  50% for courses played once, 75% twice and 100% for three or more.  

JC  
Logged

ForkaB

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2006, 07:17:56 AM »
Quote from: Jonathan on June 22, 2006, 06:09:20 AM
The more time spent on a golf course - playing, walking, building - the more you strengthen your evaluation of a golf course.

I believe Tom D once employed a weighting system with his GM raters.  Walk a course only and your rating was 50%.  Play it - 100%.

In a perfect world your assessment of a course has probably gelled after your third play so maybe that should be the 100% weight.  50% for courses played once, 75% twice and 100% for three or more.  

JC  

It would seem to me that using the Doak weighting system if you walked it once and played it three times that would be 350%.  Just about every course would be a "10", no?
Logged

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2006, 10:21:47 AM »
Does anyone believe that they could rate Winged Foot based upon what they saw on television this past week?  The fairways were narrowed and the rough was up where it was never intended to be making for near impossible recovery shots.  The strategy of the course was changed dramatically with the intent of making it extremely difficult but I doubt that Mr. Tillinghast had that in mind when he designed the course.  Sure, things have changed since his work but the strategies of the holes are still important and it would be hard to judge the course as played for the Open.

 
Logged

John Kavanaugh

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2006, 10:31:10 AM »
Jerry,

Winged Foot current has an 8.17 average rating from GolfWeek....Do you really think anyone would need to play the course to come up with a much different number.  We're not talking Lakota Canyon here.

One visit unaccompanied is more than enough for rating purposes...

Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2006, 10:41:00 AM »
I don't know anything about the ratings for the most part, except that normally considering the task they are reasonable. There are courses that I have played and have thought that they were out of place one way or the other. I don't know how many times the courses are played by the raters, but I definitely think that one time is not enough. I would think at least twice is necessary, but at the same time, how feasible is this? The only othee thing is I have never understood how walkability is even a factor at all. I can't imagine any explanation being good enough for this category. I would think that walkability ranks right up there with teetimeability in importance.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 10:41:29 AM by Glenn Spencer »
Logged

John Kavanaugh

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2006, 10:51:42 AM »
Glenn,

When does it stop...There is currently a rater along with his son and friend playing a course where I am a member.  I hosted the guy two years ago before he got his card and now he is collecting his first free round.  Why not just give the guy a natiional membership so he can bring the rest of his buddies next time he is in the area.

If you don't know how you feel about a course the first time around you just don't have what it takes...It is not life and death.
Logged

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2006, 10:52:21 AM »
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on June 22, 2006, 10:31:10 AM

Winged Foot current has an 8.17 average rating from GolfWeek....


What does that mean? I no nothing of this rating game, and I haven't picked up a nationally published golf magazine in a few years. I understood courses to be ranked 1 to 100, with a couple of categories thrown in. Now I see a numerical rating, is it like a doak score?
Logged
"We finally beat Medicare. "

John Kavanaugh

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2006, 10:57:50 AM »
John,

Go to the America's Best section on Golfweek.com.. They currently have a numerical score next to every course.  It is simply a way to give a course a score so you can place it in the rankings where you think it belongs.  6 is around the bottom of the top 100 and 9 is like top 10...Since they published these numbers I don't think anybody even needs to play anymore to know what number fits their preferences...

I'd say that if you are offended by the new work at Winged Foot but don't want to be rude to your host you can give the course an 8 and be pretty safe..

They have nothing to do with Doak scores..
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 11:01:11 AM by John Kavanaugh »
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2006, 11:06:26 AM »
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on June 22, 2006, 10:51:42 AM
Glenn,

When does it stop...There is currently a rater along with his son and friend playing a course where I am a member.  I hosted the guy two years ago before he got his card and now he is collecting his first free round.  Why not just give the guy a natiional membership so he can bring the rest of his buddies next time he is in the area.

If you don't know how you feel about a course the first time around you just don't have what it takes...It is not life and death.

John,

Well, I don't know when it stops, but someone is screwing something up if Crooked Stick is 74 and Muirfield Village is 18th. The comps are a strange situation because GD sells a bunch of magazines with the list issues and the courses can drive up the price of the membership Nationally and locally based on being rated in the Top 100. Golf Digest isn't going to stop selling the magazines, it falls on the golf courses to stop worrying about ratings, but the GM doesn't want that, so I don't think that it ever ends. If 6-10 people can give us the NCAA field, I am comfortable in saying that 6-10 people can rate the best golf courses in the country, why not pay these people 100k a year and rate the courses as 2 foursomes and be done with it. Too many cooks will spoil the soup!!! good Stones song by the way.
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2006, 11:30:50 AM »
Glenn:

You've hit upon likely the single most discussed and returned-to topic in the history of this board.  Folks are quite interested in the rating game.

The general consensus has been that your suggestion of a paid board would be the best way to do this.  However, I really believe it has as much chance of actually happening as me transporting to Germany and getting the USA the two goals we so desparately need right now.

So, the magazine ratings are what they are, warts and all.  What sucks is what you also alluded to - how seriously they are taken.  IN a perfect world, they are left as the curiousities and conversation pieces that they really ought to be, and no more.  But the world remains imperfect.

Note one thing also:  re walkability, Golf Digest used to award bonus points for it, but does no more.  

TH
Logged

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2006, 11:52:18 AM »
John: You are suggesting that everyone will generally recognize the top quality course and rate it the same.  That would be reasonable if you were listing the best courses alphabetically and not ranking them.  Those rating the courses and those being rated take them very seriously and although the difference in rating could be ever so slight, the end result can be dramatic. This is especially true when you reach the cutoff line - does this course rank in the top 100 or does that - the difference is indistinguishable but one gets in and the other does not.  There is also the question of which of the top courses is the best - can you really say that one is better than the other - I would suggest that the answer is no.  Can you really say that Cypress Point is better than Pine Valley - you really can't define what makes one better than the other.  What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills and does it really matter - there are many who care but in the end, does it matter just so long as they are mentioned in the same breath. Just recognizing the effort in designing and constructing the course and the fantastic result should be enough.
Logged

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2006, 12:14:11 PM »
Quote from: Jerry Kluger on June 22, 2006, 11:52:18 AM
What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills

There is exactly zero chance that Ballyneal ranks higher than Sand Hills on any list.
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2006, 12:17:21 PM »
JC - you really think so?  Why?

Love to hear your reasoning on this... from what I can see in pics, and have heard in reports, I was guessing it had at least a decent chance to do so...

Send via IM if you don't want the world to see.  I can be trusted.

 ;)
Logged

ForkaB

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2006, 12:29:11 PM »
Quote from: Jonathan on June 22, 2006, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Jerry Kluger on June 22, 2006, 11:52:18 AM
What happens now that Ballyneal is open - can it unseat Sand Hills

There is exactly zero chance that Ballyneal ranks higher than Sand Hills on any list.

Jonathan

Since you are in charge of one of the lists, isn't that a bit premature? :o

I like the pictures of Ballyneal better than the pictures of Sand Hills.  More of a golf course and less of a tour de force. ;)

IMVHO of course.
Logged

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2006, 02:07:01 PM »
Rich - I'm in charge of no list.  My statement is purely my opinion.  The inertia that Sand Hills has in the rating game is too much for either Ballyneal or Sebonack.  (I'll bet Sebonack ranks higher than Ballyneal!).  Pure speculation on my part but I'll bet Ballyneal debuts by just making the top 50 GW modern list while Sebanock will be top 15.

JC  
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2006, 02:26:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on June 22, 2006, 11:30:50 AM
Glenn:

You've hit upon likely the single most discussed and returned-to topic in the history of this board.  Folks are quite interested in the rating game.

The general consensus has been that your suggestion of a paid board would be the best way to do this.  However, I really believe it has as much chance of actually happening as me transporting to Germany and getting the USA the two goals we so desparately need right now.

So, the magazine ratings are what they are, warts and all.  What sucks is what you also alluded to - how seriously they are taken.  IN a perfect world, they are left as the curiousities and conversation pieces that they really ought to be, and no more.  But the world remains imperfect.

Note one thing also:  re walkability, Golf Digest used to award bonus points for it, but does no more.  

TH

My personality is somewhat original, my thoughts usually are not. ;D
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Rating courses....
« Reply #68 on: June 22, 2006, 02:28:17 PM »
Glenn - you and me both, brother.  No hassles.

 ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up