Can you evaluate design if you don't play by the rules...

[JakaB]

I can't even believe this thread has gone to 4 pages. Anyone care to summarize?

Dan,

Remember on the Wild Horse thread that got this started when I asked if it was a "mulligan ball" and you naturally pontificated that it was a "provisional ball" and then we found out it was a "cheater ball"....that sums it up my friend.   It just took a while to find out the only thing being cheated were the architects who defined the rough lines that Scott and Company thought were too severe for the rules of golf...They decided before they ever started that they were not going to play the course as designed....and why you would choose to do that on what have been recognized as two of the better designs in the modern era is what this debate is about.

So, to not hash up all that has been said before and to tap into your weath of knowledge of pop culture and the dreams of common people.....Tell me....Do raters owe anything to the people who don't have access to the great venues...shouldn't raters of all pop culture eat the same food, see the same movies and play the same game as the common man who depends on their opinion....or should I just wake up and smell the coffee and accept that special people play by special rules...

[John_Cullum]

John, why do you assume that a rater who taps down a spike mark or removes mud has IGNORED or didn't notice the problem?  Don't you have to notice them to remove them?   ???It seems to me that you would be served FAR WORSE by a rater who simply didn't notice a spike mark or didn't notice enough mud to remove it.  

Shivas,
Frankly, I expect 99% of raters are'nt good enough to experience the difference.

As for playing an extra drive or two, I never sent the rater to the woodshed for that. Go ahead, but you have to play the original one. As for you losing that famous temper of yours and breaking your 7 iron, I would say you shouldn't rate when you are angry.

I have to go now. Please try to keep this thread active until noon tomorrow.

[Dan Kelly]

So, to not hash up all that has been said before and to tap into your weath of knowledge of pop culture and the dreams of common people.....Tell me....Do raters owe anything to the people who don't have access to the great venues...shouldn't raters of all pop culture eat the same food, see the same movies and play the same game as the common man who depends on their opinion....or should I just wake up and smell the coffee and accept that special people play by special rules...

In my column, John, your description of me, if I'm reading it correctly, is known as a "corn dog" -- an insult wrapped in a compliment. Great expression, eh?

But I'll take you at face value -- and my apologies in advance if I naturally pontificate, as usual, to excess (oh, and by the way: I don't believe you "asked" if it was a mulligan ball):

Yes, I think reviewers (of food, movies, golf courses -- it makes no difference to me) should, if possible, experience the things they're reviewing just as Joe Sixpack and Janie Wineglass will -- including paying the going rate.

I don't see how dropping a second ball near a lost ball gets in the way of that. If you think the average Joe and Janie are going to walk (or, more likely, drive) back to the site of their previous shot, I do think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. They aren't gonna do it.

The special people who play by special rules, in my opinion, are the people who do play by THE rules. Yes, I think everyone (including raters) should play by those rules -- but if they don't, I for one would not doubt their ability to judge a course fairly and accurately.

[JakaB]

Barney, you said earlier that the reason it's important to play by the Rules is that the architects design based on the rules, therefore it's impossible to fully understand their intent if you don't play by the Rules.

I'm gonna stand by that even though I have already read your supposed gotchas....If trees or any other outside agency or defenses as I seem to be calling them today change the architects intent then base your rating on the failings of the stewards of the club.

Lets say you are a rater who can only hit a slice....do you see where it is critical for the rater to play from an established tee box on a right to left dogleg rather than create their own tee box that fits their shot shape.....and should that same rater be allowed to play a redan from the opposite side of the hole an equidistance from the green because their slice fits a fantasy nader better than a true redan.....What this is coming down to is..and because Golden asked me to tell the truth.....Raters really don't need to play a course to rate it....they really aren't playing it anyway...so why not just get in a cart and observe other people playing.  Why you ask.....could it be because if nobody got to play nobody would rate.   It's just not worth the travel expense without the free golf...

Honestly Shivas tell me....Are you so adept at ball striking that you can tell that much more from your shots than the collective shots of others.   Why do you have to play a course to rate it...why not just observe...

[JakaB]

As a matter of fact...I propose an experiment.   Lets have Golfweek create a blind study where a number of people are so called "rating placebo's" who can only rate courses they can't play...and another equal number of existing raters rate only courses they do play.....I would bet that the numbers would come out so similar that it would prove that there really is no need to have all these raters out there divoting up the great courses of our country.   I even volunteer to be the first Placebo Rater......Golden always said that's what I really wanted out of all of this..

[Mike Benham]

I can't even believe this thread has gone to 4 pages. Anyone care to summarize?

JakaB states that crappy golfers can't evaluate a design ...

JakaB states that a blind man (but not a women?) could design Bandon Dunes ...

From JakaB's statements, it is unclear whether a blind man who is a good golfer can evaluate a design ...

[Mike_Golden]

would bet that the numbers would come out so similar that it would prove that there really is no need to have all these raters out there divoting up the great courses of our country.  I even volunteer to be the first Placebo Rater......Golden always said that's what I really wanted out of all of this..

John,

I run a company that tests water and soil for trace contamination.  This is a highly precise business that requires us to be completely accurate in the data we provide to clients.  Failure to do so on every sample we test could either invalidate our license to do business OR put the owners in jail.  I owned such a company for 6 years and took great pride in the fact that we never had any data challenged in a court of law.  The reason for this is that I am a complete pest about accuracy.  As such, I really don't like seeing my comments misrepresented, which you did in the above quotation.  I made one comment which you have misquoted above-saying something once is not 'always', it's once.  Unlike some others, I don't harp on subjects and try very hard not to repeat myself.  Please try to do better in the future.  

[JakaB]

Mike,

Sorry....It must have been me who always wanted to be a rater....you just brought it to my attention today.  When I first started reading your post I thought you were going to volunteer to run the blind study of Placebo Raters.   Thank you for sharing your epiphany with me this morning....You've been giving me crap for years...and for good reason...I'm glad you realized why this morning and let me know before it had time to fester..

[Mike_Golden]

John,

No problem-but I couldn't have been after you that often because I've only made 174 posts during the entire lifetime of GCA and I've only had one name during that entire time.  Well, maybe Sandy Barrens, Jr-everyone thought it was Tommy

[Dennis_Harwood]

The "OTHER" raters (those who assign the course ratings and slope ratings for the USGA which are used for handicap purposes) are REQUIRED to rate the course in accordance with the Rules of Golf and ignore those Local Rules that are contrary to the Rules--

Therefore those sand dunes adjoining the fairways can not be played as lateral water hazards and the factor of extreme rough (and likelyhood of lost balls under S&D) is the rating value used by the raters--

For examples of Local Rules which would be ignored by the USGA raters see Decisions 33-8/1 through 33-8/39.  33-8/35, for example, prohibits a local rule designating dunes or desert areas as lateral water hazards-

The Environmental Areas, although recognized by the Rules, will be treated in accordance with Appendix I, Part B, 1,b of the Rules (If the ball is in a river bed, "ESA, play prohibited", no "free relief", -- it will be treated as a WH-- If its an area off the course, it will be treated as OB, etc)--

Out of bounds are always treated as a S&D penalty for the sake of rating a hole (despite what a majority of the golfers may do in their games)-

If a course plays Local Rules contrary to the Rules of Golf that make scores lower, only the members will be harmed since their scores will be lower than the manner of play under which the course has been rated for handicap purposes--

[JakaB]

John,

No problem-but I couldn't have been after you that often because I've only made 174 posts during the entire lifetime of GCA and I've only had one name during that entire time.  Well, maybe Sandy Barrens, Jr-everyone thought it was Tommy

Mike,

This is from Feb 20, 2004

And JakaB, it isn't in your best interests to insult Tommy or his love of golf architecture.  I suppose, though, that it just makes you feel better and helps you cope with your clearly well below average intelligence.

I hope my use of the word years did not over step the boundries of accuracy since it has only been 19 months and 10 days since you first insulted me.  It felt longer than that..

[Mike_Golden]

John,

I hate to tell you this but it's only 7 months    

And, we can probably declare the 'feud' over since you've been much nicer to Tommy lately-do we have a deal?

[JakaB]

I think I showed average intelligence in only missing by 1 year.....It must be why I do so well on bids...always miss high.

truce...

[JakaB]

Shivas,

How many times that you hit it in a true lateral hazard do you have a shot at the green....5%...now...how many times that you hit it in a "Scotty Hazard" do you have a shot at the green...50%....How are you going to rate a course fairly if people are creating new hazards that are not defined by the rules of golf.   I have no sympathy for a guy who chooses to remain a member of a club that promotes a culture of cheating....and I have no sympathy for a guest of such a club that accepts fantasy rulings so he can tell all his buds he broke 80 at XYZ.....

I think you have to be careful in your argument....If you imagine these fantasy lateral hazards to be actual hazards where you do lose your ball 95% of the time....the slope may actually go higher than if they are calculated as rough.   If you win you may actually give the cheaters a break and a higher handicaps to boot..

[JakaB]

Damnit,

I just got a call and have to go work for like three hours...when I get back I will educate you if no one else has by then...let me just say on your take that it's ok if it's on the card.

You can't join the Nazi party for the uniforms....if you are a member of a club that promotes cheating either change the culture or quit.....I've done it myself..

[THuckaby2]

Dave - don't get too alarmed by how course ratings are done -  yes we do have to follow the real rules of golf, assume courses mark their hazards and non-hazards correctly, and if they don't, try and educate them as to how they are screwing their higher handicappers (and it works exactly as you say in that respect).

I really think the instances of this aren't as widespread as you say though. Yes, there are SOME courses that mark deep rough areas as lateral hazards, no matter what the local association tells them.  And this does make a certain speed of play sense.  But for the most part, you can always find a waterway near enough to such areas that it does constitute a water hazard, the way such is defined... so they aren't really doing it wrong, and the rating would have been done based on it being a water hazard, even if it doesn't look like one at first glance.

TH

[Mike Hendren]

After wading through this thread, watching a rerun of the Minnesota vs. Northwestern football clash looks attractive.

Mike

[THuckaby2]

All I know is that based on this, if I'm playing a higher handicapper who keeps his handicap out of Harborside or Golf Club of Illinois (both of which treat their hay as lateral), the bet just got jacked up 100%.

Well there aren't you glad you read this stuff here?  Dennis and I get a percentage of the winnings.

Seriously, though:  I've never been to either course, but I'd bet that I can find a waterway near enough to some of that hay that it does qualify as water hazard.  It doesn't take much....  For example, using a golf course I know you know - every barranca at Pasatiempo is justifiably marked red, because there is a creek at the bottom of each.  Think #10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18.  That might seem like just plain rough/trees/gunch, but it does meet the definition of water hazard in each case.  Maybe something like this is happening at the courses you mention?  Are there no creeks/ditches/whatever nearby?

And if the waterways truly aren't there, well... I'd also be shocked if the local association hadn't educated them about the effect on the handicaps of their club members.  If they choose to ignore this, well then what can you do?

There's no way we change the entire rating system to allow for stupidity.  The good doesn't outweigh the bad.  We have to follow the rules of golf.

TH