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.


Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
A new(?) way of ranking courses
« on: January 04, 2005, 04:58:47 AM »
A recent trip some mates and I took to a golf course of great standing in many people's minds, but of little in mind, has been a beneficial day after all.

For some reason which escapes me, the course we played seems to enjoy a very high opinion in many people's minds. When a mate asked me in the car on the way to the course, "what holes are you looking forward to playing?", I replied "Maybe #3 and #16". 2 holes of 18.

When I go to play so many other courses, I continually think of shots I'm keen to hit, or holes I'm keen to play, for much of the car trip to the course. On the way to Royal Melbourne, I'm thinking "drive on #2, approach #2, drive #3, approach #3, drive #4, approach #4, tee shot on 5, the entirity of #6" and so on. Maybe 13 holes in all.

I propose that it would be handy to rank courses on "anticipation factor". Eagerly awaiting play on three or less holes could see a poor ranking, while four to eight could be considered good, and so on. Is this a reasonable way of positioning golf courses? It's individual, but certainly less complicated than many other methods of classification...

Matthew
« Last Edit: January 04, 2005, 05:01:22 AM by Matthew Mollica »
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2005, 05:49:02 AM »
Matt, which course are you talking about?

Paul_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2005, 06:50:05 AM »
Matty: your system brings in the human factor, and so it is not without merit. I especially like it, when it is added to an existing set of rating guidelines/principles. But on it's own ... just not sure that it would hold up.

Regardless, anticipation-factor is still a better
measurement than "wow". Wow is then and there, and fleeting! One's anticipation level is only limited by one's imagination. I sense for many golfers it takes hold well before driving to the course. Goodness, I've been sizing up my 3-metal for 15 years at the thought of Cypress Points' 16th hole.

What you'd find is, the really penal courses would be marked down horribly under an "anticipation" system. Heroic and strategic shots/courses would score heavily, because that's POSITIVE anticipation. Gun-barrel narrow driving aspects bring out NEGATIVE anticipation - downright fear for many - and score poorly.  

ForkaB

Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2005, 07:16:29 AM »
Paul

You should ask Lou Duran as to whether the 16th at CPC is a "strategic" or "penal" hole.  I hope you don't "mark it down" aftger you've played it....... ;)

Matthew

I think your criterion is a very good one, and has "legs" (in wine drinking terminology).  Try applying it to courses you have only played once, and you (at least I) see that some courses you think are "great" are less than memorable at the microcosmic level.  Alternatively, there are some courses that one might think, holistically, are a bit less than great are actually very memorable microcosmically.  NGLA and Shinnecock provide such a contrast, at least to me.

Alternatively, if you think about courses you know better and have played more often, it is surprising how some pass your test with flying colo(u)rs and some do not.  I'm not going to name names, at least for now....... :o

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2005, 07:26:20 AM »
Matthew,

I, too, like your observation/ system.

I must be an architectural newbie, as I am a novice wine common-sewer. I still anticipate spectacular shots, unbelievable recoveries and defeated opponents as much or more than architectural epiphanies. But, I'm trying to get that unimportant crap out of my system. ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

A_Clay_Man

Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2005, 10:21:34 AM »
I thought the Rihcelin star system encompassed these same humanistic variables.

Paul_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A new(?) way of ranking courses
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2005, 04:24:54 PM »
Rich: Mate ... I've always marked CP 16th way up, not down!  :)

Being a "heroic" challenge - i.e. providing an alternative route (usually, a way around a dogleg), and not forcing the target upon the golfer - it gets full marks.

But the hole is highly "strategic", too, depending on score, wind, and body metabolism. Many holes feature an overlap of penal, strategic, and heroic, but I sense this one is mainly heroic.

An unusual sidebar of CP 16th is (as a heroic challenge) is
that the "heroic" term is often applied to par-4s and -5s, where there is much to gain by "taking on and over-coming" the challenge provided from the tee. What a hole!