A New Way to Prioritize Praise of Golf Courses?

[Tom Huckaby]

In the thread about Jim Engh, I have tried to elaborate my feeling that we ought to limit our praise for expensive, unwalkable courses - and unfortunatly it keeps getting too tied to Engh specifically, which is not my intent.

Thus I shall try this in a separate topic.

THEORY:  courses that are either too expensive or unwalkable, or both, are bad for the game of golf.  We want to play more, not pay more (thank you Tim Weiman) and we ought to want to do so walking - that remains the soul of the sport.

IDEA:  reformulate courses into different categories, with the highest praise given to the top, the lowest to the bottom.  All courses can be praised mightily within their categories, but the understanding is that the ones at the top, being best for the game, are the ones most worth of praise.  CAVEAT - this would just apply to PUBLIC golf courses.  I'd like to tie privates in, but I can't figure out how.  In any case, it's like four parts of a quadrant - the ones on top and to the right are positive, the ones below and to the left are negative.  The higher and farther to the right you go, the more praise you get.

IE..

                                 affordable
                                       [
                                       [
                                       [
cart-ball only------------------------------------easy walk
                                       [
                                       [
                                       [
                                       [
                                   pricey


All courses would fall on this graph as they fit.   Each quadrant makes up a category:

Affordable/easy walk
Affordable/cart-ball
easy walk/pricey
cart-ball/pricey

Within each category all praise may be given.  But the understanding would always be that the higher and farther to the right the course falls on the graph, the most praise-worthy it is.

Obviously the specifics of how to determine how courses fall are yet to be fleshed out.

But as a general way of looking at things, does this make any sense?

If we did look at courses this way, wouldn't it be so much better for the game of golf?

TH

ps - attribution to Steve Shaffer for the category idea.  Sorry Steve if this throws you down in the gutter with me.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

Those may be the rules you live by, but they probably aren't the same for a lot of others on here.  

If you're going to start counting costs, you might as well apply the same rule to private clubs, too, but eventually you will appreciate that costs are governed not by design decisions but by real estate, supply and demand.  For that matter, lots of courses become affordable after the first owner goes bankrupt!

As for cartball as a factor, I'm on your side, but I think you need to keep walkability on a ten-point scale as one factor of good design, and not throw all the "ones" off the bus.

At least, thank you for getting this discussion off the subject of a particular architect so I can comment without being accused of hijacking the thread for my own purposes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Obviously it's not a perfect system - YET.  As I say the specifics and details are yet to be fleshed out.  And of course a lot of this is in the eyes of the beholder, so it's never going to be perfect, or perfectly agreed upon anyway.

But is it not a better way to dole out praise for golf courses as a general rule?

And remember, I am applying this only to public golf courses.  Re the privates, well I just can't figure out a way to factor cost into the equation - and in the end it doesn't matter.  People will either pay it or not.

Re public courses though, I do think this has a lot of merit as a general formula.

So OK, as for some specifics as to how it might work:  remember, I'm not throwing any courses off the bus, so to speak.  A course like Wolf Creek in Mesquite would fall pretty low and left... but remember this is just a categorization!  It still can be praised mightily as a great course in the low left quadrant.  The idea is not to denigrate any courses per se - just to understand that those in the upper right quadrant deserve the most praise in terms of what's good for the game.

Many won't give a rat's ass what's good for the game.  I just do feel that it ought to be noted, so it's out there to see.

What is the harm?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Just to explain this perhaps a bit better, a perfect example is Pacific Dunes (or any of the courses at Bandon).  It would fall into the bottom right quadrant - pricey/easy walk. Not that the walk is all that easy relatively, but we have to give high praise to a place that disallows carts.  Does this mean it's necessarily "worse" than a course like Rustic Canyon, which would fall in the very high right quadrant?  No.  Note would be given to the other aspects of Pacific that make it great, and note would also be given to how far it falls to the right given no carts allowed.

This just would be a guide for those concerned with the good of the game.  You'd see PD way over there to the right and that would be good enough.  You'd look into it more and the price might turn you off, might be understandable given the greatness and the realities of the market.

But at least you'd know where to begin.

If you are concerned with the good of the game, that is.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

I think it's brilliant.  Too often you read a short review of a course in a magazine and it says nothing about walkability.  With this diagram, a reviewer could write his narrative of the course, praising it or not, and then include a small graphic rating it according to price (disclosing the specific figure) and walkability.  As Tom H says, it wouldn't be the only way to measure a course, it would merely be an aid.

[Ted Kramer]

I like it.

-Ted

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim/Ted - thanks.  Yeah, think of it as an aid, a starting point, whatever worth one gives it.  Some will give it none, and that's fine.  But it sure couldn't hurt to have.

TH

[Joe Hancock]

Not only that, one could print out a copy of the chart and pin it to the dart board and be used just like all the other rating methods....

Just kidding, raters, I have no idea what you guys do with your dart boards...

Nice thought provocation, Awshuckster....

Joe

[Tom Huckaby]

 

Dammit Joe, you figured us out.

 

I'm just hoping more darts get thrown high and right for this purpose.

TH

[Michael Moore]

According to this theory, South Portland Municipal is the greatest course in the world.

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:

I assume it's cheap and and easy walk?

Then it goes way up high and right.

And that alone is a good thing.

Of course, there are golf courses near me that fall pretty high and right also, and are completely pieces of crap.

So of course there has to be a "quality" aspect to this as well.  Like I say, this isn't meant to be an end, just a categorization.  And remember I am categorizing PRAISE.  If it's not worthy of praise to begin with in terms of quality, it doesn't get on the graph at all.... or perhaps there's a separate graph for those below a certain quality level.

Maybe it works best not as a categorization of ALL courses, but only those already determined to be great in some way shape or form in terms of quality?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - wrong -as you see, I have this already considered.

But nice try!

 
TH

[Sean_A]

Huckleberry

I am most impressed by your restraint.  

I have always considered walkability and price in how I rate courses.  I set a theshold and if courses cost more than the threshold than they had better be very exceptional courses indeed or I am not interested.  I know most people on this site disagree with this sentiment, but I am always looking for the best value for money.  Once I find the best value I consider it to be the best product for me.  Sometimes best value is expensive and sometimes it is cheap, but never is it very expensive.  

Ciao

Sean

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - the hush-hush secret in this forum is that you are far from alone, even in here.  Price does matter.  Oh, there are plenty for whom it's completely irrelevant, but we for whom it matters do exist.

 

Then out in the real world?

I'd guess it's the MOST important criterion.

So this does matter.  Hell walkability won't to nearly as many people, but it's my crusade to help the world of golf by showing cartballers the light.  I'm starting with myself.  

TH

[Mike Benham]

Huck -

All you have to do now is allow for a numerical equivalent off your matrix and you will be set ... a Huck 9 might be Rustic Canyon ...

Combine that with Doak's rating and we will have a whole new genre of course ratings, the DOAK-HUCK ...

The Unofficial DOAK-HUCK:

Rustic Canyon - 6/9
Sand Hills - 9/5

Mike

Ps:  I get a royalty off this idea don't I?

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - you shall get 25% of all royalties I get.

 

Because this is a GREAT way to quantify this.  We just have to divide the quadrants appropriately to give numerical values, as you say.  I'll work on that.  Then of course the Doak score goes first... and means a lot more... but yes, I think you have Rustic correct.  Re Sand Hills, remember my thought is to keep this just to public courses. It's just so darn hard to quantify cost and value re private clubs.

TH

[Sean_A]

Huckster

I never had an issue with walkability before.  I think this is an issue which may come more to the fore as more and more wonderful cartball courses are built.  I have never come across a cartball course that wowed me and made me think it was possible for a cartball course to be great like The Road did.  That is why the difficult routing is such a terrible shame and in the end I mark The Road down considerably because of the walk (this is not to blame the designer, perhaps he did amazingly well to make what he did-I don't know nearly enough about this stuff to say).  While I never could be a member of a course like The Road I sure will play it whenever I am in Raleigh.

Ciao

Sean

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

I too have only come to this anti-cartball stance pretty damn recently.  There are some GREAT cartball courses, very fun to play - the Engh ones are likely great examples.  But in the end, well... it's just not good for the game to build these.  And playing them does leave one hollow, if one does care about the soul of the sport.

I've only started to really care about such pretty recently also.  Sometimes it takes a long time for ideas to sink in.

 

[Brad Swanson]

I spend 95% of my miniscule golfing time in the north-east quadrant of the Huckaby Scale, and my 2 favorites from there are Wild Horse and Lawsonia Links.  

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[Bill_McBride]

So where does relative design merit / conditioning, etc figure into the position within each quadrant, i.e. how do you compare a really good affordable-easy walk (say Rustic Canyon) vs a great less affordable-easy walk (say Pasatiempo)?  I guess Pasatiempo would go down into the pricey quadrant.  But how about Rustic Canyon vs World Woods / Pine Barrens, both affordable-easy walk?

I think you have too much free time.  I thought Yahoo had a lot of important business going on.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill:

Just call it a slow day.  

As for your questions, well as I say it's up to the beholder.  Courses get put into a quadrant and this works out to a Huck "score", with how that works still TBD.  Then you combine that with a Doak score, and well... you have a lot of valuable info.  The Doak score speaks to quality, the Huck score speaks to... well... worth for the good for the game, for lack of a better way to put it.

Of course some may just throw out the Huck score, and that is their perogative.


Brad - I do believe that one could find a lot of great joy staying in the northeast quadrant.  But of course there's gonna be a lot of crap in there also, if this is applied to all courses.  Thus the need for the Doak scores as well.  Each of Wild Horse and Lawsonia would be very high on BOTH scores... which of course is a large reason why each is so great!

TH

[Mike_Sweeney]

According to this theory, South Portland Municipal is the greatest course in the world.

For the three weeks of the year that it sees summer!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, that is pretty heavy thinking for a man during March Madness. I like your chart though. It seems your time in a tech environment is paying off.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, that is pretty heavy thinking for a man during March Madness. I like your chart though. It seems your time in a tech environment is paying off.

JB - given my teams (outside of my adopted Tigers, who I sadly didn't pick past the Elite are now all dead, well... there's more time for free-thinking.

 

[Dave Bourgeois]

I like it so far and hope that Jay Flemma sees this as he rates courses on site with $$s and walking in mind.  I'm interested to read his take.