[Phil Benedict]

Chip Gaskins' thread on Shinnecock got me wondering about this.  In comparing say, Shinnecock to Pine Valley, is is better to focus on broad categories - routing, green complexes, shot-making variety - or do something more granular like a hole-by-hole comparison. I am inclined to favor the granular approach since it weeds out the weak holes, if any, and draws attention to the great holes as well.

[Phil_the_Author]

For me it is two things. First, when I walk off 18 was it as good an experience as I had hoped for? Second, and most important of all, did it inspire me?

I then compare my feelings from other courses...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

Play them blindfold   Its hard to compare a links course with itself if the wind comes up and weather closes in. I hate trying to compare because there are so many variables 

Melvyn

[Adam Clayman]

I am inclined to favor the granular approach since it weeds out the weak holes, if any, and draws attention to the great holes as well.

This seems to be a common method. I disagree with it because, afterall, you are evaluating the course, not the parts.

As Melvyn eludes, what you may consider a weak hole may not be with different conditions.

18 pluses on a scorecard doesn't always yield a great course. A great collection of holes, sure. But, not always a great course.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil - I suggest that one begin with a clear and firm conception of what constitutes greatness/excellence in a golf course, and then examine each individual golf course in relation to that imagined ideal in order to gain some insight into how those courses compare to eachother.  I think this is a sound method, given that it probably goes on unconsciously anyway....

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why would anyone want to compare PV to SH?

Hole by hole is way overrated.  Not without merit, Ran, great courses do have great holes but taken to conclusion the ultimate course is a best-of -- or a video game.

This post courtesy the Ganton Boosters Club.

[JC Jones]

I find that the best way to compare courses is to analyze their similarities (rather than their differences) so as not to contrast them.

You beat me to it.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

I generally start with three main areas ...

1). The land the course occupies


2). The routing the course uses (are all critical geographic areas of the property brought to the front and center)


3). The range and diversity of the holes and the shots required to play them.


The broad approach allows me to combine different courses from different locales in a far more consistent approach than the granular one you prefer. No doubt everyone does it differently. So be it.

[John Moore II]

I tend to look hole by hole and how I felt on the course as the round progressed. I don't compare individual holes, because that is a silly way to do it. I mean, doing it that way you could, potentially, find a course that has 10 superb/excellent holes being better than a course with 18 good/very good holes (with the 10 comparisons going favorably to the first course) even though when taken as a whole, the latter course may be far superior. As others have said, I look at topography and how the holes fit on the land, etc. But when comparing one course to another, I just basically go by 'feeling.'

[Carl Rogers]

You could spend your entire life on this thread...

The best criticism in any of the design fields is done by those individuals who honestly confront their own predispositions, recognize its limitations and strengths and find ways to rise above them and keep thinking, working and learning their entire lives.

Criticism as a morality play wears thin.

[Phil Benedict]

The theme of Chip's thread was that Shinnecock had supplanted PV as his favorite course; thus the question of how do you compare.  Favorite and best aren't necessarily the same thing.

[DMoriarty]

By height.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think there is a best way. For every 100 people with worthwhile opinions who go 60/40 for Shinnecock there is another group of 100 people with worthwhile opinions who go 60/40 for Pine Valley.

[John Moore II]

I don't think there is a best way. For every 100 people with worthwhile opinions who go 60/40 for Shinnecock there is another group of 100 people with worthwhile opinions who go 60/40 for Pine Valley.

Thats why I say I just go with how I feel when I walk off the course and after thinking about it for a little while. Kind of like the Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define what was obscene, but he knew it when he saw it. Thats me. I don't know exactly what makes a course great or better than the one down the street, I just know it when it happens. Methinks thats what happened to Chip, he knew what was better when he knew what was better.

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
I don't believe anyone who says that Shinnecock is better than Pine Valley and I don't believe anyone who says that Pine Valley is better than Shinnecock.

[John Moore II]

John,
I don't believe anyone who says that Shinnecock is better than Pine Valley and I don't believe anyone who says that Pine Valley is better than Shinnecock.

But why not? Its personal opinion. Of course Tom Doak rated both a 10 in the CG, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think one is better than the other. Its no different than me saying Pinehurst National is better than The Pit (two courses of different styles rated the same by Mr. Doak; the only comparison I could think of). Does that make his opinion wrong because he feels one is slightly better than the other? Its not like he said PV was a dump and Shinny was pure heaven on earth.

[Andy Troeger]

Not sure if this is what Jim meant with the PV/SH comparison...

I wouldn't necessarily believe anyone who said one was BETTER than the other, but I'd listen to someone who could explain on which of the two they would like to play their next round and why.

Personally the only real thing that matters is that totally subjective measure of "which one would I rather play tomorrow." There are courses that I will readily admit aren't great marvels, but that I really enjoy playing. That counts a lot for me.

[Sean_A]

I have no idea if this is best, but here is what I do.

1. The quality of the land and how it moves.
2. The quality of the turf including drainage.
3, Quality of green sites - good mix of subtlety and in your face.
4. How is the wind used.
5. Are hazards (including natural or man-made landforms) balanced and varied.  How are they used.  Are they thought provoking.
6. Routing, but more in terms of the rhythm and flow.  Often times on windy sites this is critical.  

Most other criteria just falls into place based on above, my thoughts may slide a penny right or left depending if elements strike me as unique or over-used, or perhaps if I think a course can be played by most anybody, or if I think a course relies on yardage too much to create challenge etc. etc. etc.

Then I go back and compare to Ballybunion (I haven't seen anything better).  Much of the time I am disappointed by the land, turf or drainage.  I also find that the use of hazards is often far too predictable and heavily leaning toward sand.  I probably place more emphasis on this elements than most do and I hope this is evident when folks read my mini reviews.

Nothing much changes for me in deciding favourite courses except I will add other criteria such as cost, location, beauty, history, clubhouse and maybe a few others elements.  In truth, I am much more interested in this sort of rating because of the concept of renting a club for the day which I whole heartily believe in.  I want my day to be very fine from the time I enter the gates til the time I exit the gates.  The golf course, while the major attraction, is still only about 60% of what makes for a great day.  

Ciao

[Matt_Cohn]

Start with the "How would you apportion 10 rounds?" question. Then analyze the answer.

[Brian Phillips]

The best way to compare courses is just DON'T...

Why bother?  Analyse each course on it's own but why compare?

[Rich Goodale]

Brian

Surely you haven't forgoten, "compare and contrast".....?

Amongst the classes I attended at University were seminars on "Browning and Tennyson" and "Swift and Pope."  In both we spent time studying each's work, the cultural context of their time and then comparing and contrasting both how they dealt with that context and the individuality of their styles.  We never even thought of "ranking" either pair.  How stupid would it be to give "My Last Duchess" a "doak" 10, but "The Lotus Eaters" a 9?  Or vice versa?  Or even more stupid ranking "The Rape of the Lock" vs. "In Memoriam," or "A Tale of a Tub" to "Pippa Passes?"

I personaly think it is a great exercise to compare, say, Pacific Dunes and Lahinch, and to have a heated discussion on this exercise (ideally in person and with beverages involved), but when you get to the point of which is "best," you must defuse that point to one of "which do you like best, and why?"  It is much more interesting and enlightening to follow that latter thread.  Unfortunately, on this website we almost always take the simpler tack of "point-counterpoint," and not only on the courses themselves, but also on the relatively trivial issue as to who may or may not have "designed" them........

Great seeing you this week.

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

What is it that my wife keeps reminding me, oh yes it’s not size that matters it’s what you do with it. Yet again, our better halves seem to come up with words of real wisdom.

It’s what we do with each and every course that matters, our comparison is in real terms totally worthless. What are we comparing them with, the only thing I believe is a fun/enjoyment scale. However, that to would be as useless as any other method. As with sex, some are 5 second wonders, some minutes and some, well mention no names, but we just guarantee total satisfaction.

Perhaps the more important question, the real & only point to all this rubbish about comparison boils down to, did it make the ground shake for you, rock your boat , or have some fun and enjoyed the experience which I would like to repeat.

We continue to seek to compare the incomparable.

Who among us would dare to compare our wives, let alone against a list of another 100 women? Come on Guys, stop playing with your minds (electronic toys) and get with the real program.

Melvyn   

[Adam Clayman]

Mr. Kennedy's comment was in jest. Baiting anyone who would dare invite him to find out for himself. Right Jim?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Yes Mr. Clayman, it was in jest, although I had not thought of the potential for invites. 

Rich's post pretty well sums up my feelings.

[Brian Phillips]

Amongst the classes I attended at University were seminars on "Browning and Tennyson" and "Swift and Pope." 

Sorry, what century was that you attended University.....

Great seeing you too.  Graeme took more money off me yesterday as well....Larry was also fleeced by both of us...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()