How can beard-pullers actually evaluate a golf course?

[Garland Bayley]

Of course they can....to a certain degree.

A hack can evaluate the course from a hack's perspective.  I.E. How does the course play for the hack.

Now, is the hack qualified to speak for the architecture insofar as how the course plays for the expert.

No, not really.

Dugger,

How about the hack that happens to be the caddy for ohhh, sayyyy Nick Faldo?

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.

Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture".  Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.

[JESII]

Michael,

I would echo what Brent says...frankly I don't see how anyone can really evaluate a course for anyone else with any degree of certainty.

Sure, I could tell you some course is going to be brutal for one type of player, or that some other course is too easy...but can I really make an evaluation of a course through the eyes of two 8 handicappers that have completely different games? Can Tom Doak? I don't think so, but that's not the point..."greatest pleasure for the greatest number seems to be the point", right? Still doesn't mean it's a course I personally want to play.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.

Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture".  Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.

Tell them my special request is for Fanny.

[Eric Smith]

Garland:

Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.

Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture".  Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.

I think that's a great suggestion.  My college roommate used to caddy on tour and has always maintained that there are a lot of very good players caddying on tour.  I have a couple of friends out there now caddying for top 50 players, and they both can flat out play. One having won a state Am, a state Open, Big Break II, and the other, who I used to work with, was always capable of reeling off 3 or 4 birdies in a row on demand in staff skins games.  (His guy just won The players btw!)

[Don_Mahaffey]

There are shots my 70 year old mother hits (she plays every day at Sun City Palm Desert) that Jack Nicklaus can't hit. (OK maybe he can but I just don't think he tries those out while "testing" his design)

Where a good player with strength might fly a 9 iron, a weaker player might have to hit another type of shot. Why defer to the good player? One thing I promise is he ain't paying the bills.