Why don't we consider using CB MacDonald's rating system?

[Connor Dougherty]

I just got done reading Scotland's Gift. I thoroughly enjoyed it and suggested my dad read it solely for the all of the golfing history in it (the architecture stuff is interesting to him, but he wouldn't seek out books on the subject  )

I actually found one of the most interesting passages to be a letter that CB MacDonald had penned for an article in a magazine called Outing.

I have tried to enumerate all the essential features of a perfect golf course in accordance with the enlightened criticism of today, and to give each of these essential characteristics a value, the sum total of which would be 100, or perfection. Following is the result:

1. Course (a) Nature of the soil (b) Perfection in undulation and hillocks         Total: 2. Putting-Greens (a) Quality of turf (b) Nature of undulation well placed (c) Variety         Total: 3. Bunkers and other hazards (a) Nature, size, and variety (b) Proper Placing         Total: 4. Length of Hole (a) Best length of holes (b) Variety and arrangement of length         Total: 5. Quality of turf of fair green 6. Width of fair green of the course 45 to 60 yards 7. Nature of teeing grounds and proximity to putting greens Total

23 22     45 10 5 3     18 4 9     13 8 5     13      6      3      2      100

He goes on to explain exactly what entails each of these subjects (and I would encourage everyone who has a copy of the book to read the rest of that passage), but I couldn't help but wonder if this would be a good/better form of rating golf courses. It's a very strict form for rating but it seems to cover a lot of the necessary bases when rating a golf course (although it does put quite a bias in favor of golf courses built on sandy soil, given that almost a 1/4 of the points are based on the nature of the soil). I thought I would submit this idea to the treehouse to get everyone's thoughts on it.

[Rich Goodale]

Great find, Connor.  Very interesting to learn that CB was a closet nerd seemingly sympathetic to the Cranean Sphere of Golf Course Architecture Criticism.

Vis a vis the system itself, I think it has several flaws, but this is to be expected, given that we are looking at them from a 21st century perspective (at least most of are....).  My gut feel vis a vis the specifics in relation to GCA quality is:

1. Course.

--Nature of the soil (13%--this can be remedied these days through technology and huge amounts of capital)
--Perfection in undulation etc. (0%--perfection is impossible)
--Nature of the natural undulations (16%)

2.  Putting green

--Quality of turf (5%--this is very important but that is a maintenance rather than arhitectural issue)
--Nature of undulation well placed (1%--if you have good soil and good natural undulations you don't place things, you find them)
--Variety (10%--this is the spice of life, is it not?)

3.  Bunkers and other Hazards

--Nature, size and variety (0%--I don't know what he was trying to say, but he probably didn't know either)
--Proper placing (20%-this is the essence of GCA, IMHO)

4.  Length of hole

--best lengths (0%--might have been important in 1915, but not now)
--variety and arrangement of length  (10%--see 2. above)

5.  Quality of turf fair green (0%--already covered under 1. above)

6.  Width of fairgreen at 45-60 yards (0%--irrelevant and simplistic)

6a. Complexity of fairgreen at 0-60 yards (15%--relevant and conducive to architecture/thought)

7.  Nature of teeing grounds and proximity to greens (10%--score given mostly to propinquity).

IMHOATM

Rich

[Mike Nuzzo]

I much prefer CB's weighting to that of the modern era
His focus was on the interest in the game - good draining soils create firm conditions - undulations create strategy
He liked variety just as much as bunkering - bunker sluts are everywhere in the modern era (this includes architects)
I used this table in my latest essay for Paul Daley's Golf Architecture Volume 6 - to be released soon
Cheers

[Garland Bayley]

I think Rich has clearly identified why one should hire CB MacDonald over a bunker fetishist.
I'm with you Mike. It's the ground, not the bunkers that should be of most concern. Had the land at Bandon been flat I doubt that Mike K would have bought it, and that Tom D would have wanted to build there. I suspect the routing would have looked like any other run of the mill par 36-36 course with two par fives and two par threes on each nine. In fact, the Bandon course least favored here has exactly that par arrangement.

[Peter Pallotta]

Connor - it's interesting: some people first create a system and then later try to actualize it/put it into practice; while others do the work first, based on talent and intuition and personal tastes and philosophies, and then later reflect back and try to formulate a system that will explain/justify that work. I think CBM is doing the latter here -- he designed the courses he wanted to design, and later tried to rationalize/support those courses via this system... a system that, like all systems/ranking tools, is meant to appear objective, buit actually isn't.

Peter  

[Jud_T]

Love the focus on the quality of the soil.  It'd be very interesting to see this methodology judiciously applied to the top 300 courses that comprise any of the ragazine lists that we routinely debate.  Also love the fact that it's only about the course and the playing surface, not about the views, history, tournaments held, clubhouse, amenities, exclusivity etc.

[Rich Goodale]

I love the soil too, guys, but these days you can make it (even if you aren't capable of finding it)--viz Kingsbarns, Shadow Creek, Castle Stuart, etc. etc.  What you can't make is a sense of geometry and human nature.....

[Sean_A]

I think Pietro is spot on.  Even so, it would have been interesting to listen to CBM fit this system to NGLA during a walk around.  I know I could never be nearly as precise as CBM suggests, but he does highlight the aspects of design, terrain and turf which make for great golf.  

It is interesting that CBM separates soil and turf.  For mine:

Course (I would include greens): soil, turf and undulations.  Jeepers, this could be as much as 75% of the design if we choose to look at it in a certain light.

Bunkers and Other Hazards: nature, placement and variety.  I could see this being maybe 33%.

Length of Holes: variety.  I don't think this is as important as hazards, but still, maybe 20%.

Playing Corridors & Walkability: I think this is just as important as variety - 20%.  

There you have it, the best course designs get 148% percent out of the land and archie.

Ciao

[Connor Dougherty]

I love the soil too, guys, but these days you can make it (even if you aren't capable of finding it)--viz Kingsbarns, Shadow Creek, Castle Stuart, etc. etc.  What you can't make is a sense of geometry and human nature.....

While this is somewhat true, Kingsbarns will always be a bit too soft to have an Open Championship or really be considered a links course in my eyes (Whistling Straits has a similar issue). I am unfamiliar with Castle Stuart's soil but my understanding was that most of the property was on sandy soil.

Rich also mentioned "if you have good natural soil and good natural undulations you don't place them, you find them." I think that's what CB Mac meant by that. You still have to place the golf course, and knowing how to place it given the natural undulations is half the battle.

And to answer Rich's question on the bunkers, here's what CB Mac had to say on the subject in the same letter:

When one comes to the quality of the bunkers and other hazards we pass into the realm of much dispute an argument. Primarily bunkers should be sand-bunkers purely, not composed of gravel, stones, or dirt. Whether this or that bunker is well placed, has caused more intensely heated arguments outside of the realms of religion, that has ever been my lot to listen to. However, one may rest assured when a controversy between 'cracks' is hotly contested throughout years as to whether this or that hazard is fair or properly placed, that it is the kind of hazard you want and that it has real merit. When there is a unanimous opinion that such and such a hazard is perfect, one usually finds it common-place. Fortunately, I know of no classic hole that has not its decriers...

To my mind, an ideal course should have at least six bold bunkers like the Alps at Prestwick, the Ninth at Brancaster, Sahara or Maiden at Sandwich (I only approve of the maiden as to bunkering, not a hole) at Sandwich, and the Sixteenth at Littleton. Such bold bunkers should be at the end of a two-shot hole or a very long carry from the tee.

Further, I believe the course would be improved by opening the fair green to one side or the other, giving short or timid players and opportunity to play around the hazard if so desired, but, of course, properly penalized by loss of distance for so playing.

Other than these bold bunkers I should have no hazards stretching directly across the course...

A burn or brook is a most excellent hazard and is utilized to the greatest advantage at Prestwick and Leven.

As to side hazards other than bunkers, no doubt bent rushes and whins are the best. Long grass entails too much searching for balls. However, in the case of long grass from the fair green proper to the full growth of the grass the cutting should be graduated, being shorter nearer the line to the hole.

I think that does more to justify his point total, but whether he has the right number is up for debate.

Would anyone be interested in seeing what a ranking system is like? I think we'd have to establish some guidelines on some of the more objective topics (i.e. how much of a point deduction is clay soil) I could certainly assemble it and then we could compare it to other rating guides.

[Jud_T]

Connor,

I'd be very interested in seeing such a list.

P.S.  Six bold bunkers?  How many courses meet that standard?

[Connor Dougherty]

Connor,

I'd be very interested in seeing such a list.

P.S.  Six bold bunkers?  How many courses meet that standard?

I had the same thought. Even at St. Andrews I can only think of three bold bunkers. His courses from what I have seen in pictures seem to be loaded with bold bunkers. But in his examples, I can't help but think that the courses he uses for examples don't have "at least six bold bunkers."

[Sean_A]

Connor,

I'd be very interested in seeing such a list.

P.S.  Six bold bunkers?  How many courses meet that standard?

I had the same thought. Even at St. Andrews I can only think of three bold bunkers. His courses from what I have seen in pictures seem to be loaded with bold bunkers. But in his examples, I can't help but think that the courses he uses for examples don't have "at least six bold bunkers."

What do you spose "bold" means?  Is that bold placement and/or visually bold?  For mine, I can think of more than three bunkers I would call bold at TOC. 

Cartgate
Coffins (set of three?) on #6
Shell on #7
Short Hole Bunker
Strath on #11
Stroke on #12
Hell on #14
Principal's Nose on #16
Road Bunker

Ciao

[Connor Dougherty]

Connor,

I'd be very interested in seeing such a list.

P.S.  Six bold bunkers?  How many courses meet that standard?

I had the same thought. Even at St. Andrews I can only think of three bold bunkers. His courses from what I have seen in pictures seem to be loaded with bold bunkers. But in his examples, I can't help but think that the courses he uses for examples don't have "at least six bold bunkers."

What do you spose "bold" means?  Is that bold placement and/or visually bold?  For mine, I can think of more than three bunkers I would call bold at TOC. 

Cartgate
Coffins (set of three?) on #6
Shell on #7
Short Hole Bunker
Strath on #11
Stroke on #12
Hell on #14
Principal's Nose on #16
Road Bunker

Ciao

Sean has reminded me of a few more. The more and more I spend time on this site the more I feel like a moron. 

The examples he gives seem to be of the size quality rather than the depth. That would knock out the Short hole bunker, Strath bunker, and the road bunker. The collections of bunkers lack the boldness in appearance but can certainly still be bold, but I didn't include them in my "three bunkers" list when applying it to CB Mac's definition of "bold." That leaves Cartgate, Shell, Stroke, and Hell bunker.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting CB Mac's definition.