[Ted Sturges]

A course assessment criteria that I have learned from Ran is to ask "where would you rather play" when comparing/assessing/ranking courses.  I know Golf Digest has all these categories they use (resistance to scoring, shot values, memorability, etc.), but why not include "where would you rather play", or some metric for considering pure enjoyment of playing someplace when ranking the courses?  I remember taking Ran to Victoria National several years ago (hot topic this week with the other thread on Fazio and the fact that the course is on TV this week).  We finished 18 holes in the morning (neither of us broke 90...the course beat the sh$% out of us) and were sitting there having lunch with the member friends we played with.  Ran leans over to me and whispers "don't make me go back out there".  It was a joke, but...neither of us really wanted to go back out there.  I called an audible and we jumped in the car and drove to French Lick to play the Ross course in the afternoon.  Long story short...we had much more fun playing our afternoon round there.  I understand that nobody is going to rank the Ross course at French Lick above Victoria National...but how many people would have more fun playing there?  Fact is, there are some courses that just make you want to play golf...and some that you would choose not to go back out for a second round after lunch if you had the choice.  Why isn't the "where would you rather play" argument considered more in course rankings?  Isn't golf about having fun playing?

Here is a list of courses I have played that make me want to play golf.  If saying I'd "rather play there" is "it"....these courses have the "it factor" for me:

Cabot Links
Royal Dornoch
Royal Portrush
Yeamans Hall
NGLA
Fishers Island
Royal Liverpool
Mid Ocean Club
Yale
Ross Course at French Lick
Brora
Machrihanish
Holston Hills
Kingsley Club
Old Macdonald
Shoreacres
Camargo

(yea...I know, there are a bunch of Raynors on there...what can I say?...his courses are fun to play).

To the architects:

Please build more courses like the ones on the list above...golf is supposed to be fun!

TS

[Garland Bayley]

Interestingly only one course in your list from Bandon Dunes. Of course, if I were on any of the other three, and someone asked me where I would rather play, Old MacDonald would be the answer.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I would add Cruden Bay to the list as it is one of the "funnest" courses in the world.  Locally here in Toronto I would add Devil's Paintbrush.

[Mark McKeever]

In light of the "funnest" comment,  St. Georges GC out on LI should be mentioned as well.

Mark

[Brent Hutto]

Having been fortunate to play a round at Cypress Point Club, this criterion seems rather less useful for me than it might have been a few years ago before that particular trip.

[Richard Choi]

Which course I would rather play is pretty much how I grade every course I play. I cannot think of a better way to "rank" a course.

[Tony_Chapman]

Which course I would rather play is pretty much how I grade every course I play. I cannot think of a better way to "rank" a course.

This. It's why my great places are filled with places like Mid Pines, Southern Pines, Wild Horse, Sand Creek Station. Have I played tougher or higher ranked courses, yeah. But......

[Michael George]

Which course I would rather play is pretty much how I grade every course I play. I cannot think of a better way to "rank" a course.

I agree with Richard on this one.  I have not played French Lick Ross or Victoria National.  But if you enjoyed the Ross course more, shouldn't you rank it higher?  At least for me, I take into account many ranking factors, such as strategic, variety, aesthetics, conditioning, difficulty and the other factors, in determining how much I enjoyed a golf course.  But if a course is just a slog, I won't rank it as high as others.

For instance, I personally have a course like Ballyneal higher than Oakmont or Muirfield Village, despite the rankings being completely opposite.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Ted,

You can include me among those who would give great weight to "where would you rather play".

[SL_Solow]

It seems to me that unless your reaction as to which course you would rather play is simply visceral, the premise here identifies both the beginning and the end of your analysis.  However it leaves out all the imtermediate steps; to wit the "why".  It is not enough to say to architects, "build courses that I like to play".  In order to do so, they have to understand WHY you like them.  That is essentially the topic of all of our debates about design.  It is what George Thomas and AW Tillinghast and Wethered and Simpson and Behr and Doak and all the others wrote about in trying to understand how to design courses. They all were trying to figure out how to make courses that challenged players in such a way that they would want to continue to play them. Once an architect establishes his philosophy of what he wants to build then the technical skills come into play.  But unless you can tell the architect why you like a course then all you have done is direct him to study those you like to figure out for himself why.  Which is a little bit like what MacDonald did when he copied his best holes to create templates

[Jud_T]

Ted,

Love it!  The real question is why would you still rank Victoria above the Ross? (I've yet to play either).  Comes back to Nuzzo's Pretty, Challenging or Fun criteria.  Put me down in the Fun column...

[Bill Brightly]

Ted,

Your list looks pretty good to me, just wondered if you have played Royal County Down. That course made me want to race from 18 to the first tee, while Royal Portrush kicked the crap out of me. (Granted, I played Portrush in a howling wind.)

[Sean_A]

Ted

My take is slightly different because I could think a course is great and like it, but not be willing to stump up the green fee after a play or two.  Instead of asking where I would rather play I ask if a course is good enough.  Often times I can readily admit Course A is better and perhaps more fun, but not so much more than Course B to make that much difference.  There are way too many cool courses to wrapped up in having to play certain ones.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

A course assessment criteria that I have learned from Ran is to ask "where would you rather play" when comparing/assessing/ranking courses.  I know Golf Digest has all these categories they use (resistance to scoring, shot values, memorability, etc.), but why not include "where would you rather play", or some metric for considering pure enjoyment of playing someplace when ranking the courses?  I remember taking Ran to Victoria National several years ago (hot topic this week with the other thread on Fazio and the fact that the course is on TV this week).  We finished 18 holes in the morning (neither of us broke 90...the course beat the sh$% out of us) and were sitting there having lunch with the member friends we played with.  Ran leans over to me and whispers "don't make me go back out there".  It was a joke, but...neither of us really wanted to go back out there.  I called an audible and we jumped in the car and drove to French Lick to play the Ross course in the afternoon.  Long story short...we had much more fun playing our afternoon round there.  I understand that nobody is going to rank the Ross course at French Lick above Victoria National...but how many people would have more fun playing there?  Fact is, there are some courses that just make you want to play golf...and some that you would choose not to go back out for a second round after lunch if you had the choice.  Why isn't the "where would you rather play" argument considered more in course rankings?  Isn't golf about having fun playing?

Great post.

I guess my only question would be...
Why wouldn't you rate The Ross course at French Lick higher?

With 5-6 courses in my area ranked in the top 100,two unranked courses(one by a quite comfortable margin )  in my area win the where would you rather play argument every time, and the more I play them the more I see their genius, and want to ruah back to tee #1.

I think people are afraid to admit not liking certain courses, and loving certain others .

I do think great courses allow you to play the COURSE and the challenges/fun within it, rather than playing to keep it ON the course

[RJ_Daley]

I'd throw in another criteria of 'which course would you rather play' --- adding under what circumstances.  Also, what is your skill level relative to which course you'd rather play.  Those variables can explain the reason a course like Whistling Straits or Harbor Town, or Sand Hills or Shinnecock are better than another, as an individual 'druther'.  What you'd rather do may not really have much relavance to the actual golf design quality of the venue, unless we know what the context of playing a particular course may be.

I can only go by what folks say and have opined about VN, and seeing it on TV last year and this year.  Hell no, I'd rather NOT play it contrasted alongside a more open, forgiving, fun to get around on a great walk and keep it in play reasonably consistent course that is in reasonably good condition..  That is because I'm not very good at playing high level, high skill competitive golf.  I- as a personal matter, don't want to have to be beaten to a pulp, loose two sleeves of balls, not able to enjoy a great walk, and have to pay an arm and a leg to play some architorture presentation of extreme rough and overly bunkered mishmash.  That doesn't mean the tough course isn't far greater of an architectural effort (and a fair one) for the highly skilled or to challenge in a serious competitive event, lending credibility to the proposition that it is in deed a great architectural effort.  

When a course is intense, and every hole has great merit in sense of strategy, aesthetics, placement along the routing in terms of direction and pace of par, and generally fair, along with good maintenance meld presentation, yet you can't break 100 due to length and slopes and hazards that take more skill than you have to avoid or extracate, it may still be a great course.  It just isn't for you.   You are entitled to say 'you'd rather play another', maybe less intense, some breather holes, some open space not strewn with hazards and ball eating rough, etc.  But, you can't say  the easier or less intense course is better necessarily from a GCA standpoint.

[Sean_A]

A course assessment criteria that I have learned from Ran is to ask "where would you rather play" when comparing/assessing/ranking courses.  I know Golf Digest has all these categories they use (resistance to scoring, shot values, memorability, etc.), but why not include "where would you rather play", or some metric for considering pure enjoyment of playing someplace when ranking the courses?  I remember taking Ran to Victoria National several years ago (hot topic this week with the other thread on Fazio and the fact that the course is on TV this week).  We finished 18 holes in the morning (neither of us broke 90...the course beat the sh$% out of us) and were sitting there having lunch with the member friends we played with.  Ran leans over to me and whispers "don't make me go back out there".  It was a joke, but...neither of us really wanted to go back out there.  I called an audible and we jumped in the car and drove to French Lick to play the Ross course in the afternoon.  Long story short...we had much more fun playing our afternoon round there.  I understand that nobody is going to rank the Ross course at French Lick above Victoria National...but how many people would have more fun playing there?  Fact is, there are some courses that just make you want to play golf...and some that you would choose not to go back out for a second round after lunch if you had the choice.  Why isn't the "where would you rather play" argument considered more in course rankings?  Isn't golf about having fun playing?

Great post.

I guess my only question would be...
Why wouldn't you rate The Ross course at French Lick higher?

With 5-6 courses in my area ranked in the top 100,two unranked courses(one by a quite comfortable margin )  in my area win the where would you rather play argument every time, and the more I play them the more I see their genius, and want to ruah back to tee #1.

I think people are afraid to admit not liking certain courses, and loving certain others .

I do think great courses allow you to play the COURSE and the challenges/fun within it, rather than playing to keep it ON the course

I still find it odd that because one thinks a course is more fun for him to play that it is automatically better than another course which isn't as much fun to play.  If one is going to go through the routine of trying to figure which courses are better and why, surely there are more criteria than "more funner".  I don't see any inconsistency in stating Course A is more fun than Course B, but Course B is better.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Sean and RJ, I'll bite.

Why can't the best player be identified at a course where a poor golfer can still enjoy the day?
Augusta National or even NGLA being the poster child
A well designed course could challenge precision via placement and opening of angles, as opposed to hit it here or you lose the ball.

If the course is only fun or playable for 2% or so of the low single digit golf population , there's no way for me to say that's good architecture.

Ironic though, Sean and I like the same courses, he just has the ability to rate "unfun" courses without prejudice
There are of course more criteria than "more funner", but the word fun is subjective anyway and means different things to different people.
Plenty of hackers thought the torture of the old TPC was fun.

By the way, I'm watching VN right now.
Hopefully it's the distortion of TV lenses, but it looks really hard, and I can see why the "don't make me go back out there" joke was made.

[Mark Saltzman]

I think Pinehurst #2 and Dormie fit this discussion well.

Where would I rather play given one round in the Pinehurst area?  Pinehurst #2.  It's one of the best golf courses I've seen.

Where would I rather play if I had to play 5 rounds at one course in the Pinehurst area?  Dormie.  It's just more fun.  I'd be worn out if I played Pinehurst #2 for 5 consecutive rounds.

Jeff: I haven't watched any of this week's coverage, but Victoria National is a golf course full of thrilling holes.  I'd make the effort to get down there.

[David Harshbarger]

In light of the "funnest" comment,  St. Georges GC out on LI should be mentioned as well.

Mark

Absolutely fun start to finish. They don't make them like this, they just don't.

[Jason Thurman]

I think Pinehurst #2 and Dormie fit this discussion well.

Where would I rather play given one round in the Pinehurst area?  Pinehurst #2.  It's one of the best golf courses I've seen.

Where would I rather play if I had to play 5 rounds at one course in the Pinehurst area?  Dormie.  It's just more fun.  I'd be worn out if I played Pinehurst #2 for 5 consecutive rounds.

That's just crazy to me. I thought Dormie was a total slog. #2 was tough, but a course I'd love to play every day.

That's the problem with evaluating exclusively on "which would you rather play?" It's totally subjective. If we're evaluating great architecture, we should take it into account for sure. But we should also take into account the reasons why we'd rather play one course vs another, and the qualities that make courses enjoyable for all as opposed to just for ourselves, along with the sporting qualities that make one course a better test than another.

I compare it to my job. I'm a physician trainer and coach. My presentation skills are as sharp as it gets. I'm an expert in adult learning theory and principles of effective content delivery. I know that when I conduct a session with another trainer, we'll both have learners who indicate they preferred us over the other. It's not my goal to be everyone's favorite. My goal, instead, is to appeal to and reach the largest group possible. Regardless of whether I'm yoru favorite or not, I know that if I use the techniques I've refined, 98% of the room will indicate that they'd "look forward to" another session with me on their evaluations when I finish. Most of the techniques I use work on a subconcious level. They're research-based tactics that the average learner doesn't even know to be something they prefer in a presenter. But the research and results both show that they do.

In my experience, great courses work the same way. They appeal to lots and lots of people, even if it's hard to define why. I know a lot of high handicappers who have played Victoria National. They were totally overmatched, but they also all tell me that they loved it. There's something about it that appeals to the people who play it, even if they don't feel like doing a 36 hole day there. I hope to see it for myself soon and get a better understanding of why it appeals to so many people in spite of its difficulty.

[Bill Vogeney]

Well, I just played Shoreacres on Tuesday, and it was a blast.  Generous driving areas, but nice use of bunkering to pinch the fairways. Greens are big, and require you to be on the  correct part of the green. Poorly struck iron shots will cause problems, at times BIG problems, to even the most accomplished of players.

I have not played the rest of the courses on your list, but I would add Prairie Dunes. It is tough, a challenge, but fair if you commit yourself to every shot.

[Pete Blaisdell]

Ted

  You bring up a great point and I agree 100%.

  I can't think of a better example than Winged Foot East & West. Of course, the West has all that history dripping from those massive trees and monster par 4's but I would rather play and enjoy a round on the East. Much more enjoyable for me. I play tees that measure out 6000-6500 and the West just beats me up. The historical shine wears a bit thin after 5 straight bogeys.

  I play this game for enjoyment and time with good people who don't take it too seriously.

  Bay Hill is another course that kills me. A round at the Country Club is an honor. I actually shot the best round of my life twenty years ago posting a 70 on the Composite Course but now , give me a day at Myopia, Essex, Winchester or Brae Burn. Much more fun for me as a player with diminished skills. Forward tees on a beautiful fall day at Brae Burn is one to remember.

  Sometimes we forget to enjoy what's obvious and let let our egos and bucket lists get in the way.

  Great thread--Would like hear more opinions. Maybe one of our GCA raters might pass this on to the powers that are.

[Terry Lavin]

Well, I just played Shoreacres on Tuesday, and it was a blast.  Generous driving areas, but nice use of bunkering to pinch the fairways. Greens are big, and require you to be on the  correct part of the green. Poorly struck iron shots will cause problems, at times BIG problems, to even the most accomplished of players.

I have not played the rest of the courses on your list, but I would add Prairie Dunes. It is tough, a challenge, but fair if you commit yourself to every shot.

I just love PD, but there is potential peril on almost every shot. I find it very demanding and very rewarding if you can hit the ball straight. The greens are world-class and the vibe of the place is pitch perfect. Shoreacres, on the other hand, is much less demanding. There are only four or five super demanding tee shots and just a few perilous shots into greens. The main defense is found on the greens which turn demonic when they get to 11 or higher. That hardly ever happens but it proves that the course still has teeth. So where would I "rather" play?  I suppose Shoreacres would be easier on the psyche, but PD better stirs the soul. Both are in my top 20.

[Paul Gray]

I think Pinehurst #2 and Dormie fit this discussion well.

Where would I rather play given one round in the Pinehurst area?  Pinehurst #2.  It's one of the best golf courses I've seen.

Where would I rather play if I had to play 5 rounds at one course in the Pinehurst area?  Dormie.  It's just more fun.  I'd be worn out if I played Pinehurst #2 for 5 consecutive rounds.

That's just crazy to me. I thought Dormie was a total slog. #2 was tough, but a course I'd love to play every day.

That's the problem with evaluating exclusively on "which would you rather play?" It's totally subjective. If we're evaluating great architecture, we should take it into account for sure. But we should also take into account the reasons why we'd rather play one course vs another, and the qualities that make courses enjoyable for all as opposed to just for ourselves, along with the sporting qualities that make one course a better test than another.

I compare it to my job. I'm a physician trainer and coach. My presentation skills are as sharp as it gets. I'm an expert in adult learning theory and principles of effective content delivery. I know that when I conduct a session with another trainer, we'll both have learners who indicate they preferred us over the other. It's not my goal to be everyone's favorite. My goal, instead, is to appeal to and reach the largest group possible. Regardless of whether I'm yoru favorite or not, I know that if I use the techniques I've refined, 98% of the room will indicate that they'd "look forward to" another session with me on their evaluations when I finish. Most of the techniques I use work on a subconcious level. They're research-based tactics that the average learner doesn't even know to be something they prefer in a presenter. But the research and results both show that they do.

In my experience, great courses work the same way. They appeal to lots and lots of people, even if it's hard to define why. I know a lot of high handicappers who have played Victoria National. They were totally overmatched, but they also all tell me that they loved it. There's something about it that appeals to the people who play it, even if they don't feel like doing a 36 hole day there. I hope to see it for myself soon and get a better understanding of why it appeals to so many people in spite of its difficulty.

A truly excellent post Jud but a potential paradox occurs to me which applies equally to the argument that 'fun' is a key, measurable criteria....

Should the evaluation of good architecture really be depended on the whims or fashions of the time?

Let me explain. If you suddenly find, within your field of work, that your tried and tested methods become less successful, it would be reasonable to conclude that those methods are, as dictated by their objective, no longer as good as they once were, despite them not having actually changed. But can the same be said of a golf course? If a particular style of course becomes unfashionable and leads to those subjective reviewers regarding it less favourably, has it really got worse? Surely not. Conversely, if firm and fast continues to steadily experience some sort of renaissance, does a course exploiting those conditions, whilst not actually changing one bit from day to day, actually improve whilst standing still?

[Marc Huther]

I think it is a great idea! When I rank the courses I have played I tend lean more towards always asking myself would I really rather play this course over that course after I have cycled thru the more popular and common parameters for ranking.  I enjoy a good challenge and great architecture and play the Ross/Hill Course in French Lick a handful of time every year and I completely agree with your comparison of the two courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()