Criteria for Evaluating Courses

[Frank Kim]

Off the top of my head this morning I came up with 10 criteria for evaluating golf courses.
1.  Strategy
2.  Fun factor
3.  Routing
4.  Memorability/ Uniqueness of holes
5.  Resistance to Scoring
6.  Walkability
7.  Conditioning
8.  Aesthetics
9.  History/Reputation of course
10. Affordability/Value
Did I miss any others and are they weighed equally or not?

[PCCraig]

[BCowan]

Frank,

I don't like 5 and 9.

My 2 cents

[Frank Kim]

I was trying to come up with 10 criteria and score each on a scale of ten to get a total score out of 100.  But that assumes each criteria is equal in value.

[jeffwarne]

Frank,

I don't like 5 and 9.

My 2 cents

agreed


now I'm really nervous

[Sam Morrow]

Frank, nothing wrong with any of that. Personally fun is all that matters to me but everyone is different

[Sean_A]

Frank


I can't seem to work by a set criterion such as yours.  I find that I have to go with what the course offers in terms of its strengths.  This means that the greens may be more important for one course than another....or the bunkering or the terrain or etc etc.  Each course has its basic character and if we are lucky, there are courses which offer multiple characteristics (which is what I really mean by variety of design).  I realize it does seem like flying by the seat of my troozers and that I will get it wrong sometimes, but I always felt that a set criteria only reinforces a generally formed opinion anyway. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Not sure how to allocate points but other criteria to ponder could include -


would I want/like to go back?
would I recommend it to a golfing friend?
would I play it in cold weather with a strong wind and heavy rain?


atb

[Jon Wiggett]

I too would drop 5 & 9 but would calculate the rest and then set it against the value for money to get an end figure. If I am paying $500 to play then I expect perfect conditioning but not if I am paying $5. IMO the cost needs to be your base to judge against.

Jon

[Kyle Harris]

Mine:

Did I have fun?

A: Yes
B: No

Will I return?

A: Yes
B: No

[Carl Rogers]

I am more in tune with Sean's approach. ... a more bottom up approach, with less fixed "objective" criteria.  I do think of price point.
What is this course trying to accomplish on its own terms?
Is there a good intersection of:
-playability/variety/appropriate challenge/fun for a range of players?
-price point/conditioning/service/pace of play?
-will I return?

[Tom_Doak]

Frank


I can't seem to work by a set criterion such as yours.  I find that I have to go with what the course offers in terms of its strengths.  This means that the greens may be more important for one course than another....or the bunkering or the terrain or etc etc.  Each course has its basic character and if we are lucky, there are courses which offer multiple characteristics (which is what I really mean by variety of design).  I realize it does seem like flying by the seat of my troozers and that I will get ot wrong sometimes, but I always felt that a set criteria only reinforces a generally formed opinion anyway. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Trying to come up with a set of criteria [and make all of the criteria equal!] leaves open the possibility of missing entirely what makes a particular course special.  The course we've just finished at Forest Dunes is a great example of something that's more than the sum of its parts.


However, two of the criteria Frank mentioned get zero consideration in the Doak scale:


The first is history.  History may mean a lot to some people, but it means nothing to others, so it's up to the people who value history to weigh that as an additional factor in deciding whether they want to see a course.  Even then, I don't understand why they would factor history into whether they enjoyed the course or not.


The second is affordability / value.  Don't get me wrong; the world is better off for having affordable courses.  But everyone's idea of value is different, and everyone makes those decisions based on their own circumstances.  If I rate one course a 5 and another a 7, that should be independent of MY idea of "value", so you can factor in your own thoughts on what's worth the green fee [and the travel expenses] based on an even comparison of the two courses' merits.


Conditioning is not as big a factor in my own ratings as several others, but it's in there ... not so much "the more, the better" but to the extent that it adds or detracts from the enjoyment of the game.

[Dave Doxey]

Coming up with a single ranking of all courses worldwide based on some magic criteria and scoring list is a fools errand.   


How do you review every course?  Who does the reviews?   


How does one answer the “Did I have fun?”, “Would I come back?”, or “Would I recommend to a friend?” questions for Augusta or Pine Valley when neither you nor your friend could ever get access?  How would you rate those two on “Affordability/Value”?  


Multiple lists are more useful.  The “best value” list and the “best architecture” lists would be very different.


I've never understood how any list purports to rank ALL courses worldwide, when it is impossible get even 1 reviewer to every one.


This is why Confidential Guide is popular. It simply rates a group of courses that the reviewers got access to and gives their opinions.  It would be interesting to have a number of different review teams issue Confidential Guide style ratings and then compare them.

[Sean_A]

The first is history.  History may mean a lot to some people, but it means nothing to others, so it's up to the people who value history to weigh that as an additional factor in deciding whether they want to see a course.  Even then, I don't understand why they would factor history into whether they enjoyed the course or not. The second is affordability / value.  Don't get me wrong; the world is better off for having affordable courses.  But everyone's idea of value is different, and everyone makes those decisions based on their own circumstances.  If I rate one course a 5 and another a 7, that should be independent of MY idea of "value", so you can factor in your own thoughts on what's worth the green fee [and the travel expenses] based on an even comparison of the two courses' merits.

I am not sure an even comparison between any two courses can exist because we all have our baggage and hangups.  I think the key is to be upfront about these aspects of one's opinion.  The two reasons you cite are why my favourite courses are very different from what I consider to be the best courses and why any listing best of courses will not have nearly the impact for me as a list of favourite courses.  I know many do not distinguish between favourite and best, but to each is own.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

I prefer to declare a course great before I see it and then form an opinion to confirm my assumptions.

[Adrian_Stiff]

5 9 and 10 would be out's for me too, though 5' Resistance to scoring' seems to play a big part of the magazine ratings and too easy is not good so there needs a balance for me. I also am not 100% sold 7 (conditioning) should play a factor, though it is hard not be impressed with good playing surfaces sometimes the great architecture is blind to some because of flawed conditioning or even weather conditions. So you get a bad read of a course in the rain and a raised ope with a shiney sun.


Missing, I think variety is important. That could be evaluated in a number of forms also. Changing direction of play, balance of yardages, number of straight holes, left leggers, right leggers, possibly the variety/balance of left side or right side trouble, and split even further looking at different green complexes versus samey ones. One way courses should be marked down a tad.

[Mark Bourgeois]

This is a great list. Personally, I would replace #10 with shot values and double weight it.


Looking forward to what you come up with.

[Frank Kim]

I think evaluating a golf course vs evaluating the golf experience at the course is different.  History, affordability does affect one's perception of the experience but I agree should not affect the evaluation of the course itself.  Such is the case with the Doak scale as Tom has mentioned earlier.


I think variety is a good criteria that I missed.  "I used all 14 clubs" sort of thing.  Another one is fairness of the course.  Fair test of golf sort of thing.


That being said,  I have revised my list.  I have dropped history and affordability (although I still think it affect our golf experience).  I have added variety and fairness and how likely to return or bring a friend.


1.  Strategy
2.  Fun Factor
3.  Routing
4.  Memorability/Uniqueness of holes
5.  Variety/Did I use all 14 clubs
6.  Walkability
7.  Conditioning
8.  Aesthetics
9.  Fairness
10. How likely am I to return or bring a friend - score it on a scale of 10 with 10 being extremely likely


Rate each category 1-10 and add up the score.  Best score is 100.  Weakness of this  method is of course that each criteria is not equal.  Some course may have one criteria that is so dominant that the other can be overlooked.

[Adam Clayman]

Conditioning needs to go on principle. It's the easiest thing to change and has the ring of entitlement to it. Golf is a sport where overcoming adversity is at it's core. If an occasional lie isn't challenged, on a micro level, you might as well be on the range.

 Variety, to me, has always meant what's on the ground. The look (textures and off site visuals), the undulation, the quirks of nature, etc.. It has almost nothing to with what clubs I hit, save for a ludicrous repetition of hole lengths, and direction of said holes.
 "Fairness" as a criteria is laughable. But so is trying to formulate a rating criteria, that provides equal weight to a subject with more intangibles than Turing Pharma has pills.

[Peter Pallotta]

I prefer to declare a course great before I see it and then form an opinion to confirm my assumptions.

Me too; but that's just because we're optimists who choose to see the world through rose coloured glasses.

Sean, Carl - those were very good posts; the evaluation of a course "on its own terms" is a very tidy and insightful way of putting it, and a new idea for me.

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Frank,

I don't like 5 and 9.

My 2 cents

agreed


now I'm really nervous

That makes three of us. Resistance to scoring is a criteria devised by sticks to suck the life out of the game for the masses. The really sad thing is that they have convinced far to many people that the challenge of dumping golf balls in to artificial ponds and the like is fun.

[Steve Lang]

   Get as quantitative as you want, with as many categories as you can stomach, but its the qualitative take-away thoughts that integrate all those rating values you seek individually, so your new number 10 is probably all you need to seek or expand upon its weighting...


I came, I saw, I rated, and in the end just decided its more fun playing and figuring out shots as I am otherwise employed and its only a game, and one only needs one ball to finish a round

[Bob Montle]

I had no problem with affordability.  If I can play both N. Berwick and Machrihanish for less than it would cost to play Kingsbarns, well hello Mac and MB. 

 For what my poor opinion on this topic is worth, I would put #2, #4 and #10 of the revised list in my top pier of categories.   Then 1,3,5,6 and 9 in the middle pier with less weight to #7 and #8

[Adrian_Stiff]

I had no problem with affordability.  If I can play both N. Berwick and Machrihanish for less than it would cost to play Kingsbarns, well hello Mac and MB. 

 For what my poor opinion on this topic is worth, I would put #2, #4 and #10 of the revised list in my top pier of categories.   Then 1,3,5,6 and 9 in the middle pier with less weight to #7 and #8

In many respects the fact that every person see's a different value or multiple in the 10 or 15 categories and some weigh them highly and for some they carry no weight is good, it just shows we all like different things. Perhaps some get to the same result but with different additions! There is no doubt in my mind that for the masses HISTORY plays a big part on the bucket list but logically if you are rating a golf course it should be on the courses strengths. Nothing else.

[Niall C]

Frank


Good on you for giving it a go !


While I tend to agree that a scoring system is rarely satisfactory given that sometimes a courses good point can far out weigh all the bad points while in other instances one negative can do a lot more damage to a course than another course which has several negatives. Not sure if that makes sense to you but it does to me.


Anyway, I think it is a worthwhile exercise listing criteria as it least it makes you question what's of value and what's perhaps not. Just don't take it too seriously or be too rigid about it is what I'd suggest.


Niall 


ps. I'd maybe swap "Quality of Challenge" for "Resistance to Scoring" in no. 5