[Rick Emerson]

I just got back from my first trip with a specific intent of seeing some of the worlds best golf courses. In Melbourne Australia I had the opportunity to play Royal Melbourne East and West, Kingston Heath, Victoria, and Metropolitan. I then went to Tasmania and Played Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm. I am thinking through what courses I enjoyed most and I keep coming back to which courses I thought were the most fun to play and what courses had the most holes that stand out in my mind. With that in mind my ranking would be Royal Melbourne West, Barnbougle Dunes, Victoria, Kingston Heath, Lost Farm, Royal Melbourne East, and Metropolitan. Granted, they were all wonderful, and I would love to play any of them again whenever I had the chance. There are two things that stand out to me.
1. I liked Victoria better than Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne East and both are ranked higher by most aficionados. I also played Victoria more than any of the other golf courses so maybe I understood it better and that influenced my decision.
2. In my mind Royal Melbourne West and Barnbougle are spectacular. The only course that is in the same league for me in my limited experience is Pinehurst #2. They were in another league compared to all the other courses I played on my trip. The problem is most people would say that Royal Melbourne West is one of the greatest courses ever and Barnbougle, while exceptional, is not in the same league. However, if I had no idea of the history of RMW and that it was designed by the greatest golf architect to ever live, I would have a hard time choosing which I like better. I have been going back and forth in my brain for 4 days now and often cannot decide which of the two I like better.
Am I crazy, What is it about RMW that gives it a perfect 10 when Barnbougle will probably get 8's and 9's if I was making a guess about what the confidential guide will say when it comes out. I will also say that on both courses I shot pretty much the same score. I shot -1 on both front 9's and then had a few blowup holes on the back that left me with a final score close to my 5 handicap.
Interested in hearing the thoughts of those with more architecture cred than myself.   

[Sean_A]

Not that I have any cred


1. I try to weed out all the bits and bobs except for the course.


2. I try to separate out what I like from that which is well executed regardless of my tastes.


3. I try to determine what the archie was trying to accomplish in terms of style and adjust my opinion.


4. I try to ignore conditioning unless a course is exceptional either way or if I have seen the course enough times in varying seasons. 


5. I group courses in terms of quality...meaning there may be any number of courses bunched together that are of a roughly equal quality.


Finally....the most important courses are those which I consider my favourites     I don't really care how good a course is once its good enough to keep me entertained.


Ciao

[Niall C]

..one after the other.


Thank you Chic Murray


Sean


Is that how you are supposed to do it for the magazine ?


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Chic Murray! Now there's a name from the past!





atb

[Sven Nilsen]

By height.

[BCrosby]

By color.

[Kalen Braley]

Alphabettically....by Course Designer...

[cary lichtenstein]

By eye candy, enjoyment, ability to score rather than extreme difficulty, and the desire to go back and play it over and over again...same way I rate women

[David_Tepper]

Rick E. -

You might want to get a copy of the current issue (Winter, 2016) of LINKS Magazine, as it addresses some of the questions you raise.

There are articles titled "What Make A Course Great?," "How To Rate Your Home Course" (written by Tom Doak) and "Defiantly Indefinable" (by George Peper).

DT

[Chris Mavros]

I think for me it ultimately boils down to how much I enjoyed the design of the course.  Score doesn't really factor in, but I ask myself whether I enjoyed myself, whether the design challenged me, whether it made me think and was it able to hold my interest.  Sure there are subsets to determining how much enjoyment I derived, but it's the ultimate factor in deciding whether I like a course better or worse than others. 

[Greg Gilson]

Rick, much like several of the previous posters, the first point for me is that I rate "my favorite" courses rather than trying to come up with some sort of "best". Its a small point but helps me avoid some arguments.

I also try not to get too "numeric". That said, when I find that I need to rank one course versus another, here is the scale I have come up with for my own purposes:

My Criteria:

   -based on “the experience” I had on my round(s) at each course
   -“Experience” =
      -50% - Quality of the course architecture (especially variety, challenge & quirk)
      -25% - Quality of atmosphere, history, conditions, clubhouse
      -25% - How much fun I had, desire to return, “if I had 1 last round”

[Rick Emerson]

Much of the Criteria mentioned was helpful (besides those of the peanut gallery). What about my second question? Am I horribly off base to say that I like Barnbougle Dunes as much as Royal Melbourne West?

[AJ_Foote]

Rick,


You're not off base at all.


But you are comparing apples with oranges.


The scale and grandeur of RMW versus the drama in the dunes that is BD.


They're both brilliant.


Ask yourself this: if you were given one more round in your life on either RMW or BD, with all other things i.e. weather, company etc being equal, what would you play?


That's your favourite, whatever the rankings say.


And that's cool.


Andrew

[Jason Thurman]

Much of the Criteria mentioned was helpful (besides those of the peanut gallery). What about my second question? Am I horribly off base to say that I like Barnbougle Dunes as much as Royal Melbourne West?

Yes. Your personal tastes are incorrect.

[Charlie_Bell]

1) Fun.
2) Beauty.


Both are vague, so I'll elaborate.  For Fun, I like quirk, contour, and topography changes.  On relatively flat terrain, I want fairways to have some rumple or movement, greens to have personality, and the overall course to have variety.  I want to be able to remember each hole.  (I've never played Firestone, but I suspect it would bore me silly.  But this is pure speculation.) 


For Beauty, I am equally happy with beautiful surroundings or lovely aesthetics within the course itself -- well-framed views from the tee or well-framed greens as you approach. "Framing" can be accomplished by bunkers, mounds, the general roll of the fairway, trees (preferably in moderation) or even by distant hills, and it doesn't need to be symmetrical.  I like good, strong visuals -- landmarks large and small that lead the eye towards the destination, even if there's deception involved. 


My home course is a 9-hole Raynor that is rich in all of these features.  I've been lucky enough to play a few world class courses, and among them my favorites are Cabot Links, Royal Dornoch, Sleepy Hollow, and Prestwick.  Each of them occupies a different place in my two dimensional Fun-Beauty grid.  Prestwick wins for Fun, Sleepy Hollow for Beauty, but Cabot and RDGC probably take the prize for the best combination.  My sample size, however, is small, and may remain so.

[Alan Ritchie]

nothing wrong about your opinions, they are pretty much the same as mine! Barnbougle is my favourite course on the planet ( that I have played so far). unfortunately my only experience of rmw was 7 years ago when the conditioning was poor due to drought and I knew nothing about GCA! that's why I need to return as a more educated visitor.

[Sean Ogle]

I agree with some others that my list of favorite courses is drastically different than my list of best courses.


For me my favorite courses generally come down to one thing: fun.


How much did I enjoy playing the course?


I hesitate to post this list at all here, as I know the purists and true students of architecture are going to hammer me for it. But a couple months ago I made my list of my 50 favorite courses that I've played.


If this were a list of which ones I thought were the best or architecturally superior, it would be vastly different.


http://breakingeighty.com/top-50


Awesome lineup you had down in Australia, hope to make it down there soon myself!

[Benjamin Litman]

I, for one, believe the distinction between "best" and "favorite" courses is contrived and unhelpful. To me, they are--and for everyone, should be--one and the same. When juxtaposed with the more subjective "favorite," "best" is code for "what people generally agree is great, even though I didn't like it." But if I don't like a course, then, by definition, it can't be among the best I've ever played. I would rank it accordingly no matter the ranking forum (i.e., personal or professional).


That so many of the same courses repeat at the top of professional rankings simply means that more people have enjoyed those courses than they have enjoyed other courses. Rankings of the "best" courses, in other words, are nothing more than amalgamations and averages of many individual rankings of people's "favorite" courses.

[Greg Gilson]

Benjamin, we probably have to agree to disagree.

"Favorite" can be anything  I want it to be. Noone can dispute my personal criteria or ratings for my most or least favorite courses.

"Best" (to me) suggests greater objectivity & means first having to agree on what the criteria are. Despite lots of discussion & beard pulling on forums such as this we are not really close to having consensus even on the criteria...let alone scoring courses against those criteria. I do agree that there is general consensus about the World's Top 50-70 Courses and they appear on everyone's list (and most "favorites' lists). We may argue the toss about the ranking order. It's the bottom 1/3 of the Top 100 and the top 1/3 of the Second 100 where there is real grounds for movement up & down. Of course there are also a few awful outliers (code for Oitavos Dunes, Nine Bridges and a few others) that should not be on any respectable World Top 100 list....personal grievance of mine!

Personally, I have zero trouble including "non great" courses amongst my "favorites" (courses like Tobacco Road, National (Old) +++ in this category). Nor do I have any trouble excluding some "great by consensus" courses from my "favorites" (Medinah #3, Oakland Hills South+++).

Rick, if you prefer/like BD more than RMW....go for it. Some guys prefer blondes and some prefer redheads. Both BD & RMW are beautiful women. BD is an amazing, wild redhead, that's for sure.

[Sean_A]

I, for one, believe the distinction between "best" and "favorite" courses is contrived and unhelpful. To me, they are--and for everyone, should be--one and the same. When juxtaposed with the more subjective "favorite," "best" is code for "what people generally agree is great, even though I didn't like it." But if I don't like a course, then, by definition, it can't be among the best I've ever played. I would rank it accordingly no matter the ranking forum (i.e., personal or professional).

I couldn't disagree more.  To me, part of what makes a course great is because there are at least some people who support the concept...meaning my opinion is one of many which creates any consensus.  Its hard to claim a course is great if nobody concurs with me.  If I am simply choosing my favourites I wouldn't (and I don't) bother with any of the three criteria below...not to mention cost.  I simply go completely by what I like to experience and don't give a hang about other considerations such as difficulty (or ability to challenge the best players)...you will not see a lot of championship courses listed among my favourites.  The two, best and favourite, may coincide, but they often do not...hence my lists are vastly different.  I often am much more interested in people's favourites instead of best because I get a better feel for people and I have a much higher probability of finding courses which may interest me. 


1. I try to weed out all the bits and bobs except for the course.
2. I try to separate out what I like from that which is well executed regardless of my tastes.
3. I try to determine what the archie was trying to accomplish in terms of style and adjust my opinion.

Niall

For mag rating we have to stick to the criteria as listed. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

On the other hand, I tend to agree with Benjamin here. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but as a follow-up to his post I'd ask this question:

If you've played a golf course that has provided you with so much of what (you believe) a golf course should provide that you deem it a "favourite", by what criteria (personal or collective) would you not also deem it "great"? 

And, on the off chance that you can successfully harbour within your mind both your personal criteria and a (differing) collective criteria, why in the world would you want to sacrifice the former in the name of the latter?   

[Ronald Montesano]

By height. Oh wait, that's how I measure myself.


I haven't played enough golf courses in the elite category to contrast them, but when I play a Merion or walk an NGLA, it's so obvious that it stands far above 99.9% of courses.


When I play a public-fee course, I ask myself if the non-GCA guys I know would enjoy the course, conditions notwithstanding. Conditions are rarely an issue for me, unless the super/crew does something miserable like soak the run-ups to greens to prevent the ground game from functioning. I ask myself if the GCA guys would find something laudatory about the strategy of the course.


I recently ranked the six Mike Strantz courses I've played (Caledonia, Tot Hill, Stonehouse, True Blue, Royal New Kent, Tobacco Road) for a guy, and put them in this order: TR, C, TB, RNK, THF, S.  The only one I've played more than once is Tobacco Road, but I still would have ranked it first after either playing. If asked to elaborate, I could. I won't here, but I'm glad that I can.


Enjoyment is first, followed closely by challenge and visuals (but not conditioning.) Since I enjoy photography, I love vistas and I love having to break out the wide-angle lens.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

If you've played a golf course that has provided you with so much of what (you believe) a golf course should provide that you deem it a "favourite", by what criteria (personal or collective) would you not also deem it "great"? 

Usually is comes down to major flaws. 

Take Perranporth in a contrary wind combined with rambunctious land for instance...no way can I say this represents great architecture.  But I still list the coure as a favourite because its a lovely spot and there are enough good holes no matter the wind to keep me taking notes.

Take Kington with no bunkers.  I like fewer bunkers as much as anybody, but well placed bunkers help any course to be more interesting.  Kington is still one my favourites, but the lack of bunkers and the simplicity of the greens will always mean the course falls short of great.  That said, I think Kington deserves to be comfortably in the GB&I top 100. 

Cavendish...its simply too short to be called a great course.  I love the course and its plenty hard enough for me, but great courses should better challenge the better players or offer something so unusual that difficulty is given a pass...enter North Berwick and TOC 

Ciao

[Greg Gilson]

Expanding upon Sean's point:

Tobacco Road. Personal favorite because of all the quirk, visual fireworks and the balls it took Strantz & developer to do it. However, I get that there are too many uncomfortable shots, too many crazy greens and too many funny bounces to be considered one of the world's best. Based on a few of the posts on GCA about this course it seems pretty split 50:50...so certainly no consensus there

National (Old). A little like TR above. Probably my favorite 4 hours in golf anywhere. I usually play it with a sense of humor & am fortunate to be able to take a pass whenever the weather is too challenging. As much as I love it there are a couple of shots (second shot on 3!!) that , while necessary for the routing of the course, are too creepy for the course to belong on a World Top 100 (shows what the GD people know, right?).

CONVERSELY:

Oakland Hills South & Medinah #3. Is there a World Top 100 list in the last 30 years where these 2 have not been in the top half? Many in this forum & those doing the ratings (obviously knowledgeable folks) are sure they are in the Top 50 best courses in the world. Both clubs were amazing & the history was palpable. However, the courses represent everything I dislike in GCA. Medinah...long, narrow par 4's where 1 shot only (long & straight) is required over & over & over again. The only holes I can remember were the par 3's and that's because they were even more boring than the 4's & 5's. Oakland Hills. At least it was in spectacularly good shape. Did I mention that these 2 are not on my "favorites" list?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Is the course interesting? Does it keep my attention? Are the greens and surrounds fascinating? Mostly I don't want to be bored. There are so many boring courses. If it keeps my attention I am happy to be there. I want it to test me. That means I enjoy difficult courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()