I’ve been forced to give this quite a bit of thought over the years given my endless bouts on the D.L. (for you Brits, the means “Disabled List”). My conclusion is that sometimes playing a golf course can actually be a hindrance in putting together an accurate, thoughtful evaluation.
Tom Doak certainly did not play every course in the Confidential Guide - and that is no way invalidates his opinions. In fact, depending on the individual rater, some would be better served to simply walk the centerline - from tee to green making notes - instead of trying to play.
I’m sorry, 75% of the raters I know just play the golf course - chit chatting the whole time - and then conjure up a visceral number for each category. When you’re buzzing around a layout in 3 hours, there is no time to walk all the way around a putting surface, taking note of the kick points, contours and placement of the hazards.
Clearly, I learned quite a bit over the years from Ron and Brad - but also from having the practicalities beat into my head by Neal Meagher, who is a master at blending art with the nuts and bolts under the hood. In fact, as I thresh this out, I rarely obtain an insight into a golf course by playing it I could not otherwise grok by taking a careful stroll in sequence.
Uncle George and I walked golf courses as often as we played them when polishing off The Evangelist - and thinking about it, I got more out of days when we simply picked apart each hole on foot and discussed the particulars instead of playing it. Not to say I did not dearly love playing with my mentor, but the conversation has more continuity walking around together, without the distraction of hitting shots.
Now, it requires a lot of imagination (and concentration) to do it this way, but my assertion is less than 10% of the raters - playing a course only once - can assimilate enough information to sort out what they have seen. In other words, batting the ball down the fairway, talking about politics or pussy negates the entire point. This is work, not play - an intellectual exercise, not a relaxed stroll with a disengaged brain.
You can only learn so much, approaching an evaluation on a macro scale. The difference between good & really notable is found in the fine details. That little hump, roll or fallaway that escapes notice when rolling along looking at the view - or trying to figure out whether to have sushi or steak in a strange town.
I’m also going to agree with Tom D. about the importance of also watching others play the hole. Every foursome, tottering by, provides some insight into how different skill levels attack the arrangements. And sometimes, no matter how much thought (even multiple plays) I put into something, the solution still escapes me.
Holes that, inter alia, I still cannot figure out: #7 at Pac Dunes, #11 at Shinnecock, #1 at NGLA, #16 at Bandon, #12 at TOC, #10 at Riviera, #7 at Rustic Canyon, #10 at Apache Stronghold, #16 at Prestwick.
On the other hand, you can make a cogent argument that - unlike contemplating a work of static art like a painting - golf architecture is a work of interactive art, like the experience of looking at a Lamborghini vs. driving it around a track. Both points of view have absolute validity . . . . .