[Ira Fishman]

The thread about TOC versus Sand Hills reinforces for me the usefulness of the 10 Round split technique for comparing courses which by definition is such a subjective exercise when talking about exceptional courses. I have not played TOC or SH so did not want to hijack that very entertaining thread. But I offer some splits that might be contentious as a way to perhaps prompt some debates and other suggestions.


Lahinch 6 v Cypress Point 4
Golspie 7 v Royal Dornoch 3
Pasatiempo 8 v Pacific Dunes 2
Woking 9 v Castle Stuart 1
Mid Pines 5 v Bandon Trails 5
Lahinch 7 v Ballybunion 3


Ira

[Ian Mackenzie]

Golspie v. RDGC...I get that.
Lahinch v Ballybunion...that makes sense, too.


The rest seem arbitrary and so personal that it is hard to comment or congeal this to an actual thread.
What was your thought process in your other comparisons?


Hard to debate you when you prefer Golspie over RDGC unless you’re such a high HDCP-er that you prefer the bucolic presentation of Golspie over RDGC....

[Tom_Doak]

To me this method is worth discussing in planning a trip to a particular area, but it's pointless to use it to compare courses that are far away.


If you want to say that some courses are more interesting for repeat plays than other more famous courses, just say that - but picking Castle Stuart as the comparison for Woking is just trolling.

[Ira Fishman]

Actually, all but Lahinch v CPC and Mid Pines v Bandon Trails were on the same trips. We played Woking a few days after Castle Stuart. I picked first because it is closest in my experience to the TOC v SH thread and the second because the two struck me as similar in many ways.


As noted, comparing excellent courses is inherently personal.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

This is a nice exercise when a club has two or more courses or a close near neighbour of a similar calibre. Sometimes the preference can be a surprise although age, gender, health/fitness etc may give a clue.

Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

To me this method is worth discussing in planning a trip to a particular area, but it's pointless to use it to compare courses that are far away.


If you want to say that some courses are more interesting for repeat plays than other more famous courses, just say that - but picking Castle Stuart as the comparison for Woking is just trolling.

Yes, I agree wholly with Tom here. If you do a ten round split for two courses that are close to each other, it is a real world exercise; it has a grounding in reality. For those hundreds or thousands of miles apart, it is just hypothetical. And we have plenty of hypothetical stuff going on as it is.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, all but Lahinch v CPC and Mid Pines v Bandon Trails were on the same trips. We played Woking a few days after Castle Stuart. I picked first because it is closest in my experience to the TOC v SH thread and the second because the two struck me as similar in many ways.

As noted, comparing excellent courses is inherently personal.

Ira:


I'd guess you are one of very few people to play Castle Stuart and Woking as part of the same trip.


Looking at the topic more broadly - IF the point you're trying to make is along the lines of what I think it is - if I just take the numbers you assigned and forget the direct comparisons, you've made Woking and then Pasatiempo and then Golspie and Lahinch the courses you'd rather play more. 


Woking, I can agree with completely, as the greens are fascinating and there are many potential lines of play and it would not get old to keep going around trying different things and seeing where the hole is cut tomorrow.


Pasatiempo, I spent a lot of years working on, but I don't see in the same light.  The greens are complex but many players struggle with them; the fairways are pretty narrow so there aren't many lines of play to tease out.  It's a difficult test of golf, and a great routing across a difficult site, but I can think of many other courses that most golfers would prefer to play over and over.


And there are about five people in the world who think Golspie is more interesting than Royal Dornoch - of course, all of them are on this Discussion Group, but they're still in the minority here.


For the record, I've found the Sand Hills v St. Andrews comparison equally unenlightening.  The problem with this exercise is that people invent all sorts of silly reasons to back up their favorite -- and then try to rationalize those silly reasons to other situations!

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira's post (and those that follow) brings to light an inherent contradiction around here:

On the one hand: if someone argues that one course is truly and objectively better than another, the protests that all rankings/rating are "subjective" are sure to follow -- dismissing even the possibility of an actual/identifiable hierarchy of greatness

On the other: when someone suggests he'd rather play a certain '7' (or Top-50 ranked course) more often than he would a certain '10' (or top-10 ranked course) the protests follow just the same and the view is dismissed as hypothetical/arbitrary/too personal -- as if rankings/ratings are indeed "objective" and someone's own personal preferences merely blather and nonsense

We seem to use the rankings and Tom's Scale rather like a cudgel to beat someone over the head with when they disagree with us (and our 'objectively' correct opinion, developed no doubt after multiple plays) -- until, that is, the same weapon is used against us (and our own beloved 'subjective' opinion), at which point we start condemning as a crime the use of any kind cudgel!     

Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Everyone's got an opinion, and everyone has a right to their own opinion.  And they are all subjective - even my own.  I just put all of mine out there, with some backup as to why I thought so - which helps establish a baseline that others use.


When you start stating clearly contrary opinions like "I would rather play Golspie more than Dornoch," and you don't want to be dismissed as just subjectively outside the mainstream, isn't it on you to provide the rationale?  And arguing Golspie is more interesting is one thing; saying it's 7-3 [which implies Golspie is twice as good by some metric] is kind of ridiculous without a good explanation, considering how highly Dornoch is ranked overall.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, I hear you, but at the same time it genuinely does confuse me:

Remember Pat M, with his belief that only opinions formed after multiple plays in all sorts of weather conditions were worth even considering? He was no doubt referencing/appealing to some kind of 'metric' and some kind of 'rationale'; okay, fair enough, but what kinds of metrics and rationales can we meaningfully hold in a subjective environment? (That would be sort of like a salesman who was measured by & paid on the basis of the number of sales he's made, even if the sales were wholly imaginary in that he didn't actually make them but *almost* did or *wished* he did).   
Or Matt Ward, with his great experience playing many courses, who sure did seem to believe that he could identify which courses were objectively better than others, because (in his mind at least) he was well aware of and an expert on all the relevant metrics and rationales. Was he flat out wrong? Do such metrics *not* exist -- and if they *do* exist doesn't that open the door to an 'objective' assessment?
Or finally, as you pointed out in the SV thread -- there was very high praised indeed for the courses there, loads of fun, the latest, biggest (and award winning and highly ranked) hits; in short, great courses...until, that is, they were compared to Lawsonia (not by *me* but by the original poster!). What can this possibly mean?
Anyway, as I've said before, I've beat this same dead horse for too long...it really must be my confusion and no one else's.
P
PS - I enjoyed/appreciated Ira's splits in the way I imagine he wished them to be enjoyed/appreciated, ie as a window into his personal tastes and a lens through which to understand his subjective experience of the given golf courses -- and as that, ie a way to share with others our subjective experience -- I think such 'splits' work very well.

[Jon Wiggett]

When you start stating clearly contrary opinions like "I would rather play Golspie more than Dornoch," and you don't want to be dismissed as just subjectively outside the mainstream, isn't it on you to provide the rationale?  And arguing Golspie is more interesting is one thing; saying it's 7-3 [which implies Golspie is twice as good by some metric] is kind of ridiculous without a good explanation, considering how highly Dornoch is ranked overall.

Tom,


as you say it is just an opinion but it depends on what you are basing it. If you are looking at the GCA aspect then I doubt many who are interested in the topic would argue that Dornoch is the better course. However, the vast majority of golfers have never heard of the course let alone that it is held to be one of the top courses in the world. My experience after talking to many local highland golfers who have played both courses a few times is that they enjoy Dornoch if the weather is kind and the pin positions are favourable but day in day out they find Golspie more playable. The thing that is mentioned the most as the reason for liking Golspie over Dornoch are the heathland holes and the par 3s. What they prefer about Dornoch is the clubhouse atmosphere.


To put this into context when you broach the subject of golf course architects they have heard of Crenshaw but not Coore and when you mention Mr. Doak they usually respond with Tom Who?


If I were to be playing with my Dad I would have played Dornoch with him for him to have the experience and Golspie because I know he would have enjoyed it.


As for me I would play both 5 times though clearly Brora is the areas premium links experience


Jon

[Ira Fishman]

I am back from playing poorly at Hope Valley (which I have 8-2 over very nearby Duke), and I am glad that my OP prompted some debate over the validity of the concept and my splits. Peter got where I am coming from in his PS.


As far as my reasoning re Golspie v RD, a large part is my love of quirk. It is the same love that animates much of my fondness for Lahinch. I also thought that the holes at Golspie had more variety even factoring out for the quirk. As Jon notes, the Par 3s are superb. Additionally, I like to play fast which Golspie provided and RD did not. Finally, and truly a subjective element, was my experience relative to expectations. I have wanted to play RD for 45 years whereas I learned about Golspie just a couple of years ago because of this website. Perhaps if I ever got to play them more frequently, my views would therefore change.


I hope that offers some of the rationale folks were seeking.


As it relates to Pasatiempo and Tom’s post, I did find the routing exceptional, particularly the back 9 which offered great variety of holes too. And I like heavily contoured greens. Plus the looks created by the bunkering (thanks to Tom’s restoration) really appeal to my eye. And I define mediocrity as a golfer, but did not find Pasatiempo too difficult to enjoy immensely.


Ira


PS Re being one of few people to play Castle Stuart and Woking on the same trip, it was an easy and reasonably priced flight from Inverness to London. I highly recommend the contrast of the Highlands and the Heathlands on the same trip.

[Jason Thurman]

Pine Needles 6, Mid Pines 4


Tobacco Road 7, Dormie Club 3


Pine Needles 5, Tobacco Road 5


Come at me.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Jackson Park 10, Chicago Golf Club 0


(I don't have any means to access CGC, so I'll just play Jackson Park 10 times)

[Mark Chaplin]

Ira whilst Woking maybe a cheap flight and great contrast to the Highlands it’s a dud call verses the Highland links plus Boat of Garten and Blairgowrie or the Surrey heathlands and the Kent/Sussex coast. The latter is still the “unknown” world class trip.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark, we also played Swinley Forest and St George’s Hill which were terrific as you know. That made five rounds in Highlands and three rounds in Heathlands in a Nine day stretch which was a full card for one trip. Kent Coast is high on list for a future UK trip, but I am concerned that Deal and RSG might be too tough for my wife (and me). She is a hardy soul who even enjoyed The Island Club on a brisk day, but I want to make sure that she does have fun.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

Pine Needles 6, Mid Pines 4


Tobacco Road 7, Dormie Club 3


Pine Needles 5, Tobacco Road 5


Come at me.

Jason, PN and MP are courses where I have actually played more than 10 times between them. I agree with your split, but that well could swing on our next visit in September—I go back and forth regularly on which I prefer.  I have not played Dormie or TR so cannot wade into that debate.


Ira

[RichMacafee]

Cal Club 9 - Olympic 1

[Niall C]

This all reminds me of the famous football result of Forfar 4 East Fife 5. Not easy to say, even for a BBC announcer.

Tom/Adam,

Yes the exercise is subjective but what scoring system for courses isn't when you get down to it. And even if you scored a course 7-3 over another course it doesn't mean the first course is twice as "good", it just means you'd rather play the first twice more than the second. I'd imagine if I thought one course was twice as good as another then my play ratio would probably be something like 9-1 or 8-2, with the 1 or 2 reflecting the desire for a bit of variety now and again. Mind you, I don't know I'd fly the length of the country for the sake of variety.

Ira

Re RSG and Deal - they are both big courses but from what I remember fairly playable for a shortish hitter off a forward tee ie. no death defying carries to make, or at least I think. You, off the back tees mind you is another story  In terms of round split, I've only played them once each and I think I'd probably need a good few more plays before I started developing a bit of a bias one way or the other. Both however are great experiences.

Niall

[Ira Fishman]

Niall,


Yes, I did not mean to imply that the numbers indicated orders of magnitude of "betterness".  They are all excellent golf courses and saying which is better is hard enough let alone how many times better.  I just find the 10 Round Split idea which I stole from other threads to be a good way to summarize my subjective preferences between two courses. To those who properly challenged me to "defend"  a couple of my views, I have tried my best to do so in one of the posts above. 


The unfortunate reality is that I will be very fortunate to ever make it back to most of them for an additional visit, let alone 10 visits.  But I do feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to play them all at all.  And further to that point, thank you for the insights about RSG and Deal--the recommendations/views of many on this site have become essential to our trip planning.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

Fun exercise.  Some things that pop to mind and taking proximity into consideration ..... I'd go:

Winged Foot 6 - Quaker Ridge 4

Plainfield CC 6 - Baltursol 4

The Country Club 5 - Essex County Club 5

Medinah #3 5 - Olympia Fields north 5
Olympia Fields north 6 - Olympia Fields south 4
Kankankee Elks 5 - Olympia Fields south 5
Olympia Fields south 7 - Flossmoor CC 3
Beverly 6 - Olympia Fields south 4
Chicago GC 9 - Medinah #3 1
Chicago GC 7 - Shoreacres 3

Sand Valley 6 - Whistling Straits 4
Blackwolf Run 6 - Whistling Straits 4
TOC 7 - Kingsbarns 3
Kingsbarns 7 - TNC 3

[Thomas Dai]

This all reminds me of the famous football result of Forfar 4 East Fife 5. Not easy to say, even for a BBC announcer.

A memorable Scottish footie quote per Sam Leitch -
“They’ll be dancing in the streets of Raith tonight” (sic)!
Atb

[Ronald Montesano]

Pasatiempo 8 v Pacific Dunes 2 ... I've played PD 3X and PS 1X. I agree with this, based on my tastes.[/size]Mid Pines 5 v Bandon Trails 5 ... I've played MP 2X and BT 3X. I love both courses to death and would be absolutely split.



If you can promise me that I would be turned out as an unaccompanied single, paired with a 3some of regulars, here are mine:


NGLA 5 v. Bethpage Black 5 ... Different types of architecture, and I would want to never get bored with one or the other. Also, the type of people I meet might be a bit different.


Butterfield Trail 10 v. Turning Stone Atunyote 0 ... This is an homage to the original Confidential Guide. Turning Stone Atunyote is a fine golf course, in remarkable condition, with a delightful staff. I would choose another Fazio over it, 10 out of 10 times. Being a nor'easter bag of wind, a scruffy course like Butterfield Trail in cool El Paso is so different for me. If you're through The Pass and don't play this track, you've missed one of life's gifts.


Forsgate Banks 9 v. Essex County 1 ... I played both on the same 2017 trip. FB has what I consider playable danger. Those cavernous maws are playable, but what a shot you'll have! It's the thrills that get me, despite being a flat-out wuss when it comes to roller coasters and other such rides.[/color]

[Brock Lynch]

Just returned from a trip to St. Andrews in July. If you had 10 rounds to play any of the St. Andrews Links courses, what would your breakdown be? Here's my breakdown (not our actual as we did not have unlimited access to the Old Course);


Old  5
Castle 1
New 1
Jubilee 1
Eden 1
Strathtyrum 1


Note: We were able to play all courses at St. Andrews, except the Balgrove, at least once and enjoyed all of the courses. On my next trip I would not want to miss any of them. That said, would I turn down 10 rounds on the Old Course only? Certainly not. Would I turn down 10 rounds on any of the courses at St. Andrews, but not be able to pay the Old Course even once? Maybe. It would be difficult to go knowing I wouldn't be able to play the Old.


Here is the actual breakdown from our trip (not including a road trip to North Berwick and visits to Lundin Links and Scotscraig)


Old 2
New 2
Jubilee 2
Strathtyrum 2 (my wife loved the Strathtyrum)
Castle 1
Eden 1

[Kevin Neary]

Forsgate Banks 9 v. Essex County 1 ... I played both on the same 2017 trip. FB has what I consider playable danger. Those cavernous maws are playable, but what a shot you'll have! It's the thrills that get me, despite being a flat-out wuss when it comes to roller coasters and other such rides.

I consider myself a big fan of Charles Banks, and love Forsgate Banks as much as the next guy, but a 9-1 split is downright ridiculous. The green sites at Essex County may not be as bold as Forsgate, but they certainly present strategy and intrigue to keep the golfer on his toes. I would even go so far as to argue that the quality of golf at Essex County is better than Forsgate. The Par 3s at both courses are world class, and I truly mean that. The 9th at Essex County may be the weakest hole of the bunch, but it still is a wonderful hole that requires precision shotmaking. The 7th at Forsgate, and 11th at Essex County are in the highest class of Par 3s in New Jersey, but neither facility has the edge in Par 3s.


The Par 4s, like the Par 3s, are full of strategy, but are simply better at Essex County than at Forsgate. The first at Essex County is the only weak Par 4 on the course. Otherwise, you’d hear a range of answers as to what the best Par 4 is. Is it the 4th? 14th? 18th? The list goes on. At Forsgate, the case is the same, but there are a few “weaker” holes than at Essex County. I’m not a huge fan of the 4th, and I’m not all that doting of the 18th hole either. I find that 18th to be out of character with the rest of the golf course, give it’s such a tight driving area, and the green, at least in the times I have played it, lacks multiple pin positions. That being said, there are still plenty of wonderful Par 4s, such as the 1st, 5th and 10th that give the golfer options off the tee. As a result, I have to give the edge to Essex County in this category.


Finally, the Par 5s. I have to give the edge to Forsgate here. There is not a bad 5 there, while Essex County lags behind. While the Par 5s aren’t bad at Essex County, the 7th and 13th are strategically similar, while the 8th presents a challenge for long hitters off the tee, and a second shot for short hitters. None of them are mind blowing, but are no slouches. When compared to Forsgate, Forsgate’s Par 5s are strategically interesting, and require a plan if action before playing. The 8th is one of the best Par 5s in the state, while the 9th forces the golfer to decide whether or not to go for the green, and where to lay up should he decide not to. The 13th, isn’t on the same level as the 8th and 9th, but a wonderful green couples makes for a precarious wedge shot when the pin finds itself on the top right shelf. The Par 5s at Forsgate are better than those at Essex, but don’t give a massive advantage.


In reviewing this, a 6-4 split in either direction would make sense. I find myself at a 6-4 split for Essex County. That being said, I find it too difficult to justify something higher than a 7-3, since both courses are so good, and offer many similar quandaries for the golfer.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()