For Raters & Rankers...and Interested Parties

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


There are a few courses I've played in Spokane and No. Utah that have moved from a 2 to a 3, or a 3 to a 4 on the DS after multiple plays. But all of these with the exception of maybe 1 are off the radar for this site.  More to the point, I can't think of one course that has dropped after multiple plays, from my first impression. And I don't know if 2 to 3 really matters anyways, but certainly a course that moves from say a 5 to 7 after multiple plays would be significant.

[John Kavanaugh]

Has anyone ever played a course a second, or third, or tenth time when their rating impression of the golf course moved more than one point up or down?   

I suspect that's very, very rare.

I had played Harbour Town before once on prior visits and was never that impressed. This year I played 99 holes in 5 days and believe it to be one of the finest designs I have ever played. I'm sure that's more than a point.

[George Pazin]

So why did your opinion change, John? Did playing the holes so many times open up other playing options/strategies? Or was it something else?

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


I would say that in the first play I only saw high and low. Multiple plays revealed left and right.

[Tom_Doak]

Has anyone ever played a course a second, or third, or tenth time when their rating impression of the golf course moved more than one point up or down?   

I suspect that's very, very rare.

Mike:


I have done so quite a few times - maybe 30 or 40 times overall.


In the majority of cases, in hindsight, I dismissed the course the first time because it wasn't as good as the others I had seen right around the same time.  There were lots of courses in the UK that I underrated because they were not Dornoch or North Berwick or Ballybunion or wherever I had been the two days before that.


Likewise, on my first golf visit to Philadelphia [when I was 19], I played Pine Valley on a Monday, Merion on Tuesday, and Aronimink on Wednesday.  I thought Merion was very good but it did not awe me like it did on subsequent visits, and I thought Aronimink was absolutely uninteresting compared to the other two.  [Which only means it is not a 10 on the Doak Scale.]




As to the courses I rated too highly my first time around, more often than not, I walked them without playing them.  And when I eventually came back and played, I found that the golf shots you had to hit were more repetitive than I had noticed from walking around.

[Peter Pallotta]

Neat post there, Tom.
It's interesting the dynamics involved, isn't it?
Already a serious student of the craft back then, the 'mistakes' in judging the merits of a course came about not because you had seen/played & understood so few great courses, but because you saw-played too many of them (and too close together)!
And, with a very good eye & understanding of the art & science of gca, and having taken the time to walk a course (and thus avoided seeing it 'only' through the lens of your own particular game and golfing skill-set), the other 'mistakes' came about for precisely those reasons, i.e. because you theorized about the course's merits as a field of play and only later actually played it! 
P
     

[corey miller]

I do not think "loads of people believe to get a handle on a course takes several plays in at least a few weather conditions" but I do believe that many raters may think that the case.
[size=78%]  [/size]


And if we are to go one step further, is it any wonder so many really fine courses remain serially under-visited and perhaps serially under-rated? 


NY METRO area IMO...See Sunningdale, Whipporwill, Wykagyl, Paramount, Rockaway Hunting, Huntington, St. George, Fenway  just once before another loop around Winged Foot or Hudson National or Quaker Ridge or Sleepy Hollow (all in westchester).


The not often seen courses have all done really good work that I think insures their future and when architecture geeks/raters  turn their noses and head to the more famous it really does not serve the architecture community well.  Rant over.

[Lou_Duran]

Corey,


It is always useful to play a course in different conditions.  The first time I played Texas Tech's Rawls Course was with a bunch of GCAers.  The first play was in warm weather during the afternoon with the wind blowing 20-35 mph from the SW.  A cold front came through that night and next morning when we played it was very cold with a north wind at 20+ mph.  The course played very differently. 


Having said all this, experienced raters/panelists typically know prevailing winds, grasses, rainfall, common maintenance, etc. beforehand and are looking for how the course would play under varying conditions.  Using aerials and a good yardage book while reviewing the round also helps.


As to trophy hunting (which I think is helpful early on to calibrate the scale), you are right.  From talking to some active raters, there seems to be an emphasis by the magazines to seek out the lesser known/visited courses, if nothing else to bolster the state lists which are sometimes lacking sufficient evaluations for the statistical significance they are trying to achieve.   

[Sean_A]

Has anyone ever played a course a second, or third, or tenth time when their rating impression of the golf course moved more than one point up or down?   

I suspect that's very, very rare.

Mike:

I have done so quite a few times - maybe 30 or 40 times overall.

In the majority of cases, in hindsight, I dismissed the course the first time because it wasn't as good as the others I had seen right around the same time.  There were lots of courses in the UK that I underrated because they were not Dornoch or North Berwick or Ballybunion or wherever I had been the two days before that.

Tom

Do you think your relative ability and age are functions of this change of heart?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

And courses change over time as do folks preferences. And memories of previous visits can be rose-tinted.
Atb

[Niall C]

Human nature says if you’ve played a course ten times you’ve probably liked it from the start.


If you’ve played a course 3x you are much more likely to have stopped there because you decided you didn’t like it as much as you’d originally thought.

Oh I don't know, there is this dog track over in East Lothian that I keep getting invited to play. It's got cross hazards and blind shots and all sorts of nonsense. But hey, the company's good.

On a more serious note, the said dog track is a case in point where I have changed my mind after subsequent plays. The West Links at NB didn't wow me or even seduce me the first few times I played it and I don't know that it has exactly done that since, but my appreciation for it has grown to the point that enjoy my rounds there more than I previously did (not that playing there was ever a chore !). So to answer Mike Cirba's question, it is one where if I was assigning it a number then it would have definitely moved by more than 1 point.

Niall

[Derek_Duncan]

Sean -
my honest (if misguided) opinion:
no greater lie has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting public, and no more ego-driven theory has ever been espoused around here, than the notion that one must play a course many times under various conditions to understand it and determine its worth. Play a course once and someone will ask if you've played it twice; play it five times and someone will demand to know if you've ever played it in a rainstorm, or in the winter, or in match play. 
The supposed 'playing' permutations are endless (that's the ego) and the supposed treasure trove of unlocked 'architectural' secrets is enormous, and guarded by a giant Smaug-like dragon (that's the lie).
Architects now and forever design with their best foot forward: the course as they routed & designed it as well as they could with a couple of factors in mind (e.g. prevailing wind) and with the full knowledge that they don't/won't control the maintenance meld is what the course *is*, and all it will be -- play it once or play it a hundred times.
I've played three courses well over 10 times, and about five more over 5 times each.
The good ones were good the first time (and remain so), the poor-to-average ones have proven to be exactly that over time/multiple plays, ie poor-to-average, whether in the wind or rain or in the summer or fall.
That I might 'discover', after multiple plays, that if I severely pull hook a long enough drive the ball actually runs out into an adjacent fairway and past a clump of tree roots and leaves me an unobstructed view of the green and a good angle is absolutely meaningless (and raising such 'nuance' is the lie & the ego both), and does a disservice to any genuine assessment of a golf course's worth.
My two cents
P     
 
 

I keep thinking I'm on Twitter and want to "like" and "retweet" this post. Thank you Peter.

[MCirba]

Sean -
my honest (if misguided) opinion:
no greater lie has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting public, and no more ego-driven theory has ever been espoused around here, than the notion that one must play a course many times under various conditions to understand it and determine its worth. Play a course once and someone will ask if you've played it twice; play it five times and someone will demand to know if you've ever played it in a rainstorm, or in the winter, or in match play. 
The supposed 'playing' permutations are endless (that's the ego) and the supposed treasure trove of unlocked 'architectural' secrets is enormous, and guarded by a giant Smaug-like dragon (that's the lie).
Architects now and forever design with their best foot forward: the course as they routed & designed it as well as they could with a couple of factors in mind (e.g. prevailing wind) and with the full knowledge that they don't/won't control the maintenance meld is what the course *is*, and all it will be -- play it once or play it a hundred times.
I've played three courses well over 10 times, and about five more over 5 times each.
The good ones were good the first time (and remain so), the poor-to-average ones have proven to be exactly that over time/multiple plays, ie poor-to-average, whether in the wind or rain or in the summer or fall.
That I might 'discover', after multiple plays, that if I severely pull hook a long enough drive the ball actually runs out into an adjacent fairway and past a clump of tree roots and leaves me an unobstructed view of the green and a good angle is absolutely meaningless (and raising such 'nuance' is the lie & the ego both), and does a disservice to any genuine assessment of a golf course's worth.
My two cents
P     
 

Peter,

Very well stated, as usual.

Somewhere in there lies a degree of snobbery, as well, that one's opinion grows repeatedly superior based on volume of plays, particularly as relates to the top echelon of world courses.    Implied is something like, "well, if you played (insert famous course here) as often as I have you'd KNOW what you're talking about, but since you haven't, alas poor fellow..."

[Sean_A]

Sean -
my honest (if misguided) opinion:
no greater lie has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting public, and no more ego-driven theory has ever been espoused around here, than the notion that one must play a course many times under various conditions to understand it and determine its worth. Play a course once and someone will ask if you've played it twice; play it five times and someone will demand to know if you've ever played it in a rainstorm, or in the winter, or in match play. 
The supposed 'playing' permutations are endless (that's the ego) and the supposed treasure trove of unlocked 'architectural' secrets is enormous, and guarded by a giant Smaug-like dragon (that's the lie).
Architects now and forever design with their best foot forward: the course as they routed & designed it as well as they could with a couple of factors in mind (e.g. prevailing wind) and with the full knowledge that they don't/won't control the maintenance meld is what the course *is*, and all it will be -- play it once or play it a hundred times.
I've played three courses well over 10 times, and about five more over 5 times each.
The good ones were good the first time (and remain so), the poor-to-average ones have proven to be exactly that over time/multiple plays, ie poor-to-average, whether in the wind or rain or in the summer or fall.
That I might 'discover', after multiple plays, that if I severely pull hook a long enough drive the ball actually runs out into an adjacent fairway and past a clump of tree roots and leaves me an unobstructed view of the green and a good angle is absolutely meaningless (and raising such 'nuance' is the lie & the ego both), and does a disservice to any genuine assessment of a golf course's worth.
My two cents
P     
 

Peter,

Very well stated, as usual.

Somewhere in there lies a degree of snobbery, as well, that one's opinion grows repeatedly superior based on volume of plays, particularly as relates to the top echelon of world courses.    Implied is something like, "well, if you played (insert famous course here) as often as I have you'd KNOW what you're talking about, but since you haven't, alas poor fellow..."

Snobbery?  Just a few posts ago we had one of the foremost archies in the history who has tons of experience seeing courses around the world say he didn't get things after a first visit.  That seems the opposite of snobbery and more a willingness to demonstrate that nobody is perfect.  Even if courses haven't changed much, people change and the circumstances of their experiences are never the same.  I have talked about this before, sometimes, people, for whatever reasons, aren't ready to properly see courses, hear music, read books etc.  For instance, nobody is going to convince me that Coltrane wasn't a genius. Because I can't get a grip of some of his music is on me, not him. Maybe one day the penny will drop, maybe it never will. Regardless, I like to think a guy like Coltrane is worth revisiting. In very much the same vein, the same is true of many courses and architects.  Thankfully, its much easier to revisit Coltrane than many golf courses 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, but just to say: Tom D is not a snob precisely because he's one of the foremost architects in history. He has nothing to prove to anyone, nor is he unduly impressed by the status symbols that others hold up as badges of honour. I never have to worry about the best (in any profession) not giving my views a fair hearing; it's the pretenders and the insecure and the wannabes and the new money types who tend to be the snobs, 'cause they can't feel big (or big enough in their own eyes) unless they can make someone else feel small. You mention music: they said about Charlie Parker that, unlike most of his contemporaries (ie wannabe Charlie Parkers), he never criticized any other musician or type of music. They'd pass a busker on the street playing the accordion or ukulele, and while the others snickered Parker would stop and listen  appreciatively, always ready to learn something new and often complimenting the player with a 'I hear what you're doing there'.
I'm lucky: the people on here that I exchange emails and PMs with (including you) are the best posters on this site: smart, successful, well travelled, confident and healthy minded -- and there's nary a snob among them.

[Sean_A]

Sean, but just to say: Tom D is not a snob precisely because he's one of the foremost architects in history. He has nothing to prove to anyone, nor is he unduly impressed by the status symbols that others hold up as badges of honour. I never have to worry about the best (in any profession) not giving my views a fair hearing; it's the pretenders and the insecure and the wannabes and the new money types who tend to be the snobs, 'cause they can't feel big (or big enough in their own eyes) unless they can make someone else feel small. You mention music: they said about Charlie Parker that, unlike most of his contemporaries (ie wannabe Charlie Parkers), he never criticized any other musician or type of music. They'd pass a busker on the street playing the accordion or ukulele, and while the others snickered Parker would stop and listen  appreciatively, always ready to learn something new and often complimenting the player with a 'I hear what you're doing there'.
I'm lucky: the people on here that I exchange emails and PMs with (including you) are the best posters on this site: smart, successful, well travelled, confident and healthy minded -- and there's nary a snob among them.

Pietro

I am not sure where you are going with this post. All I can say is linking repeated play to snobbery isn't something I buy or a good reason not to revisit courses.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

I must be the snob because I liked a resort course after multiple plays in the off season.

[Peter Pallotta]

S -
I think you may have misunderstood Mike's point (or maybe I did): multiple plays does not make one a snob; but we've all read here the attempts to win an argument or dismiss another's opinion by playing the multiple-play card -- you know, the "I've played Seminole 15 times in every possible condition --- how many times have you played it"? approach. And in that there is an element of 'snobbery'.
The point of my post was simply that I've never read someone like Tom D play that card. Just like Bird with other (less talented) musicians, he's confident enough to engage with differing opinions and one-time assessments from less knowledgeable/well-travelled golfers.
P 

[Tom_Doak]

S -
I think you may have misunderstood Mike's point (or maybe I did): multiple plays does not make one a snob; but we've all read here the attempts to win an argument or dismiss another's opinion by playing the multiple-play card -- you know, the "I've played Seminole 15 times in every possible condition --- how many times have you played it"? approach. And in that there is an element of 'snobbery'.
The point of my post was simply to say that I've never read someone like Tom D play that card on here. Just like Bird, he's confident enough to engage with differing opinions and one-time assessments.
P

Actually, the only course for which I have played that card is Seminole.  There are always lots of people who are ready to dismiss it after their first visit, and I always ask if it was windy the day they played, and invariably they tell me it wasn’t.  Seminole is a different course whenever it’s windy - and it usually is!

[Peter Pallotta]

Damn.
I was so close to a winning post!
Why oh why did I have to pick as an example the only course you and Pat Mucci ever agreed about?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Do you think your relative ability and age are functions of this change of heart?

Ciao

In the cases I was thinking of, no - it was just difficult to compare a 5 or 6 to the higher-ranked courses I saw next to them, and I chose too low a number.  Perhaps I was also a bit spoiled in the sense of thinking, well nobody is going to play here on an overseas trip.


I was never a good enough golfer to dismiss courses as being too easy; that’s one of the reasons I got places like North Betwick and Cruden Bay and NGLA right, when most experts and eaters were dismissing them.

[Tom_Doak]

Damn.
I was so close to a winning post!
Why oh why did I have to pick as an example the only course you and Pat Mucci ever agreed about?
 

We also agreed on Garden City and NGLA.

[Sean_A]

S -
I think you may have misunderstood Mike's point (or maybe I did): multiple plays does not make one a snob; but we've all read here the attempts to win an argument or dismiss another's opinion by playing the multiple-play card -- you know, the "I've played Seminole 15 times in every possible condition --- how many times have you played it"? approach. And in that there is an element of 'snobbery'.
The point of my post was simply that I've never read someone like Tom D play that card. Just like Bird with other (less talented) musicians, he's confident enough to engage with differing opinions and one-time assessments from less knowledgeable/well-travelled golfers.
P

Pietro

You are probably right.  But in the big scheme of things, mega play golf snobbery is not something I would think worth mentioning.

I guess I am a bit surprised there is such resistance to the idea that multiple plays over a period of time is not valuable.  I guess I just don't see courses as well as I would like in one or two plays...especially the smaller courses which don't get online or traditional praise.  I catch myself looking over my shoulder sometimes...wondering...why not? 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - and you're right too. Do I imagine that, like you, I might find my initial affection & appreciation for a course like Reigate Heath grow and grow after multiple plays? Yes. But I think that says more about Reigate Heath (and about how the few/most notable GB&I courses have gotten the majority of visitors & press) than it does about either you/me or the efficacy of multiple plays. As I noted earlier, there's no course I've ever played 5 or 10 times that I've learned to like more or less over multiple plays --probably because none are as good a course as Reigate Heath to begin with.
P

[James Brown]

This is a great question.  For great courses worldwide, only one would be a 10+ play for me:


Royal Dornoch: 14 times


Other great “Top 100” courses with 4+ plays worth noting:


The Old Course: 4
Kiawah Island Ocean:  6
Brandon Dunes: 4
Pacific Dunes: 4
North Berwick: 4
Oakmont:  4
Royal St. George’s:  4


I have played about 400 courses worldwide and played 100+ rounds on about 10 courses, none of them better than a Doak 5. 


Played a bunch of great courses once or twice, but none enough times to really know the course.  I figure it takes at least 5-6 plays to appreciate a good course.  My sense is that in most cases it might take many more plays to truly appreciate a great course, although some great courses I felt like I knew their essence the first time around. 


It’s for this reason that I resolved a long time ago when planning golf trips to play the great courses at least twice on a trip.  Limits the courses you can see, but enhances the experience I think.