Hole Quality Variance and Course Assessment (i.e. the Tobacco Road Problem)

[Brett Meyer]

As we're having another argument in another thread about whether Tobacco Road is overdone (in this case, the 16th hole specifically), I'd like to share the strongest thought that I came away with from TR, which I haven't heard before: that TR stands out for having more variance in the quality of the holes than any course I've ever played. It has holes that I think are a 10 or very close and it has holes that I'm pretty sure I think are a 0. People in the other thread have noted (again) that TR is a course that you'll either love or hate. But I love it and hate it. I think that a half-dozen holes are great to world class and a half-dozen are not great to among the worst I've seen.

Now many great courses have one or two lesser holes but I haven't seen a course that I feel has so much greatness yet so much badness at the same time. Do you feel this about TR? Have you played any other courses where you felt this? On the hate side, it also isn't just about the bad holes for me with TR. I also have problem with the routing; the walk from 14 to 15 was the only time I ever remember struggling for a few minutes to find the next hole on a course. I also disliked that nos. 6 & 17 felt shoehorned in.

Getting to the rest of the title of the thread, I think that this is an issue for knowing how to assess a course and I've always had a difficult time assessing TR. It falls short of the best of the other Pinehurst courses for me because they have great holes and none of these weaknesses. But how should I compare TR to a course that I think is really solid (like The Dunes in Myrtle Beach), but lacking in great holes? Would you think of it in some simple goodness-minus-badness terms? Or does the badness of some of the holes and the routing weigh more heavily against than the good holes count in favor? Of course, you might think that there are no bad holes at TR in which case this is not an issue (although the routing still is).

One last point: it not knowing what to think of the course, TR reminds me most of Painswick. The issue there was a bit different there. Painswick has several great holes and few/no bad ones or routing issues, but is handicapped in my mind in that all the par 4s are short and it feels like an incomplete test of golf. So with Painswick, it's an issue of assessing a course that has several great holes but feels incomplete.

[Dan_Callahan]

What holes do you think are 0s? I expressed my frustration with the 16th, but even so, I wouldn't call it a 0. I just think it can be made better with some small tweaks.


1 is one of the most memorable and identifiable opening tee shots anywhere.


2 gives you some risk/reward options off the tee.


3 is almost a redanish par 3 that is fun as hell.


4 gives you a ton of options on your second shot and, if you lay up, where to hit your 3rd.


5 is one of my favorite driveable par 4s on the planet.


6 doesn't feel shoehorned to me. And like 17, that very shallow green calls for a precise shot. And because of its intimate setting, I like how the quality of your shot can be ascertained by the reaction of the group on 7 tee.


7 is a fun as hell tee shot and requires another precise and imaginative shot into the green.


8 is the longest par 3 on the course and demands you get your ball in the right quadrant of the green.


9 is a difficult tee shot and then a mostly blind approach to an elevated green with death looming to the right.


10 is an amazingly subdued but damn near perfect par 4.


11 is unlike anything most golfers will ever see, and again gives you a ton of options.


12 gives you options off the tee, and options into the green depending on where the hole is cut.


13 is another hole unlike anything most golfers will ever see, with options off the tee, and a shot into the green that is bananas (in a good way).


14 is a beautiful par 3 with the only water on the course (unless I'm forgetting something).


15 is tough the first time you play it because you really have no idea what's going on. But the more I play it, the more I love the options off the tee and the positioning of the centerline hazard that results in a split fairway. And another super shallow green, which works because you are only hitting a wedge to it.


16 has its issues.


17 continues to grow on me, and is the favorite hole of one of my friends. But it is fairly one-dimensional.


18 is a spectacular and visually intimidating tee shot, and then another approach that needs to be precise to be on the right level.


In my mind, the weaknesses of the course are in the shortness of the par 3s (other than 8, they are almost always no more than a wedge unless it's into the wind ... or on 14 if the hole is cut in the back).


There is also the long haul to 15, which isn't ideal.


But I don't see any of the holes as 0s, and even a hole like 16, I can appreciate the uniqueness of it and what Strantz was trying to do. 


In my opinion, Tobacco Road is an unmatched blend of artistry and engineering ... as if Salvador Dali and Archimedes joined forces to build a golf course.

[Brett Meyer]

Dan,

I was hoping to have a discussion about some of the questions that I posed rather than the merits of the individual holes at TR. Do you agree that there's a lot of variance in the hole quality for a course that many very knowledgable people think is top 100 in the US? If not, can you think of another course for which this is the case?


Having said all that, here's what I think of the individual holes at TR:

1, 3-5 are great. 4 is one of the best par 5s that I've played. 2 is a bit lesser than the others. 1 is one of those holes that's controversial but I fell on the 'liking it' side because both the drive and layup landing areas are quite wide if you can make the carries and you can easily play safe on either.

6 and 17 both fit poorly in the routing and I dislike their concepts. The right side of the 6th green is way too narrow and is just hit and hope for most people. 17 feels like 3 or 4 greens in one and while I'm sure it wasn't actually indecisiveness, that's how such a hole comes off to me. The latter is a 0 for me.

7 is fine. I get although the fairway's super-wide, you're much better off approaching from the left. So that works. The green is definitely interesting.

I don't like 8. To me, the mound ridge around the green is ugly. The back pins are probably too exacting for most and it's tough to play safe.

I also don't like 9. This is the best example of one of the notable things about TR that I don't like: that it isn't an especially hard course for good players but is hell for mid-high handicaps. The drive is very easy for long hitters, less so for everyone else. And the approach is about as regressive as any I've seen: if you reasonably precise with your approach, the green funnels. If not, it repels. There's little room to play safe.

10 is very good, especially the green. 11 is world class.

12 is awkward, but not bad. You either have to lay back or be very precise with your drive. The green slopes in the wrong direction, but there's ample room at the front-right. Actually my biggest problem with 12 is the par 3-length walk to the 13th green.

13 is also very awkward but again, I like it. Although the 2nd is intimidating, there's plenty of room. The green is too small but I accept it here because I believe that it's how the land was when Strantz found it.

I like 14, which is very pretty but again, brutal on higher handicaps.

I didn't like 15 because there's just too much going on. It might work if you play it 7 or 8 times and figure out the best line over the trees on the right to set up a better angle into the back-left part of the green. And maybe that's fine. I think it would be better if it were just the right half or right two-thirds of the green.

I think 16 is a 0.

I actually like each of the 4 or 5 different shots on the 17th. But pick two of them. I'd eliminate the left at least half of the green because it makes the routing very clunky. It's already very clunky in this part of the course. I don't understand why TR doesn't take more heat for that from those who otherwise profess to care so much about tightly-routed courses.

18 is like 9; easy for long hitters, brutal for everyone else. But if we set the high handicappers aside, it's a really cool driving hole. The green complex is too severe.

I think that there are serious problems with 9 and 15-18. Others might add a few. I don't like 6, 8, or 17, but I think that 3 is a great par 3 and I also like 14. 1, 4, and 11 are among the best holes that I've played.


So to me, that's a hell of a lot of variance in the quality of the holes. Plus the routing clunkiness. Still, I think that TR is a very good course and I'd probably vote for it as a top 100 public course. To get at my other question, although I think that there's a lot of badness at TR, this doesn't disqualify the course. I add up the good and subtract the bad and it's still very good, especially considering the novelty of it.

It's also why I'm more accepting of cart-only courses than some people I know. Some of these courses have a lot of good holes and while I hold it against a course for having a 9-mile long routing, this can still be overcome.

[Roman Schwarz]

I've had this discussion with others before.  I prefer courses with variance over the solid.  Those special holes are what keep me coming back, especially if it's a place I had to travel to.  Think of a scoring system like stableford or soccer standings where a win/loss is better than draw/draw.


I find 13, 15, and 16 at TR on varying levels between annoying and atrocious.  But (and I know I'll make some enemies on this site here)....I'll take TR over Mid Pines.  I rate them both as 7's, but if you make me pick, I'll go with TR.  When people who haven't played it ask if it's a love it or hate it for me, I say "yes."


For the same reasons, I'll take Pebble over #2.  Again, I have both as 9's, but 6-10 at Pebble is so good that I can get past #12 (and the other mediocre holes at the start and on the back).  You also still have 18 to look forward to at that point.


I'll also take Whistling Straits over Kiawah.  Sure, #5 is a "hold my beer, watch this" level compared to anything at TR, but the pacing of the double 8's vs. the single 8 and a few individual hole comparison wins put it over the top.  (Also, let's not blame Pete for #5...give Wisconsin DNR co-design credits on that hole)


The only comp I can think of off the top of my head where I prefer the "complete 18" over the one with better individual holes is Jasper over Banff.  Banff doesn't have any head scratchers, but for whatever reason if someone asks me to name a favorite course most people haven't played, it's Jasper.


Rick Reilly once wrote that cheering for Tiger is like cheering for the sun to rise, but cheering for Phil is like watching a drunk chase a balloon near the edge of a cliff.  When it comes to golf courses that are roughly on the same level, I'll book my tee time with the drunk one.

[Brett Meyer]

I've had this discussion with others before.  I prefer courses with variance over the solid.  Those special holes are what keep me coming back, especially if it's a place I had to travel to.  Think of a scoring system like stableford or soccer standings where a win/loss is better than draw/draw.


I find 13, 15, and 16 at TR on varying levels between annoying and atrocious.  But (and I know I'll make some enemies on this site here)....I'll take TR over Mid Pines.  I rate them both as 7's, but if you make me pick, I'll go with TR.  When people who haven't played it ask if it's a love it or hate it for me, I say "yes."


For the same reasons, I'll take Pebble over #2.  Again, I have both as 9's, but 6-10 at Pebble is so good that I can get past #12 (and the other mediocre holes at the start and on the back).  You also still have 18 to look forward to at that point.


I'll also take Whistling Straits over Kiawah.  Sure, #5 is a "hold my beer, watch this" level compared to anything at TR, but the pacing of the double 8's vs. the single 8 and a few individual hole comparison wins put it over the top.  (Also, let's not blame Pete for #5...give Wisconsin DNR co-design credits on that hole)


The only comp I can think of off the top of my head where I prefer the "complete 18" over the one with better individual holes is Jasper over Banff.  Banff doesn't have any head scratchers, but for whatever reason if someone asks me to name a favorite course most people haven't played, it's Jasper.


Rick Reilly once wrote that cheering for Tiger is like cheering for the sun to rise, but cheering for Phil is like watching a drunk chase a balloon near the edge of a cliff.  When it comes to golf courses that are roughly on the same level, I'll book my tee time with the drunk one.

Roman, thanks for the thoughtful response. You're actually going the opposite direction I was thinking with the weighting, downplaying the badness when there's greatness. But that makes sense too. It especially makes sense if you're talking about 'which course you'd like to play again?' rather than 'which course would you rank higher?' I'd definitely play TR again although I wouldn't want to play it every day like Mid-Pines.

With respect to rankings, if I saw this the same way that you'd do, I'd give both TR and Mid-Pines a 7. The best holes at TR are at least on the same level as those at Mid-Pines. And they're more original, which counts in their favor. I settled on a 6 for TR because there's too much to like (same reason I settle on a 6 for Painswick). But my initial thought was that it should be lower because there's too much that I found inexcusable.

Maybe the old 0-6 rating (or even 0-7) from the yellow Confidential Guide best captures my feelings because it gives the sense both that there are a lot of highs, but some serious problems too.

[Jason Topp]

I guess I would think of it as a math problem with good holes as plus values and bad ones as negative values.  If a hole were invented that was so terrific that it not only nullified a bad one but offset it, the course might still be considered elite.  Pebble Beach might be such an example although that view has been debated endlessly.


For me Tobacco Road has neither great holes nor horrible ones. It is a course that is less compelling with repeat play because, other than the par fives, there is not much temptation to be aggressive.  I have found it to be a course where one plods from one target to the next.  The visuals are intimidating but with some experience you realize you have a lot of room for error as long as you aim for the middle of the fairway.  The Ross courses in the area present far more interesting golf challenges.

[Tom_Doak]

Brett:


The first question I have is, what PURPOSE are you trying to assess the course for?


I really don't try to rate courses for a long list of what is "best" -- I rate them on the basis of how much effort you should put in to try and visit them.  It's a huge difference. 


If you're going for "best", then you have to come up with some formula for how much more a truly great hole adds to the course, how much a bad hole takes away, and what value good vs very good holes have for the holes in between.  And there is no way that everyone else is going to agree with you on that formula.


By contrast, if you're doing what I do, you're looking for things that set the course apart.  The average holes in the middle don't matter too much; you want to know what's different.  Tobacco Road is very different, so it's going to rate higher on the Doak Scale than it would on a magazine top 100 list focused on "goodness".


I do think there are some really funky holes on Tobacco Road -- including the 2nd and 5th, which several people here have professed to love.  And I also think it's not a very interesting course in the short game details, which usually counts for a lot in my assessment of a course.  But it's so different that I don't think it should be ignored, and it's short enough that you can get around it even though there are some very severe features.  So, overall, I'm a fan.  But if I owned it, there are a bunch of things I'd change -- not that I would recommend anyone do that.

[ward peyronnin]

Full disclosure: I do not admire Tobacco Road yet i think everyone who has a chance should play it.
 

Variety can be a good or bad thing but there are different veins of variety. Variety of directions of play is an essential for a great course. Variety of hazards adds interest but not if they impose clutter within the framing of the line of play. Strategic variety is a positive and I can go on. But variety just for the sake of is not a strength and one of the main reasons for that opinion is how it can block the mostly ineffable rhythm a great routing or collection of holes can produce.


Good players are more likely to recognize this quality even though the intensity or degree of recognition can vary depending on the conditions of play during each round on a course. Once recognized it is more likely to enter the golfers awareness. Even less skilled players can capture the feel.  Much like a collection of architecturally harmonious buildings create ( a Cotswold Village) induces a pleasant vibe to a place so does the rhythm of a golf course.

More than 2 or 3 inferior holes, to my mind, is all it takes to drag the total experience down IMHO

[Brett Meyer]

Tom,

While you've always been very clear that your scale is intended to assess the effort that you should put into seeing a course, I don't think that's how most of us use it. We use it for overall assessment. But I think that it works well for that purpose too. Hell, I introduced it to my film major college roommate and he thought that is was great for assessing films.

In raising the issue of simple goodness-minus-badness with equal weighting on each part versus weighing down more heavily for badness (the alternative in my mind) or for goodness (Roman's idea), I am trying to get at such a formula. Now it's a very general formula because it doesn't say anything about how much the greens, bunkers, etc. should matter. But--and of course people won't agree on how to do it--I think that there's something important here to discuss.

Use a soccer analogy; you might think a bad hole is like a yellow flag but that three is a red flag and you're out, regardless of how good everything else is. Or you could just say 'let them play.' Hold the bad holes against you, but they're not disqualifying. Weighing the good more heavily is adding something like, I don't know, a 'gold flag' to the game where when someone makes a great play, they get one of those. And you could say that after a certain number of those, you get an extra point or, in this case, you're automatically on whichever top 100 list.

I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, so I'd lean toward the seeing multiple bad holes as a red flag and not having gold flags. But I'm not completely sold on it. I'd still probably put TR on a top 100 public course list.


Ward,

I agree with what I take to be your main point on variety: that there can be too much of it. That's one of the reasons why I have such a problem with many of Tobacco Road's greens. They try to incorporate too much variety within one hole.

The two best examples of over-variety for me at TR are the 15th and 17th. Each green is at least 70 yards wide but at most a dozen yards deep. You have a fairway on 15th that's probably 100 yards wide although half of it is hidden behind trees. But if you play over there, you get a bit better view of the left half of the green, which is hidden by mounds. I think that you could have accomplished the same thing on a smaller scale. I don't think that the confusing shape of the green--although it certainly adds variety--is adding much that's good.

With 17th, I'd say pick your favorite 30 yard wide section and make that the hole. There's a good analogy to writing here. As any writer knows, editing is one of the most important parts of the process. You might convey a few additional thoughts with a few thousand additional words, but people are more likely to get bored, stop reading, and lose track of the main points. With a golf course, you get overwhelmed and just start drinking beer. Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)

[Carl Rogers]

Have played Bulls Bay, Royal New Kent, Caledonia, True Blue & Stonehouse.  TR is the best of the lot.


Suggestion: consider TR is in a category by itself and should not be compared to other courses?


I think it stands in brilliant contrast to the other Sandhills options.  I live in Tidewater VA and when taking a Sandhills trip will always play 1 round at TR.

[A.G._Crockett]

Have played Bulls Bay, Royal New Kent, Caledonia, True Blue & Stonehouse.  TR is the best of the lot.


Suggestion: consider TR is in a category by itself and should not be compared to other courses?


I think it stands in brilliant contrast to the other Sandhills options.  I live in Tidewater VA and when taking a Sandhills trip will always play 1 round at TR.

Carl,

You have summed up my feelings perfectly.  I have never been able to understand why so many on this site want to try to fit TR into some kind of a mold of what they think a golf course, or a specific golf hole, should be, and why they are unable to take it for what it is; a unique piece of landscape art.
. 
I've lost count of how many times I've played TR, but I go whenever I can.  I've had great rounds there, and I've shot a million there; enjoyed ALL of them!  I keep a TR yardage book (the ONLY yardage book I own!) in the glove box of my car, in case I can get there and squeeze in a round. 


I 100% get the "issues" that TR presents, believe me.  I know that lots of people really can't play #9, for instance, because they just can't hit that second shot.  I understand that if the pin is on the far left of #17 and I hit my shot to the far right, I'm probably going to walk away with a double.  And I understand that my approach on #16, if hit poorly, may penalize me disproportionately. 


Most of this, though, is tied up with conventional expectations of what a golf course, or a hole, or even a specific shot should be.  I don't think Strantz was the least bit concerned with any of that at TR, and I feel a bit sorry for those who can't do a "paradigm shift" before they get to the first tee.  It's their loss.

A personal story: I played TR within a few weeks of it's opening back in 1998.  I had read a bit about it, and drove down by myself and played alone.  The signage on the course wasn't even fully in place; I went from 14 to 18 and realized that I was at the clubhouse and had to go back and find 15 and play in.  I had never seen anything like it, and still haven't.  And I've never had as much fun on a golf course in my life as I did that day; I just laughed then entire time; couldn't wait to get back, and still feel that way 25 years later.

[A.G._Crockett]

Getting to the rest of the title of the thread, I think that this is an issue for knowing how to assess a course and I've always had a difficult time assessing TR. It falls short of the best of the other Pinehurst courses for me because they have great holes and none of these weaknesses. But how should I compare TR to a course that I think is really solid (like The Dunes in Myrtle Beach), but lacking in great holes? Would you think of it in some simple goodness-minus-badness terms? Or does the badness of some of the holes and the routing weigh more heavily against than the good holes count in favor? Of course, you might think that there are no bad holes at TR in which case this is not an issue (although the routing still is).

Brett,

I think the above paragraph is the key to your post.  You are comparing TR to other courses in the Sandhills, and even to The Dunes at MB.  And there is just simply NO comparison, good or bad.  The moment you try to compare TR to Pine Needles or Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you have crashed thru the thin ice and are going to drown in the attempt to compare.

I've already posted on the #16 thread, so I'll leave that alone.  You consider #17 to be a ZERO hole; I think it is a really cool short 3.  How many places in the entire world do you see a green like that?  Picking the right club is a challenge. Picking the right line is a challenge.  Putting, unless you just stiffed it and especially if you missed your line by much, is a challenge.  What exactly is it that you want from a par 3 that 17 doesn't offer?  Length?  Water?  Another Redan?

[Tom_Doak]

Use a soccer analogy; you might think a bad hole is like a yellow flag but that three is a red flag and you're out, regardless of how good everything else is. Or you could just say 'let them play.' Hold the bad holes against you, but they're not disqualifying. Weighing the good more heavily is adding something like, I don't know, a 'gold flag' to the game where when someone makes a great play, they get one of those. And you could say that after a certain number of those, you get an extra point or, in this case, you're automatically on whichever top 100 list.

These thoughts are so muddled that I will take it as a clear explanation of why I was right to tell you this can't be done. 


However, you did stumble onto something here:  the notion that some feature or combination of feature could "automatically" put a course on some top 100 list, or that some other thing could "disqualify" a course from consideration.  It seems to me like there are a lot of people who just want to be the ones to make those decisions, on behalf of everyone else.


I guess I did, too, but I only gave about a dozen "zeroes" and a dozen "tens" out of more than 1500 courses rated on the Doak Scale.

[A.G._Crockett]

And since I'm once again deep in the weeds on a Tobacco Road thread:

1. This idea that Tobacco Road is a "love it or hate it" golf course is repeated here all the time, and I think it is pretty close to a complete fiction outside of this website.  If you talk to the management of TR (and I have!) they feel like their rate of return play is pretty high, and likely above whatever might be considered "industry standard".  Golf courses that are well-run track this stuff; their business depends on it, and if lots of people were playing TR and vowing to never come back, the place would have gone under long ago.  It's not like they are getting a lot of "walk in" traffic, right?

2. In most rankings, TR is rated below Mid Pines and Pine Needles, and that is completely understandable.  I had a lengthy discussion years ago with Tom Huckaby as to why that was the case, and he explained it quite satisfactorily.  The rankings, though, are not an important, or even a valid criticism of TR.  Strantz wasn't trying to build another MP/PN course, and saying that TR isn't one is sort of like reading a novel from one genre and criticizing it because it wasn't from another genre. 

[Brett Meyer]

Getting to the rest of the title of the thread, I think that this is an issue for knowing how to assess a course and I've always had a difficult time assessing TR. It falls short of the best of the other Pinehurst courses for me because they have great holes and none of these weaknesses. But how should I compare TR to a course that I think is really solid (like The Dunes in Myrtle Beach), but lacking in great holes? Would you think of it in some simple goodness-minus-badness terms? Or does the badness of some of the holes and the routing weigh more heavily against than the good holes count in favor? Of course, you might think that there are no bad holes at TR in which case this is not an issue (although the routing still is).

Brett,

I think the above paragraph is the key to your post.  You are comparing TR to other courses in the Sandhills, and even to The Dunes at MB.  And there is just simply NO comparison, good or bad.  The moment you try to compare TR to Pine Needles or Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you have crashed thru the thin ice and are going to drown in the attempt to compare.

I've already posted on the #16 thread, so I'll leave that alone.  You consider #17 to be a ZERO hole; I think it is a really cool short 3.  How many places in the entire world do you see a green like that?  Picking the right club is a challenge. Picking the right line is a challenge.  Putting, unless you just stiffed it and especially if you missed your line by much, is a challenge.  What exactly is it that you want from a par 3 that 17 doesn't offer?  Length?  Water?  Another Redan?

A.G.,

The whole point of my thread is to try to make sense of how we can compare these very different courses. Of course we can say that we just shouldn't compare them. Maybe we should get rid of rankings and have lists of notable courses. I'm pretty sympathetic to that. Then it's easy; TR, the Dunes, and Mid-Pines all belong on the list. But that's not what most people want. They want rankings. I'm trying to think of how to weigh these things for that purpose.

I explained my reasoning about 17 to Ward in one of my responses above. To me, it's an editing problem. You can always include more ideas but (I think) it's a virtue to edit them down so that you have one or two that speak clearly. It's not that 17 doesn't offer something. It's that it offers too much. Plus, it makes the routing in this section very awkward if you're playing to the left side of the green. That hole is probably shorter than the walk from the green back to the 18th tee!

[Mark_Fine]

The vision and creativity of Mike Strantz at TR on a scale of 1-10 is a 12.  It is easy to be a critic and the first time I saw the course I both laughed and shook my head but at the end of the day and the more I played it, it is shear genius.  I am glad he pushed the envelope, too many play it safe.  Just drive down the street and you will see a lot of excellent really solid very safe golf courses

[Brett Meyer]

Use a soccer analogy; you might think a bad hole is like a yellow flag but that three is a red flag and you're out, regardless of how good everything else is. Or you could just say 'let them play.' Hold the bad holes against you, but they're not disqualifying. Weighing the good more heavily is adding something like, I don't know, a 'gold flag' to the game where when someone makes a great play, they get one of those. And you could say that after a certain number of those, you get an extra point or, in this case, you're automatically on whichever top 100 list.

These thoughts are so muddled that I will take it as a clear explanation of why I was right to tell you this can't be done. 


However, you did stumble onto something here:  the notion that some feature or combination of feature could "automatically" put a course on some top 100 list, or that some other thing could "disqualify" a course from consideration.  It seems to me like there are a lot of people who just want to be the ones to make those decisions, on behalf of everyone else.


I guess I did, too, but I only gave about a dozen "zeroes" and a dozen "tens" out of more than 1500 courses rated on the Doak Scale.

Tom,

Maybe my thoughts there were a bit muddled but it looks to me like you understood the point. Some people might see a lot of negatives as disqualifying--or at least counting strongly against a course--while others are inclined to discount those negatives if there's also a lot that's really special. It seems that the other responses to my post understood the point too and have taken different positions on it.

I agree that people won't agree on how to weigh these things.  And if we need everyone to agree on how to do it, then I guess it can't be done. But I don't care if we agree. There are far more important things that people will never agree on. Still, we have arguments about them and in doing so, we might learn something about how to think about these things that we hadn't thought of.

I'm with A.G. on one point: I'd play Tobacco Road every time I go back to the sandhills. And that's because faults and all, it's so interesting. Whether I want to play a course again is related to how I'd rate it, but they're not the same thing.

[A.G._Crockett]

Brett,

The rankings already take into account the differences between MP/PN and Tobacco Road, and there are reasons within the evaluation formulas that raters use that account for MP/PN being ranked higher in most cases than TR.  Chief among those reason is the disparity between the course rating and the slope rating at TR.  The "issues" with routing at TR are another, though I struggle to connect to that one, knowing a bit about how Strantz went about picking his green sites there.


I love golf in the Sandhills, all of it.  The "bad" courses are pretty good, and the good ones are truly elite.  As it happens, I'm headed there tomorrow for a practice round and then a Sunday tournament on #5.  I signed up just last night for a two-day tournament in late February on MP and PN; the tournament filled up in seconds, literally, and the waitlist is longer than the field size!  I love Donald Ross courses, and I love Mike Strantz courses, but I NEVER get confused about WHY I love each; my love and appreciation for each in no way diminishes my feelings for the other.  And why would I bother to try to compare two things that weren't intended to be the same in the first place?

And I've got to tell you this:  I've heard and read lots of criticisms here over the years of TR, but I don't know that I've ever read anything quite like what you have to say about 17.  It offers too much?  The routing from the left side of the green to the 18th tee?  I don't get it.  Again, it's a hole that makes you think hard about club selection, makes you think hard about your intended line, rewards you for a good shot and penalizes you for a bad one, and can be played successfully or poorly by pretty much anybody.  I'm not sure what else you could ask of a par 3, really.

[Brett Meyer]

Brett,

And I've got to tell you this:  I've heard and read lots of criticisms here over the years of TR, but I don't know that I've ever read anything quite like what you have to say about 17.

Well then I guess if nothing else, I should get some credit for originality 

It offers too much?  The routing from the left side of the green to the 18th tee?  I don't get it.  Again, it's a hole that makes you think hard about club selection, makes you think hard about your intended line, rewards you for a good shot and penalizes you for a bad one, and can be played successfully or poorly by pretty much anybody.  I'm not sure what else you could ask of a par 3, really.

Maybe my soccer analogy in response to Tom was a bit confusing, but I think my writing/editing one here was clear. I think there are 4 or 5 interesting greens in that 17th green. I would have preferred it if it had been edited down to one of these sections. I'd prefer a green that's approximately the right 1/3 of the current green. Most of the virtues that you mention about the current version are present in this edited version of the hole: shallow green requiring thought about club selection, where to miss, and distance control, etc. I also like that the right side of the green has a bit of a hidden portion at its far right. If the pin is over there, you could play safe to the more visible part of the green to the left.

This is all there now, of course. But my simplified version is enough to be a really good or even great hole on its own. Adding more makes it lesser to me because I value editing something down to the simplest way of making the point. Less is more. You might disagree with this. That's fine. But it's a point that I think can be debated.

But you can't deny that to play from the right tees, next to the 16th green, to the left green then walk back to the 18th tee, which is behind the 16th green, isn't a bit awkward. It's about 150 yards from the left side of 17 green to the 18th tee on a direct line and probably 180 taking a realistic path. The walk from the right side of 17 green to the 18th tee is maybe 100 yards. So that's another reason why I'd just keep 1/3 or so of the right side of the green.

[David Ober]

Brett:


The first question I have is, what PURPOSE are you trying to assess the course for?


I really don't try to rate courses for a long list of what is "best" -- I rate them on the basis of how much effort you should put in to try and visit them.  It's a huge difference. 


If you're going for "best", then you have to come up with some formula for how much more a truly great hole adds to the course, how much a bad hole takes away, and what value good vs very good holes have for the holes in between.  And there is no way that everyone else is going to agree with you on that formula.


By contrast, if you're doing what I do, you're looking for things that set the course apart.  The average holes in the middle don't matter too much; you want to know what's different.  Tobacco Road is very different, so it's going to rate higher on the Doak Scale than it would on a magazine top 100 list focused on "goodness".


I do think there are some really funky holes on Tobacco Road -- including the 2nd and 5th, which several people here have professed to love.  And I also think it's not a very interesting course in the short game details, which usually counts for a lot in my assessment of a course.  But it's so different that I don't think it should be ignored, and it's short enough that you can get around it even though there are some very severe features.  So, overall, I'm a fan.  But if I owned it, there are a bunch of things I'd change -- not that I would recommend anyone do that.

Tom,


That is such a perfect response to the whole question of golf course "ratings" and "goodness." It is simple, to the point, and honest. It is also easily understandable for the most seasoned among us and the neophyte.


I vote we pin that -- if we did such a thing! :-)

[Stewart Abramson]

And since I'm once again deep in the weeds on a Tobacco Road thread:

This idea that Tobacco Road is a "love it or hate it" golf course is repeated here all the time, and I think it is pretty close to a complete fiction outside of this website. 

I agree.


There was a very lengthy thread on Golfwrx last year captioned something like "What's the most fun golf course in America". It had at least 100 posts. By far, the course that received the most votes was Tobacco Road. There were a couple of posts from people who didn't like the course, but my recollection is that positive posts outnumbered negative posts 10:1. Mammoth Dunes got a few mentions as the "most fun" course, but almost an even number of "hated it" comments, so perhaps that's a better example of a "love it or hate it" course. If the Golfwrx posters are any indication, TR is mostly a "love it" course to the typical travelling golfer.

[Anthony Gray]

 I’m with Brett. I felt the same way about TR.


 Ward hit on something also. A couple bad holes can make the golf experience bad as a whole.

[Sean_A]

Brett

I more or less am the sort that is looking for unusual holes and will forgive the odd stinker hole. While I like TR, it rides a fine line with some holes and long, narrow green concept. Painswick is another example of the type. There is enough cool stuff to forgive the poor stuff. I don't have a formula or specific number of holes/elements which would make me dislike a course. I did play Cullen last year and it's many mundane holes somewhat spoils and the experience. As you explained about TR's 17th, the course needs an edit to something less than 18 holes. There is too much mundane stuff to keep the round moving with 18 holes. The other option is to systematically improve the holes, if the club has dosh. There is a sleeping giant there either way.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Brett

I more or less am the sort that is looking for unusual holes and will forgive the odd stinker hole. While I like TR, it rides a fine line with some holes and long, narrow green concept. Painswick is another example of the type. There is enough cool stuff to forgive the poor stuff. I don't have a formula or specific number of holes/elements which would make me dislike a course. I did play Cullen last year and it's many mundane holes somewhat spoils and the experience. As you explained about TR's 17th, the course needs an edit to something less than 18 holes. There is too much mundane stuff to keep the round moving with 18 holes. The other option is to systematically improve the holes, if the club has dosh. There is a sleeping giant there either way.

Ciao

Sean,

For clarification, do you mean "wide, shallow green concept" rather than "long, narrow green concept"?  I ask this sincerely, and btw, I haven't played at Painswick.

I can't think of a green at TR that is especially narrow given the club that you are hitting on the approach.  3, for instance, is an extremely deep green, but you're hitting a short iron in.  The 9th green isn't long and narrow because of the angle; the issue there is going thru the green onto the hill, or not having enough carry to get up there in the first place.  16 might be considered somewhat long and narrow, though not unusually so, except that there again you are hitting a short club in.  The front of 18 is narrow, I suppose, but there is plenty of width in the middle of that green, and room to miss on the left.  Those are the only greens I can think of that would fit the description of long and narrow.

By contrast, 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 17 would be what I would consider wide and shallow.  The rest of the greens are, at least to me, pretty "standard", at least in terms of width and depth, and on the holes where you are hitting a longer club in, there IS a pretty clear place to miss and be ok.  I'd put 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 18 in that category.  That leaves out 7; that green is huge and difficult, and without a great place to miss and be ok, but it's a hard green to miss completely.

There are a lot of courses, great, good, and not so good, where the pin location might make a difference of several clubs on an approach from the same spot; Streamsong Black leaps to my mind because I just played it in November.  In fairness, I don't think TR is one of them; the big greens there are wide, but not deep.  All of this is important, and ties into the relatively low course rating and the relatively high slope rating.  Good players who are playing well don't have much trouble hitting greens and even getting close at TR; bogey golfers who can't hit their intended line can easily take 40+ putts in their round. 

[Mark_Fine]

Brett and others,
I love the analysis but I can't imagine what Mike Strantz is thinking up there.  He probably loves the debate but then again he created something there that is truly special and to pick it apart for a hole or two that doesn't suit one's game is silly.  I could say the same about a pretty famous course out in Monterrey that gets a pass having an 18th hole that any at TR would beat in a comparison contest. 


Ran has TR has one of his favorites and most influential (in his 147 Custodians) and so do I.  I have played goofy designs before but TR is not goofy, it is just pure genius.  Yes there are some holes where a bit more real estate might have helped but sometimes you have to work with what you got and overall what he built is amazing.  I recently played a course in SC called Congaree where Fazio could have used a bit more real estate at the end but over all the design is exceptional and one of his best and I sure don't diss it for a hole or two that might not match the high quality of all the others. 


I personally think we need more designs that are less conventional and not so safe.  If you play Mid Pines and Pine Needles and Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 and ... they are all fantastic golf courses.  But if someone blind folded you and dropped you on a hole on any of those courses you might not know which one you are playing.  That wouldn't happen with TR     Celebrate the creativity and variety of golf's playing fields.  Don't discourage architects from pushing outside the envelop as too many are stuck inside the same one