How I rate a course

[Rich Thomas]

Hey all...I am in the very beginning stages of starting my own page with course reviews. I am also going to start ranking the courses that I have played. The idea is somewhat like Mr. Doak's system, but for average courses that most golfers will be playing. Like most of the golfing public, I do not have regular access to private courses, so this page will be geared towards public access courses. I have compiled a list of criteria of how I would rate the course, then take those scores and average them out to get a ranking.


Just a little info, I am not in the golf business but have played at the D1 college level and have played somewhere in the vicinity of 200 courses. That may not seem like a lot, but I have significantly reduced the number rounds per year I play. I am lucky to get maybe 15 rounds per year.


If you see anything that I should add or reconsider in my list, please let me know. Thank you.

Ranking Criteria

Routing
Does the golf course flow naturally or does it seem forced. For example, does a hole seem out of place, or is it uninspired and used as a simple connector to get to the next hole. Is there a considerable amount of distance between greens and tees?Are there awkward crossovers i.e. passing one hole to get to the next, and then passing it again elsewhere in the round.Is the course walkable?
Design
Did the architect use the terrain and features to its fullest potential?Does the artificial shaping fit in with the existing landscape?
Greens and Surrounds
Do the greens present a good deal of variety? SlopesTiersFalse FrontsUnique pin positions2.   Do the greens present a visual interest?
3.   Are the greens playable?
      a.   Are they too fast or too slow for the variety?
Par 3’s
Is there variety in length requiring a variety of club selection?Does the architect allow for multiple ways to get the ball close to the hole or on the green with the use of slopes for players of all skill levels?Does the architect challenge the player to work the ball both directions for the shape of the hole?
Par 4’s
Is there variety in length (short, mid, and long)?Is the golfer required to work the ball both directions off the tee?Is the golfer required to work the ball both directions on the approach?Does the architect allow for multiple ways to play the hole for players of different skill levels?Does the architect use angles and preferred lines off the tee to set up the approach shot?Aggressive line equals more comfortable approach vs. safe line from the tee equals a more uncomfortable/more difficult approach.
Par 5’s
Is there a variety in length?Does the architect provide a risk/reward option to be able to reach the green in two?Does the architect use angles/preferred side of the fairway for layup shots?
Visual Representation/Conditioning
Is the conditioning of the course relative to the course budget?Do tree lines encroach on the playing corridors where they are clearly not intended to?Does the course fit into the landscape?
Fun Factor
Is the course memorable? Are you able to recount certain holes and shots that you were asked to hit?Do you want to play the course again? Would you bring your friends back for another round?Does the course have history? (design pedigree, hosted majors, local lore and stories, ect.)

[Rich Thomas]

Looks like the formatting screwed up...sorry about that.


Rich

[Matt Schoolfield]

I will say what I've said in public, even though I really don't think it worked out well for me, but it's still what I believe:

What you include in your course ratings says more about who you are and what you value than anything about what you think of any course.

I think it's pretty clear that I have heterodox views about golf course rankings. I've written about why I think collective rating systems are mostly useless, and that course ratings are more useful (and arguably more interesting) when they are specifically based around an individual's preferences, rather than and objective sense of what is good.

I value many things that you've not included: accessibility, stewardship, a sense of value in cost but also in historic, architectural, or agronomic merit,  environmental impacts, and the golf course as a place, more than just the course itself. However, I don't think you or anyone else needs to include those things, because your audience will appreciate your take, exactly because they gain something from your opinions on things that you value (not on things I value).

I think you have a well thought out system, and the idea that you're taking on public access course will be very helpful to the most people. I'd be excited to read some of your thoughts and impressions of courses when you start writing.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, you seem to be rating the club more than the architectural merits of the course.

[Ira Fishman]

Rich,


I think your criteria are excellent. The only quibble is that I do not think the history of the course (especially tournaments hosted) is relevant for the quality of the architecture. TOC being the exception that proves the rule.


Thanks for sharing.


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

I will say what I've said in public, even though I really don't think it worked out well for me, but it's still what I believe:

What you include in your course ratings says more about who you are and what you value than anything about what you think of any course.

I think it's pretty clear that I have heterodox views about golf course rankings. I've written about why I think collective rating systems are mostly useless, and that course ratings are more useful (and arguably more interesting) when they are specifically based around an individual's preferences, rather than and objective sense of what is good.

I value many things that you've not included: accessibility, stewardship, a sense of value in cost but also in historic, architectural, or agronomic merit,  environmental impacts, and the golf course as a place, more than just the course itself. However, I don't think you or anyone else needs to include those things, because your audience will appreciate your take, exactly because they gain something from your opinions on things that you value (not on things I value).

I think you have a well thought out system, and the idea that you're taking on public access course will be very helpful to the most people. I'd be excited to read some of your thoughts and impressions of courses when you start writing.

Matt,


We typically don’t agree, but I do like this post, specifically your suggestion that who is making an assessment matters as much, if not more than the course itself.


As I am sure you are aware, when Tom Doak wrote The Confidential Guide he was very clear what he valued and what he didn’t. The course ratings were his opinions and that was very clearly stated.


Tim
Tim

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt, you seem to be rating the club more than the architectural merits of the course.

I do think there is an ambiguity of where the course ends and where the club begins (or even where the rest of the community begins). For example, should a course be criticized for having an extremely difficult opening tee shot if the club has no warm up facility? Should the course be criticized for having a deliberately easy finishing hole (or praised for having a 19th) at a match play club? Should beautiful views be considered at all when those views are by definition not part of the course? Do we consider wildlife or grazing animals to be relevant to the experience?

Beyond that, the concept of value must be tied to something unrelated to a course's architecture itself. Is the history of TOC relevant to the experience of playing it? Is it worth considering if a course that is run on a shoestring is able to manage world class conditions? Would it affect our opinion of our experience if we knew that the runoff from the course maintenance was actively harming local, genuinely endangered wildlife?

Some might try to rate courses as though they are inside of a kind of diorama, completely separate from the world they exist in, yet most still think (by definition) temporary course conditions still matter (we've even had threads on the subject).

For me a golf course's value is based on the experience it provides when playing golf. It will always be in some type of flux, and that will vary day to day (pace issue caused by course policies), to seasonal issues (different conditions for different seasons), to even long-term issues (what the course represents at certain periods of time). That experience is going to be subjective by definition, and that experience will be influenced by what the rater values... from things as technical as a card-and-pencil vs a fun-factor focus, to things as arbitrary as distant scenery to whether the site improves or harms its community. Different people have different values, and I see the point of rating courses to be one of educating others (especially those who share similar values), and not some ridiculous exercise in correctly gilding lilies. I'm not saying that creating a list isn't a fun exercise, and I completely understand why they exist, I just don't think it's particularly productive.

As I am sure you are aware, when Tom Doak wrote The Confidential Guide he was very clear what he valued and what he didn’t. The course ratings were his opinions and that was very clearly stated.

That is really something I'd not thought of. I'll have to take a look at the specifics when I get a chance.

[Rich Thomas]

Rich,


I think your criteria are excellent. The only quibble is that I do not think the history of the course (especially tournaments hosted) is relevant for the quality of the architecture. TOC being the exception that proves the rule.


Thanks for sharing.


Ira,


When I look at the history of the course, I'm not necessarily looking at tournaments hosted, although, that may be part of the lure of playing a course. A specific shot that you recall seeing on TV, then dropping a ball in the same spot and hitting that shot brings you full circle. One that stands out to me is The Canadian Open when Tiger hit the ball out of the bunker over the trees and onto the green. Tell me that if you played that course, you wouldn't want to try that. Or, more recently, Rahm's putt on on 18 at Torrey Pines.
What I have in my head when I speak of history, I think of Lion's Municipal in Austin, the first desegregated municipal course in the South, or my home course in Illinois where the local high school team from 1975-2008 went to the state tournament 23 out of 33 years with 8 team titles and 6 individual champions, along with another 16 individuals medaling in the top 10.
Hope that clears up what I mean by history of the course.


Rich
Ira

[Rich Thomas]

Matt,


I read the essay that you linked in the post. Very interesting. While I do agree with you that the way someone feels about a course is subjective (how they play, the weather conditions), I feel like a lot of the criteria I listed is fairly objective. I am well aware that I need to try and take personal feelings out of the equation. I can't let what I shoot or the outcome of a specific shot dictate any part of the score that I give a course. Also, keep in mind, this is just going to be a ranking/review of courses that I play, not a definitive ranking of the best courses in the world.
I do plan on taking historical and architectural merit into account in the Fun Factor section, I would have never thought about agronomical merit or environmental impact. You bring up many points to consider moving forward. Thank you.


Rich

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt,

I read the essay that you linked in the post. Very interesting. While I do agree with you that the way someone feels about a course is subjective (how they play, the weather conditions), I feel like a lot of the criteria I listed is fairly objective. I am well aware that I need to try and take personal feelings out of the equation. I can't let what I shoot or the outcome of a specific shot dictate any part of the score that I give a course. Also, keep in mind, this is just going to be a ranking/review of courses that I play, not a definitive ranking of the best courses in the world.

I do plan on taking historical and architectural merit into account in the Fun Factor section, I would have never thought about agronomical merit or environmental impact. You bring up many points to consider moving forward. Thank you.

Rich

I do appreciate you taking the time to read the long form version of what I'm trying to say and really hearing me out.

[Sean_A]

Rich

Long ago I came to the realisation that ranking/rating courses is completely subjective. I had this opinion reinforced recently after completing this exercise for a magazine. Using the mag criteria I could see that there were glaring differences in the outcome compared to my far less regimented “system”. I didn’t amend the results to suit my tastes because it’s not my ranking. I understand that I am a small part of the assembly line. Be that as it may, the list I submitted didn’t pass my eye test. However, I do think it passed the imaginary eye test of the mag criteria. I write this to impart a few suggestions.

Don’t be afraid to amend your criteria to satisfy your eye test. That is to say trust your gut, but keep your eyes open.

Try to see what is in the ground rather than what you like to see in the ground. I made a serious effort to start doing this many years ago and I believe it helped me see past my preferred aesthetics and even appreciate aspects and features that I previously didn’t.

Try to avoid any system with assigned value points that add up to 100 or whatever. Even try to avoid having to assign value to all of your criteria for every course. I say this because every course has its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the greens for a course can be far more important than the predetermined point allowance. Or perhaps the topography can be this way. Whatever the feature may be, sometimes it can carry more weight than on another type of design. I think it’s important to try to recognise this if it exists. This will leave you space for the unusual or extraordinary.

Don’t be a afraid to break away from group think. It’s your list and people will want to read it for this reason.

Have fun with your project!

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Don’t be afraid to amend your criteria to satisfy your eye test. That is to say trust your gut, but keep your eyes open.

Try to see what is in the ground rather than what you like to see in the ground. I made a serious effort to start doing this many years ago and I believe it helped me see past my preferred aesthetics and even appreciate aspects and features that I previously didn’t.

Try to avoid any system with assigned value points that add up to 100 or whatever. Even try to avoid having to assign value to all of your criteria for every course. I say this because every course has its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the greens for a course can be far important than the predetermined point allowance. Or perhaps the topography can be this way. Whatever the feature may be, sometimes it can carry more weight than on another type of design. I think it’s important to try to recognise this if it exists. This will leave you space for the unusual or extraordinary.

I could not agree more with these suggestions.  I do think the weakness of "panelists" is that many of them have such a strong view of all the things they want to see, that they spend more time finding fault against their view of perfection, than appreciating what makes a given course unique.


At the end of the day, if a course has some aspect that makes it really different and outstanding, that quality [whatever it is] is its drawing card and makes it something to seek out instead of just another place to enjoy the game.

[Ally Mcintosh]

100% on Tom’s first paragraph, and Sean’s similar point just before.


I’m less sold on Tom’s second paragraph, although we’ve been here before. I think uniqueness should absolutely be celebrated. But it shouldn’t always override that some courses are just incrementally “better” in the overall quality from 1-18. If you’re going with the latter, you have to be able to explain why, though.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean is absolutely correct here, its a completely subjective exercise in every possible way, akin to trying to rank hot women or a favorite food

PS I think his idea from past threads would serve these rankings best, in following the Michelin model.  Put the best ones in general buckets of relative excellence in a 1-3 star system and call it good.  And if you want more granularity use the DS as its also a relative ranking not one that tries to be quantitative.

[John Kirk]

Hi Rich,


Evaluating golf courses is one of my favorite topics here on GCA.  Here are a number of my thoughts:


1.  Tom Doak's Confidential Guide series of books are the best reference source for how to evaluate courses.


2.  Tom rates courses on a 0-10 rating scale.  A rating of 5 is a recommended course; therefore Tom has established a scale with six levels of recommended courses, and courses rated 8 or higher are among the top 1% of all courses.Whatever scale you use, it should have four to six grades of great to separate the very best.  Sean A uses a scale not unlike the Michelin restaurant scale, which awards up to three stars along with the coveted honorable mention rating.  Or just use a simple four or five star system, but if you do, a one star course is a course of considerable merit.

Like Tom and Sean, I strongly recommend a single rating which encompasses your overall opinion.  Don't get too mechanical.



3.  It's important to be a tough grader so that you can separate the best from the merely fantastic.


4.  Rich, your list of criteria is comprehensive.  I have distilled my general evaluation down to two factors — how fun are the shots and how interesting is the walk.

Each shot requires the player to assess the upcoming stroke, select a club and the type of shot to be attempted, and then execute the shot and observe the results.  At great courses this act of imagining and executing shots is deeply satisfying.

Other than that, I like to watch birds and trees and whatever inbetween the shots.  Watching your playing partners hit shots is worthwhile as well.


If I had to add one criterion to your list, it would be a sense of rhythm to the holes.  The game has a rhythm to it and on good courses there are grand crescendos in the experience.  Sometimes the climax is near the end; on Pacific Dunes in Bandon it takes place on the 13th green, after the player had work his way north through holes 10-13 into the summer wind, before turning around and heading home downwind.

5.  My methodology is different from Sean A and Matt Schoolfield in important ways.  I will use all available information to make an accurate call.  Compared to Sean A and Matt Schoolfield, I believe there is a right answer for a course rating, and that the range of ratings for a given course should be pretty tight.  Really good courses yield fun and exciting shots; their greatness is usually evident.

I draw on other people's opinions to refine my own assessment.  I look for valuable information wherever I can find it.  It can be counterproductive to use another opinion as an anchor rating, but I stand by it.  It's not uncommon to be underwhelmed by a great course the first time around.  Maybe Tom rated the course an 8 or 9, or Golf or Golfweek's composite rankings put a course in the top 50, and I just don't get it.  In that case, I'll conclude that maybe I've got it wrong.  So I'll think about it some more, and if I'm lucky I'll get a second chance to play it.


I was fortunate enough to play Crystal Downs about four times in about 2006 - 2010.  I thought it probably should be rated a 7 the first time around, and by the fourth time I felt like I was walking on hallowed ground.


If an expert rates a course a 7, it would be quite daring to rate it lower than 6 or higher than 8.  Be prepared to back it up with a good argument.  Make a great argument or two and you'll be respected forever here.

6.  Finally, know your biases and preferences.  Thanks for letting me share.

 

[John Kirk]

Hi Chris,


I just remembered an essay that I often recommend.  It's right here on GCA in the "In My Opinion" section.

"Joshua Crane in the Golden Age" by Bob Crosby


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/

[Sean_A]

John

My approach relies heavily on the Michelin Guide with a few tweeks.

3* don't miss for any reason

2* plan a significant trip around this course

1* worth staying an extra night and some additional driving

R worth a significant daytrip; no more driving than it takes to play and have drinks...~5 hours

r a good trip filler course

NR not recommended

In practice 3* and NR are extremely rare. 2* is quite rare

I don't tell the reader between r and R..I let them read between the lines

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not a big fan of Sean's "Michelin" system because I have frequently found myself disagreeing with his rating, even though we have very similar tastes . . . if you've only got three stars to give and well-traveled people can't agree about what courses deserve two, that just proves how subjective the whole thing is.


With ten numbers, disagreeing by 1 out of 10 will happen often, but it's less significant, and you get an idea of where the course fits.  [It's still subjective as all hell.]


At any rate, what sets apart The Confidential Guide [and Sean's ratings] are the reviews of the course, and not the number at the end.  Reviews are where you can get a clear color of the place and sort out whether it's something YOU would enjoy, instead of just something the rater enjoyed.


Reviews > rankings

[Sean_A]

Tom

I purposely reduced the options because I wanted scores to be clear as to which courses I thnk are the highest recommendations. I didn't want any blurred lines at the star grades. I don't mind blurred lines for the courses recommended below star grades. The crux of my system is really betweem 1* and R. That jump of much more time and money invested into seeing a course.

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Hi Rich,

I wanted to send a quick note.  Your thread inspired me to share quite a few thoughts.  They are just a few things to consider for when you begin reviewing and ranking courses the way you think it should be done.  Thanks.

[Jeff Schley]

Tom

I purposely reduced the options because I wanted scores to be clear as to which courses I thnk are the highest recommendations. I didn't want any blurred lines at the star grades. I don't mind blurred lines for the courses recommended below star grades. The crux of my system is really betweem 1* and R. That jump of much more time and money invested into seeing a course.

Ciao

Sean I know you have several ratings.  Nifty Fifty, Happy 100.  What else?  Do you use the same system for all? 

[Sean_A]

Tom

I purposely reduced the options because I wanted scores to be clear as to which courses I thnk are the highest recommendations. I didn't want any blurred lines at the star grades. I don't mind blurred lines for the courses recommended below star grades. The crux of my system is really betweem 1* and R. That jump of much more time and money invested into seeing a course.

Ciao

Sean I know you have several ratings.  Nifty Fifty, Happy 100.  What else?  Do you use the same system for all?

Jeff

Nifty 50 and Happy 100 are one and the same. Just my favourite 50 and 100. This list has nothing to do with my rating (recommendations) system. However, naturally there is some cross over.

Ciao

[Mike Feeney]

The breadth & depth of Rich's criteria is impressive and thoughtful.  I like it.

Perhaps, like many here, I keep a list ranking the courses I have played.  Not nearly as scientific...personal.

Summary of my approach:   In order, what would be the courses I would most enjoy playing 3 days in a row?

Criteria:
       1. Fun (Isn’t that the whole point?)
       2. Unique/memorable experience
       3. Walkability (how I have the most fun)
       4. Strategic hole designs
       5. Conditioning
       6. Not overwhelming for a 5-7 handicap (sorry, Oakmont & #2)

[Ally Mcintosh]

I will say that I’m not as big a fan of the word “fun” as the majority on here. I know it was TD who promoted that word way back when.


It means different things to different people: Some just want to hit humorous and quirky shots with no context of how they fit in to the overall picture…. Others find their fun in pitting themselves against a course in a scoring way, to the extent of getting minor wins against a course that usually beats them up….. many / most have some other idea of “fun” that sits in between those two extremes… but it’s always quite individual…. The only thing that everyone agrees on is dry vs wet (note not even firm vs soft)

[Jonathan Cummings]

I scratch my head at anyone attempting to rank courses via an intermediate step like quantifying categories.  At the end of the day all magazines and many personal lists are ranked lists...  A is better than B is better than C, etc.  The best approach is simply to use your opinion, completely subjective, and come up with your own ranking of the courses you see.  I like the deck of cards analogy - the top card is Pine Valley and the bottom card the muni up the street.  You play a new course and decide where in your deck you want to slide it where those above, you think are better, and below, not as good.  No one can argue with your "system" as its purely your opinion.  People will argue forever about a category-based system because there is no "right," and you are likely to forever be tweaking it.  Just ask Golf Digest.