[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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()