What criteria do you use when evaluating courses you have played?

Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
We debate this endlessly and there are no right or wrong answers. Most of us don't go hole by hole when deciding which courses we like or don't like. But at least four entities perform a formal rating and they all use different criteria and raters. Here are some observations. I'll publish the details in a second post to keep this short.



The poll choices are the criteria used by the four rating entities so there is some overlap. I also added a few at the end. So, what do you consider when ranking courses you have played?



WWW.top100golfcourses.com



Their lists are the most extensive and differs greatly from the magazines. They have three criteria.



Golfweek



850 evaluators and ten criteria



Golf Digest



Seven criteria with shot values counting double.

Must be a five capper or lower to be a rater.

954 course rating panel today and going to 2000 next year.



Golf Magazine



100 raters

No defined evaluation criteria

They have an obvious old course bias; 18 of their top 20 were built before 1938
«134

Comments

  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    www.top100golfcourses.com

    40% Quality of design and test.

    30% Visual appeal and enjoyment

    30% Presentation



    Golfweek:

    850 evaluators

    Ten criteria

    1. Ease and intimacy of routing

    The extent to which the sequence of holes follows natural contours and unfolds in an unforced manner.

    2A. Integrity of original design (Classic)

    The extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the original design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it.

    2B. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)

    The extent to which the land’s features have been enhanced though earthmoving and shaping to form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence.

    3. Natural setting and overall land plan

    Quality and aesthetic relationship of golf course, clubhouse, cart paths and other facility features to surrounding structures and native scenery.

    4. Interest of greens and surrounding contours

    Shotmaking demands on and around the putting surfaces.

    5. Variety and memorability of par 3s

    Different clubs hit; different terrain; different looks.

    6. Variety and memorability of par 4s

    The extent to which the angles of play, varied terrain and left-to-right/right-to-left shots create interesting and varied playing options.

    7. Variety and memorability of par 5s

    The extent to which holes offer a variety of options from the tee and on the second shot as well as risk/reward possibilities.

    8. Basic quality of conditioning

    Variety of playing textures; extent of turf coverage; consistency and quality of bunker sand; delineation of tees/fairways/roughs/collars and chipping areas (beyond day-to-day changes because of weather, aerification, overseeding or repairs).

    9. Landscape and tree management

    The extent to which trees and any floral features complement or enhance rather than impose and intrude upon the ground features, and the playing options of the course.

    10. “Walk in the park” test

    The degree to which the course ultimately is worth spending a half-day on as a compelling outdoor experience.



    Golf Digest:

    To arrive at a course's final score, we total its averages in the seven categories, doubling Shot Values

    1. SHOT VALUES (25%)

    How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

    2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING (12.5%)

    How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

    3. DESIGN VARIETY (12.5%)

    How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

    4. MEMORABILITY (12.5%)

    How well do the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

    5. AESTHETICS (12.5%)

    How well do the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round?

    6. CONDITIONING (12.5%)

    How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, how firm yet receptive were the greens and how true were the roll of putts on the day you played the course?

    7.AMBIENCE (12.5%)

    How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?.



    Golf Magazine

    100 raters

    493 courses

    No defined evaluation criteria

    They have an obvious old course bias (2 of top 20 are post 1937)
  • caniac6caniac6 Members Posts: 2,773 ✭✭
    Probably a combination of all of the above.
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 591 ✭✭
    IMHO the Golf Digest criteria is pretty much in line with mine.



    Some people have issues with the "Resistance to Scoring" criteria but I don't. The best example I can think of is a course which has bunkers placed at locations that challenge you to hit a shot to specific side of a fairway for safety while offering you a risk/reward choice if you challenge the bunker. My home course does a really good job of this and is one of the reasons I really like it.

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    jvincent wrote:


    IMHO the Golf Digest criteria is pretty much in line with mine.



    Some people have issues with the "Resistance to Scoring" criteria but I don't. The best example I can think of is a course which has bunkers placed at locations that challenge you to hit a shot to specific side of a fairway for safety while offering you a risk/reward choice if you challenge the bunker. My home course does a really good job of this and is one of the reasons I really like it.




    I also like a lot of the Golf Digest criteria, but not their focus on resistance to scoring. IMHO resistance to scoring doesn't add any value to the experience. A clown in front of the hole adds resistance to scoring as do any number of other obstacles such as really severe greens, tee shots with miniscule landing areas, waist high rough just off the fairway, etc. To me, that doesn't make a good golf course.



    A good example is Prairie Dunes. I rate it lower due to the three foot high weeds just off the fairway. Yes, that is resistance to scoring but it makes for a really bad round of golf. There is nothing worse in golf than looking for a golf ball.
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 591 ✭✭

    jvincent wrote:


    IMHO the Golf Digest criteria is pretty much in line with mine.



    Some people have issues with the "Resistance to Scoring" criteria but I don't. The best example I can think of is a course which has bunkers placed at locations that challenge you to hit a shot to specific side of a fairway for safety while offering you a risk/reward choice if you challenge the bunker. My home course does a really good job of this and is one of the reasons I really like it.




    I also like a lot of the Golf Digest criteria, but not their focus on resistance to scoring. IMHO resistance to scoring doesn't add any value to the experience. A clown in front of the hole adds resistance to scoring as do any number of other obstacles such as really severe greens, tee shots with miniscule landing areas, waist high rough just off the fairway, etc. To me, that doesn't make a good golf course.



    A good example is Prairie Dunes. I rate it lower due to the three foot high weeds just off the fairway. Yes, that is resistance to scoring but it makes for a really bad round of golf. There is nothing worse in golf than looking for a golf ball.




    I think that's the key to the RTS criteria.



    Wide open with no trouble gets a low score. Clown golf setups should also get a low score. It says it should be challenging, yet fair and I'm OK with that.

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • b.heltsb.helts Members Posts: 2,848 ✭✭
    With the golf digest one I don’t like conditioning being equal to ambiance and aesthetics. If I’m evaluating my favorite courses conditioning has to be very good for a course to even register.
  • golfandfishinggolfandfishing Members Posts: 3,495 ✭✭
    Evaluating all of that during a round seems like exhausting work.
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 4,034 ✭✭
    edited Jan 8, 2019 8:17am #9
    I think it's important to rate the static things that do not change rather than the "experience" which can change day to day based on differing factors. Or the facilities etc which have nothing to do with playing golf. To me it's about the golf course and whats on the ground.



    Also I heard that Golf Digest has completely redone their rating criteria for 2019. Will be interesting to see how that effects their rankings long term.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • az2auaz2au Members Posts: 1,805 ✭✭


    I think it's important to rate the static things that do not change rather than the "experience" which can change day to day based on differing factors. Or the facilities etc which have nothing to do with playing golf. To me it's about the golf course and whats on the ground.



    Also I heard that Golf Digest has completely redone their rating criteria for 2019. Will be interesting to see how that effects their rankings long term.


    Not completely but multiple categories have been altered. Should be released publicly shortly if it hasn't been already.
  • teejaywhyteejaywhy Official GolfWRX Curmudgeon Members Posts: 7,176 ✭✭
    edited Jan 9, 2019 9:12am #11
    I'm a recreational golfer with modest skills. I play golf for fun. I suppose I align myself most closely with the GolfWeek rating criteria.



    I've always been puzzled about how to apply Golf Digest's "Resistance to Scoring" measure. Have played plenty of poorly conceived holes that were very resistant to scoring, but not in a good way.



    I think top100golfcourses.com can be disregarded entirely. No different than Yelp or Google reviews.



    One measure not mentioned in your poll that I find important is "Options." Which means I tend to favor strategic designs that can be played in different ways vs. the hole style that dictates every shot and is more of a serial test of shotmaking.



    Also, I tend to favor interesting design over conditioning. I don't value amenities like clubhouse/driving range/beverage service etc. in any way.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭


    Evaluating all of that during a round seems like exhausting work.




    Correct. And very few people do it.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    teejaywhy wrote:


    One measure not mentioned in your poll that I find important is "Options." Which means I tend to favor strategic designs that can be played in different ways vs. the hole style that dictates every shot and is more of a serial test of shotmaking.




    That might be included in "shot values"; "How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?f"




    Also, I tend to favor interesting design over conditioning. I don't value amenities like clubhouse/driving range/beverage service etc. in any way.




    I just think they contribute to the overall experience. I enjoy practicing, so a really good practice area is a bonus. Two that stand out are Lochenheath and Flint Hills National. Their practice facilities are so much better than the average course that it contributes to the overall experience.
  • DavePelz4DavePelz4 A golf course in the Chicago area.ClubWRX Posts: 24,465 ClubWRX
    Mrs. Pelz can give you the best definition and application of Resistance to Scoring.
  • El GringoEl Gringo Members Posts: 77 ✭✭
    I am not convinced any of the categories mean much. I could be wrong, but I think most people massage numbers to fit their opinions. I know that when I tried to use magazine criteria the lists didn't pass the eye test of my experience. For the past 6-7 years I have been trying to see what is in the ground rather than matching features against a set of prescribed criteria. Consequently, criteria asuch as shot values, resistance to scoring, evaluations of par groups etc has held no weight with me. As such, for my purposes I use my own criteria:



    Site: terrain and quality of soils/turf



    Greens: firm & true, variety of styles, contour & slope



    Man-made Features: placement, economy of design and balance/variety



    Routing: green sites, the walk, use of natural features & views



    Ciao
    El Gringo's GB&I Golf Course Tours

    http://www.google.co...2499999965&z=11
  • CDMCDM Members Posts: 1,755 ✭✭
    Tough to vote as I could pick 3 or 4 listed above, not just one. So may factors play into it.... you can have the best route/designed course with poor conditions and ruin the whole course. Conditions come up and the course might be the bet you ever played.
  • mallratmallrat Members Posts: 2,951 ✭✭
    Gotta be honest, the 5 capper or better for rating is utter garbage.



    Let’s limit our course raters to the upper 5% of the golfing population. I would trust a 10 handicap or someone who can spray it a bit probably more than 5.
  • mallratmallrat Members Posts: 2,951 ✭✭

    teejaywhy wrote:


    One measure not mentioned in your poll that I find important is "Options." Which means I tend to favor strategic designs that can be played in different ways vs. the hole style that dictates every shot and is more of a serial test of shotmaking.




    That might be included in "shot values"; "How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?f"




    Also, I tend to favor interesting design over conditioning. I don't value amenities like clubhouse/driving range/beverage service etc. in any way.




    I just think they contribute to the overall experience. I enjoy practicing, so a really good practice area is a bonus. Two that stand out are Lochenheath and Flint Hills National. Their practice facilities are so much better than the average course that it contributes to the overall experience.




    Amenities don’t just mean clubhouse but I count service under that as well.



    Example. We played Moon Palace in Cancun a few years back and got an all inclusive deal. Service was good, course was alright, conditions were excellent. We get to the turn stand and we just order a beer 2 waters and a lemonade (I very rarely drink). Bartender replies “are you sure? It looks like you got the all inclusive.” Well we’ll take 2 turkey sandwiches too. He responds “here just take the 6 pack, you paid for it.” In the end we ended up with a bottle of Tequila, a bottle of Rum, 2 turkey sandwiches and a 6 pack of Tecate.



    Just that experience raising my memory and rating for the course
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 4,034 ✭✭
    mallrat wrote:


    teejaywhy wrote:


    One measure not mentioned in your poll that I find important is "Options." Which means I tend to favor strategic designs that can be played in different ways vs. the hole style that dictates every shot and is more of a serial test of shotmaking.




    That might be included in "shot values"; "How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?f"




    Also, I tend to favor interesting design over conditioning. I don't value amenities like clubhouse/driving range/beverage service etc. in any way.




    I just think they contribute to the overall experience. I enjoy practicing, so a really good practice area is a bonus. Two that stand out are Lochenheath and Flint Hills National. Their practice facilities are so much better than the average course that it contributes to the overall experience.




    Amenities don’t just mean clubhouse but I count service under that as well.



    Example. We played Moon Palace in Cancun a few years back and got an all inclusive deal. Service was good, course was alright, conditions were excellent. We get to the turn stand and we just order a beer 2 waters and a lemonade (I very rarely drink). Bartender replies “are you sure? It looks like you got the all inclusive.” Well we’ll take 2 turkey sandwiches too. He responds “here just take the 6 pack, you paid for it.” In the end we ended up with a bottle of Tequila, a bottle of Rum, 2 turkey sandwiches and a 6 pack of Tecate.



    Just that experience raising my memory and rating for the course




    That sounds like a great experience but how does the fact that the bartender took great care of you make the golf course better than if he hadn't?
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • mallratmallrat Members Posts: 2,951 ✭✭
    It has an effect on ones overall experience. Part of a course and it’s ratings is the whole experience.



    I work at a top 100-200 course and for the most part our service is outstanding. This year they tried something different with the bev cart. Only complaints I heard all year were A) that one of the courses is too hard B) the bev cart annoyed EVERYONE. Do you think that doesn’t have an effect on how people remember or view a course?



  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 4,034 ✭✭
    edited Jan 13, 2019 1:58pm #21
    mallrat wrote:


    It has an effect on ones overall experience. Part of a course and it’s ratings is the whole experience.



    I work at a top 100-200 course and for the most part our service is outstanding. This year they tried something different with the bev cart. Only complaints I heard all year were A) that one of the courses is too hard B) the bev cart annoyed EVERYONE. Do you think that doesn’t have an effect on how people remember or view a course?




    I'm sure it does have an effect on how people remember their experience but I don't think it should effect a courses rating on any top courses rankings type list. That should (imo) be about the golf course not about things like amenities and service which have nothing to do with playing golf. Should your courses ranking go down this year because of an annoying beer cart policy?



    Maybe someone should make a ranking of the Top 100 Golf Experiences rather than Top 100 Courses. That would be totally relevant, interesting and different from a ranking of top courses.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • az2auaz2au Members Posts: 1,805 ✭✭
    mallrat wrote:


    It has an effect on ones overall experience. Part of a course and it's ratings is the whole experience.



    I work at a top 100-200 course and for the most part our service is outstanding. This year they tried something different with the bev cart. Only complaints I heard all year were A) that one of the courses is too hard B) the bev cart annoyed EVERYONE. Do you think that doesn't have an effect on how people remember or view a course?


    I can only speak for myself but I consider experience and design to be completely different and I try extremely hard to remove experience from the overall consideration when rating a course. Many times I don't even go in the clubhouse other than a quick stop in the pro shop to say hi to the hosting pro when doing an evaluation. I generally try to limit range to exclusively warming up and that means I'm rarely there more than 10-15 minutes. I've never stopped in the bar after doing an evaluation either. Those factors simply don't come into play when I'm doing my work as a panelist.



    Now, there is some group think built in however. I just got my panelist scorecard and got dinged for being an outlier on a few courses. That's fine and I get the reasoning but the one I was really an outlier on annoys me a touch. I'm not going to name names but it hosts a tour event and my rating was almost 15 points below the average rating score. I'm not the least bit surprised by this because I think it is getting love based on name and fame but I think it is an objectively terrible golf course and I'd be very happy to provide my rationale as to why but it would be ignored. That means my score was thrown out. I get it and I'm actually ok with it. There were a ton of ballots on this course and mine was 15 points off of average so either I'm just a curmudgeon that can truly ignore the things we are supposed to ignore while others give it famous points or I just have a negative blind spot for that course. Either could be true.
  • averysdadaverysdad Members Posts: 1,209 ✭✭
    edited Jan 13, 2019 3:18pm #23
    I used to have a buddy who evaluated courses strictly on how HE played there. If we were to have played at Pebble and he shot 104 he’d say it was dump but if he shot a 75 at a dump he’d say he loved it. He’s softened a bit and enjoys more the experience these days but his old “grading scale” used to make us all that play with him to have a good laugh when his grade was “given” post round.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    CDM wrote:


    Tough to vote as I could pick 3 or 4 listed above, not just one. So may factors play into it.... you can have the best route/designed course with poor conditions and ruin the whole course. Conditions come up and the course might be the bet you ever played.




    You can pick as many as you like.
  • az2auaz2au Members Posts: 1,805 ✭✭
    averysdad wrote:


    I used to have a buddy who evaluated courses strictly on how HE played there. If we were to have played at Pebble and he shot 104 he’d say it was dump but if he shot a 75 at a dump he’d say he loved it. He’s softened a bit and enjoys more the experience these days but his old “grading scale” used to make us all that play with him to have a good laugh when his grade was “given” post round.


    I don’t even keep a scorecard of what I score when I do an evaluation. I know what I shot and all that but a person’s score should have nothing to do with evaluating a course as you note.
  • averysdadaverysdad Members Posts: 1,209 ✭✭
    ^^me neither. I just enjoy playing new places good and bad.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    mallrat wrote:


    Amenities don't just mean clubhouse but I count service under that as well.



    Example. We played Moon Palace in Cancun a few years back and got an all inclusive deal. Service was good, course was alright, conditions were excellent. We get to the turn stand and we just order a beer 2 waters and a lemonade (I very rarely drink). Bartender replies "are you sure? It looks like you got the all inclusive." Well we'll take 2 turkey sandwiches too. He responds "here just take the 6 pack, you paid for it." In the end we ended up with a bottle of Tequila, a bottle of Rum, 2 turkey sandwiches and a 6 pack of Tecate.



    Just that experience raising my memory and rating for the course




    Most of us are like that. Very few, if any, of us rate only the course layout. As somebody posted, it's a lot of work to go hole by hole and evaluate every shot option, every green, etc. Most of the time I'm playing a top ranked course for the first and only time. For example, I played Whistling Straits last year and will never play it again. I made no effort to go hole by hole and evaluate each tee option, green configuration, etc. I don't think many of us do that. Instead, we develop a very high level opinion of the course. Was if fun? Scenic? Good condition? Variety of holes? etc.



    Then, a year or two or more later we rank the courses we have played. Our memory of that one experience is certainly influenced by other factors such as service, history, 19th hole, etc. Even how well we played that day is likely to influence our ranking.



    I've never met anyone who does a hole by hole evaluation every time they play a new course.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,492 ✭✭
    az2au wrote:

    mallrat wrote:


    It has an effect on ones overall experience. Part of a course and it's ratings is the whole experience.



    I work at a top 100-200 course and for the most part our service is outstanding. This year they tried something different with the bev cart. Only complaints I heard all year were A) that one of the courses is too hard B) the bev cart annoyed EVERYONE. Do you think that doesn't have an effect on how people remember or view a course?


    I can only speak for myself but I consider experience and design to be completely different and I try extremely hard to remove experience from the overall consideration when rating a course. Many times I don't even go in the clubhouse other than a quick stop in the pro shop to say hi to the hosting pro when doing an evaluation. I generally try to limit range to exclusively warming up and that means I'm rarely there more than 10-15 minutes. I've never stopped in the bar after doing an evaluation either. Those factors simply don't come into play when I'm doing my work as a panelist.



    Now, there is some group think built in however. I just got my panelist scorecard and got dinged for being an outlier on a few courses. That's fine and I get the reasoning but the one I was really an outlier on annoys me a touch. I'm not going to name names but it hosts a tour event and my rating was almost 15 points below the average rating score. I'm not the least bit surprised by this because I think it is getting love based on name and fame but I think it is an objectively terrible golf course and I'd be very happy to provide my rationale as to why but it would be ignored. That means my score was thrown out. I get it and I'm actually ok with it. There were a ton of ballots on this course and mine was 15 points off of average so either I'm just a curmudgeon that can truly ignore the things we are supposed to ignore while others give it famous points or I just have a negative blind spot for that course. Either could be true.




    I hear you.



    I think, for example, it would be difficult for anybody to rate The Old Course and ignore its history.



    You "consider experience and design to be completely different and I try extremely hard to remove experience from the overall consideration when rating a course". But some of the rating agencies consider a lot more than course design, such as memorability, ambience, aesthetics, landscape and tree management, integrity of original design, and visual appeal and enjoyment.
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 4,034 ✭✭
    edited Jan 13, 2019 7:55pm #29

    mallrat wrote:


    Amenities don't just mean clubhouse but I count service under that as well.



    Example. We played Moon Palace in Cancun a few years back and got an all inclusive deal. Service was good, course was alright, conditions were excellent. We get to the turn stand and we just order a beer 2 waters and a lemonade (I very rarely drink). Bartender replies "are you sure? It looks like you got the all inclusive." Well we'll take 2 turkey sandwiches too. He responds "here just take the 6 pack, you paid for it." In the end we ended up with a bottle of Tequila, a bottle of Rum, 2 turkey sandwiches and a 6 pack of Tecate.



    Just that experience raising my memory and rating for the course




    Most of us are like that. Very few, if any, of us rate only the course layout. As somebody posted, it's a lot of work to go hole by hole and evaluate every shot option, every green, etc. Most of the time I'm playing a top ranked course for the first and only time. For example, I played Whistling Straits last year and will never play it again. I made no effort to go hole by hole and evaluate each tee option, green configuration, etc. I don't think many of us do that. Instead, we develop a very high level opinion of the course. Was if fun? Scenic? Good condition? Variety of holes? etc.



    Then, a year or two or more later we rank the courses we have played. Our memory of that one experience is certainly influenced by other factors such as service, history, 19th hole, etc. Even how well we played that day is likely to influence our ranking.



    I've never met anyone who does a hole by hole evaluation every time they play a new course.




    Not considering things outside of the golf course itself does not mean going hole by hole to evaluate a course. Those are 2 completely different things. You say very few if any rate only the course layout but that's simply not true. We clearly run in different circles but of the people I play and talk courses with I don't know hardly any that consider things outside of the golf course like the practice facility, the food, the clubhouse, the bar, how you played (this ESPECIALLY should never be considered) and wheather or not the beer cart policy was annoying when evaluating said course. (I even know a few people who think the best way to rate a course is to walk it without playing). That stuff comes up when discussing the experience that someone might have had at a particular place but not when evaluating and rating the course.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • CheckJVCheckJV Male Model Members Posts: 2,106 ✭✭
    I’ve always rated courses on the quality of their hotdogs and beer selection. If they get that right, the “golf” part of the course is usually good. You need to trust me on this and drop all that complicated rating stuff.
  • mallratmallrat Members Posts: 2,951 ✭✭
    It’s funny because I talk courses almost all day everyday. Maybe it is because we are paid to take care of them, maybe some are spoiled but I will always go by my and some other Supers I knows word.



    Yes they have a different view but they also generally have an appreciation for the courses and do their version of rating the courses without ever hitting more than a couple putts. They have sent me to a few hidden gems.



    One last note; maybe i’m An idiot but the ultimate rating to me is the fun/enjoyment factor. Or did I have fun and or enjoy my day, regardless of score, weather playing partners just did I enjoy it.
Sign In or Register to comment.