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

[mallrat]

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.

[az2au]

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.

No, not an idiot at all but at the same time what you are talking about is not the goal of the system. This system is about trying to rate the layout of golf courses. Enjoyment is very personal and there's plenty of places that take it into account. That's not the purpose of the Golf Digest ranking system however. I've never looked at it directly but I can tell you off the top of my head that some of my favorite places in the world to play golf will never rank anywhere near the top.

[Malvern]

My mate claims you can judge a course on the size of showerheads and water pressure, his favourite track: Friars Head.

[FairwayFred]

My mate claims you can judge a course on the size of showerheads and water pressure, his favourite track: Friars Head.

 

The clear #1 in the Top 100 Golf Showers!

 

I'd put Dismal River number 2 and Trinity Forest 3, Pine Valley 4 and LACC 5.

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

And yet all of the rating agencies consider things beyond the course layout. All of them.

 

And BTW, whether you intend to consider other aspects or not doesn't mean you didn't. It is very difficult to establish an opinion of just the course layout and not be influenced by the rest of the experience.

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

[az2au]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

2 is subjective and useless to me. The things that list as appealing to you for instance are minor factors to me or no factor at all. Golf Advisor is fine for that. Golf Digest has also added a site for this type of thing. There’s no chance that I’ll ever even look at either when deciding where to play.

[golfandfishing]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

 

I’ll take #1.

[mallrat]

Ok let me ask it this way then...

 

Bandon Dunes (any course #2)

 

Vs

 

Sweetens Cove (#1)

[FairwayFred]

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.

 

And yet all of the rating agencies consider things beyond the course layout. All of them.

 

And BTW, whether you intend to consider other aspects or not doesn't mean you didn't. It is very difficult to establish an opinion of just the course layout and not be influenced by the rest of the experience.

 

And we all agree that the rankings are flawed.

 

(do u really wait a year or 2 or more after before you rank a course you have played? Seems like a strange comment for someone who is also not afraid to rank a course he has never even seen in person.)

 

Please do not tell me what I do and do not take into account when raking a golf course. Just because you are unable to seperate the subjective things that change day to day and things that have nothing to do with actually playing golf doesn't mean all others have that same issue.

 

The first time I played one of my favorite courses I was playing unaccompanied (private club) and I had a really terrible experience with a caddy, the people in the pro shop were unfriendly and uninterested in me and they wouldn't let me in the clubhouse because I wasn't with a member. I still absolutely loved the golf course because I am able to separate the 2 things from each other. Had I not I would not have gone back multiple times and been lucky enough to really get to know one of the truly special courses in the game of golf which would have been a real shame.

[FairwayFred]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

2 is subjective and useless to me. The things that list as appealing to you for instance are minor factors to me or no factor at all. Golf Advisor is fine for that. Golf Digest has also added a site for this type of thing. There’s no chance that I’ll ever even look at either when deciding where to play.

 

+1

 

Rate the things that are static and do not change day to day. That way it's consistent for all other people who might visit and have a different experience than you did. It's about the golf course. That's why it's a list of top Golf COURSES not EXPERIENCES.

[mallrat]

But the experience is part of the course. Maybe it comes from working at and on multiple departments at courses and clubs but that is how it is. I love the Bandon courses but if you took away the shuttles, lodging, restaurants, customer service and reservations staff, it is not the same thing.

 

I can appreciate that you say you can separate them but to the average person or golfer reading that article, I don’t think they do. Do people spend a lot of money to go to great courses with horrible services and rude staff?

[MichaelJScott]

spaciousness of on course bathrooms

[mallrat]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

2 is subjective and useless to me. The things that list as appealing to you for instance are minor factors to me or no factor at all. Golf Advisor is fine for that. Golf Digest has also added a site for this type of thing. There’s no chance that I’ll ever even look at either when deciding where to play.

 

+1

 

Rate the things that are static and do not change day to day. That way it's consistent for all other people who might visit and have a different experience than you did. It's about the golf course. That's why it's a list of top Golf COURSES not EXPERIENCES.

 

So you don’t rate course conditions? Those aren’t static. What if you play on a day where a new pin setter places some bad pins? Too close to overseed? Course conditions are nowhere close to static, especially if you consider each hole is its own microclimate.

 

spaciousness of on course bathrooms

 

Actually lack of on course bathrooms is one of my biggest pet peeves

[FairwayFred]

I personally give very little weight to course conditioning when ranking a course. For that exact reason. You can't blame the course if it rained a lot the night before you played or they recently punched the greens or you happened to go play it in the off-season. My home club imo gets it close to a 10/10 condition wise during mid season. However living in Michigan you better come during that 6-8 week period if you want to see it like that. The course is open for about 8 months a year. Would it be fair to rank it lower because you happened to come early or late in the season and you only played it once?

[mallrat]

But I thought conditions were a big part of the ratings?

 

I don’t mean this to be snarky and it will probably come off that way but sounds like you are their perfect course rater. Sounds like you are exactly who they want rating courses for them. Whether I agree with the/your criteria or not. I am not objective enough to separate all those aspects

[FairwayFred]

But I thought conditions were a big part of the ratings?

 

I don’t mean this to be snarky and it will probably come off that way but sounds like you are their perfect course rater. Sounds like you are exactly who they want rating courses for them. Whether I agree with the/your criteria or not. I am not objective enough to separate all those aspects

 

Conditioning is a part of the magazine rankings but I don't agree w all the magazine criteria. I especially think conditioning is a tough one for the reasons above.

 

I get what your saying and your point of view, everything your talking about is important for the experience of visiting somewhere and playing golf there I just personally (just my opinion) think the rankings of top courses should rank the top courses not the top golf experiences. The best place to go for a day and have a great experience that includes playing golf is not necessarily the best golf course. To me those are 2 different things.

[duffer987]

But the experience is part of the course. Maybe it comes from working at and on multiple departments at courses and clubs but that is how it is. I love the Bandon courses but if you took away the shuttles, lodging, restaurants, customer service and reservations staff, it is not the same thing.

 

I can appreciate that you say you can separate them but to the average person or golfer reading that article, I don't think they do. Do people spend a lot of money to go to great courses with horrible services and rude staff?

Wow! Really?

A one-stop resort sure is handy, but I don't enjoy the courses anymore or less depending on whether I am staying in town or on site. They could be four independent courses and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

I've had multiple conversations with random golfers over the years at various places who can absolutely separate the 'experience' from the course. Off the top of my head I think specifically of places like Old Head, TOC, and Pebble where folks can come out on either end of the experience vs course itself spectrum.

[az2au]

But I thought conditions were a big part of the ratings?

 

I don’t mean this to be snarky and it will probably come off that way but sounds like you are their perfect course rater. Sounds like you are exactly who they want rating courses for them. Whether I agree with the/your criteria or not. I am not objective enough to separate all those aspects

Well, again, you’re supposed to take into account things outside of a courses control when you rank conditioning. Several categories have shifted and that should help some of this.

 

Your point on Bandon is perfect and I’ll tell you why. I hate the freaking shuttles and I think Bandon is pretty much a complete and total pain in the rear for virtually everything. The rooms are also generally terrible as well. Even in the most expensive sites. The food is mediocre at best. Yet, I still love going there because the courses are excellent.

 

Conversely, Old Head is a very average design but it is one of my favorite places on earth to play golf. Everything about the site is wonderful, the food is outstanding and the rooms are what you’d expect for the price. On a sunny day it is one of the prettiest places on earth and I’ve been fortunate enough to be there many sunny days.

 

All that said, I can easily pick apart the design of the actual golf holes. It doesn’t mean I don’t love playing there, I do. It would not rate well in an evaluation I did though. That’s the purpose of this ranking.

 

Edit: I’ll add a third example to make this complete. Monte Rei in Portugal has an amazing experience and an outstanding design. That should mean if all other things were equal then I’d choose to play there. That’s be wrong though. It would likely rank third out of the three places I just listed. The actual course would also rank third amongst the four main Bandon ones and Old Head as well. In the end I’d likely go 50% Bandon, 30% Old Head and 20% Monte Rei.

[raynorfan1]

Two questions for the crowd:

 

(1) how do you think about the fact that courses change (sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically) over time? Our club makes minor tweaks to the course every season (and has for 100+ years). At what point do you feel like a course has changed sufficiently that your rating is no longer valid? Merion East (I believe) was closed all of last season for "renovation" - is it reasonable to "rank" a course that did so much work they shut the place down for a year? Are old ratings valid?

 

(2) if 'conditioning' doesn't impact your ranking, how do you feel about design/maintenance choices that impact conditions? Should Chambers Bay have been negatively impacted by their decision to build fescue greens? Should a course that doesn't drain well be penalized for being soggy?

[DavePelz4]

My mate claims you can judge a course on the size of showerheads and water pressure, his favourite track: Friars Head.

 

The clear #1 in the Top 100 Golf Showers!

 

I'd put Dismal River number 2 and Trinity Forest 3, Pine Valley 4 and LACC 5.

 

Nothing is close to the shower heads in Kohler.

[az2au]

Hard to say one your point 1. Feels like a case by case basis. Generally courses are eligible for re-evaluation every two years by each panelist however. On 2 the answer is yes to both.

[DonatelloNobodie]

Wow - I can't imagine going thru such a detailed checklist....

 

Pretty simple for me. "How much would I like to play the course again for the price?"

[duffer987]

Two questions for the crowd:

 

(1) how do you think about the fact that courses change (sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically) over time? Our club makes minor tweaks to the course every season (and has for 100+ years). At what point do you feel like a course has changed sufficiently that your rating is no longer valid? Merion East (I believe) was closed all of last season for "renovation" - is it reasonable to "rank" a course that did so much work they shut the place down for a year? Are old ratings valid?

 

(2) if 'conditioning' doesn't impact your ranking, how do you feel about design/maintenance choices that impact conditions? Should Chambers Bay have been negatively impacted by their decision to build fescue greens? Should a course that doesn't drain well be penalized for being soggy?

 

1 - I don't know what the hard and fast rules would be, but definitely there should be a 'sell by date' on a course rater's course rating. There are quite obvious ones at Pinehurst #2 & #4 that post reno, older ratings are redundant. For a couple of new tees and tree clearing? IDK.

 

2 - If the bad construction choice impacts the way the course was intended to play, then in that sense 'conditioning' would impact a rating I think. Of course how do you determine the 'intended' bit. If some course grows the rough in for a tourney and then just leaves it that way and it becomes the day-to-day course conditions then that should be included in an evaluation.

[az2au]

Wow - I can't imagine going thru such a detailed checklist....

 

Yep, again, it is a freaking job. There are plenty of times when I question why I do it given that I pay for the privilege to play and evaluate courses that are generally not as well designed or as nice as any of the clubs I belong to or places I play regularly for business. That said, the first time I do it and feel like I don’t take it seriously or treat it like the job I signed up for, I’ll no longer do it.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

Now you're on to something good. Maybe the ratings should be renamed something like this;

 

#1. "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who are below five cappers and who care only about the course layout"

 

#2 "XXX magazine top 100 courses for golfers who want to play the courses with great layouts and a great overall experience including conditioning, caddies, history, ambiance, practice facility, beauty, etc."

 

I'll go with #2.

2 is subjective and useless to me. The things that list as appealing to you for instance are minor factors to me or no factor at all. Golf Advisor is fine for that. Golf Digest has also added a site for this type of thing. There's no chance that I'll ever even look at either when deciding where to play.

 

+1

 

Rate the things that are static and do not change day to day. That way it's consistent for all other people who might visit and have a different experience than you did. It's about the golf course. That's why it's a list of top Golf COURSES not EXPERIENCES.

 

Too bad Golf Digest and others don't agree with you. Almost all of them include conditioning which can change dramatically. Maybe you should start your own "Top 100"

[Roadking2003]

But I thought conditions were a big part of the ratings?

 

I don't mean this to be snarky and it will probably come off that way but sounds like you are their perfect course rater. Sounds like you are exactly who they want rating courses for them. Whether I agree with the/your criteria or not. I am not objective enough to separate all those aspects

 

Conditions are part of the magazine ratings.

 

And I don't believe anybody is objective enough to totally ignore everything about a course except the layout. That would take a robot. Humans are hugely influenced by everything around them even if some don't want to admit it.

[Roadking2003]

Wow - I can't imagine going thru such a detailed checklist....

 

Pretty simple for me. "How much would I like to play the course again for the price?"

 

Exactly! Rating a course shouldn't be a grinding mathematical effort. Maybe that's why I disagree with many of the magazine ratings.

 

A good example is Old Head vs Pinehurst #2. I would gladly play Old Head 10 times before playing Pinehurst #2. I don't care that the "experts" claim PH#2 is a much better course. Old Head is much more fun and interesting.

[Matt J]

I think condition plays a big role, but I would also say that in respect to the price of the greens' fee. That's not really a consideration in anything being evaluated for the top 200. Condition in my mind is whether it deterred or contributed to the overall experience. Amazing conditioning contributes and poor conditions deters but it's rarely a huge factor on a course that's north of 100 dollars a round. Although when I played PB they hadn't cut cups in at least 3 or 4 days and it was disappointing to say the least.

 

For me, all things being equal, I'd say my two biggest factors are the shot quality of each hole, the general "flow" of the layout, and diversity of the "type" of hole. I don't want to keep hitting the same club for approaches. I really don't like "sister" holes where you feel like you play the same hole twice. I like an easier 3 shot hole or a straight forward 2 shot hole for the first hole ideally with a generous landing for the tee shot. I also like a layout that is in front of you, few blind shots, and clear risk / reward decisions. I like a layout that the best design work if not the best land is at the end of the course. Also, generally you can separate a great piece of land and a great design. You can have either, but the best courses have both.

[raynorfan1]

I think condition plays a big role, but I would also say that in respect to the price of the greens' fee. That's not really a consideration in anything being evaluated for the top 200. Condition in my mind is whether it deterred or contributed to the overall experience. Amazing conditioning contributes and poor conditions deters but it's rarely a huge factor on a course that's north of 100 dollars a round. Although when I played PB they hadn't cut cups in at least 3 or 4 days and it was disappointing to say the least.

 

The thing I don't like about conditioning as a rating criteria is that the number of rounds played has a big impact on the overall presentation of the course. Fewer rounds played almost always means better conditioning. But from my perspective, these aren't museums; they should get credit for encouraging a lot of play, not effectively a demerit.

 

Also, generally you can separate a great piece of land and a great design. You can have either, but the best courses have both.

 

The remarkable thing about how we think about "great pieces of land" is how many of the "Top" golf courses were sited with relatively little input on "the land" - Merion; FIsher's Island; The Country Club; LACC; Riviera etc.

 

It's not to say that land wasn't a consideration in these sites, but it was more "let's find a location near XXX that is suitable for a golf course" than "let's find a dreamy piece of property to build something special on".