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

[shadymg]

Wow that's a lot of criteria, and am i the only one that thinks it's crazy that price/value is not a factor for anyone? I get that some of the famous open tournament places are going to cost a fortune and you pay for that, but IMHO (at least for me). For example, Torrey Pines for $180 compared to Pelican Hill for $400....i loved Torrey, and can't imagine that Pelican Hill would be double the pleasure of playing. Based on the list and replies though, it seems my cheap a** is alone? lol

[raynorfan1]

Wow that's a lot of criteria, and am i the only one that thinks it's crazy that price/value is not a factor for anyone? I get that some of the famous open tournament places are going to cost a fortune and you pay for that, but IMHO (at least for me). For example, Torrey Pines for $180 compared to Pelican Hill for $400....i loved Torrey, and can't imagine that Pelican Hill would be double the pleasure of playing. Based on the list and replies though, it seems my cheap a** is alone? lol

 

Given that the overall list is almost entirely private, cost is hard to factor in.

 

It's also not a "best value" list...

[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

 

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.

I get that you can’t do that but you should understand that several people are capable of it. Doesn’t matter if you believe it or not.

[shadymg]

Wow that's a lot of criteria, and am i the only one that thinks it's crazy that price/value is not a factor for anyone? I get that some of the famous open tournament places are going to cost a fortune and you pay for that, but IMHO (at least for me). For example, Torrey Pines for $180 compared to Pelican Hill for $400....i loved Torrey, and can't imagine that Pelican Hill would be double the pleasure of playing. Based on the list and replies though, it seems my cheap a** is alone? lol

 

Given that the overall list is almost entirely private, cost is hard to factor in.

 

It's also not a "best value" list...

 

That's fair, but shouldn't it at least be considered as a rating? If a course is beautiful but in the surrounding area there are near as good courses for way less, shouldn't that be a knock on the super expensive one? I guess doesn't matter since most are private and crazy expensive anyways...maybe I should take my gripes to the public/accessible courses list :-)

[raynorfan1]

Wow that's a lot of criteria, and am i the only one that thinks it's crazy that price/value is not a factor for anyone? I get that some of the famous open tournament places are going to cost a fortune and you pay for that, but IMHO (at least for me). For example, Torrey Pines for $180 compared to Pelican Hill for $400....i loved Torrey, and can't imagine that Pelican Hill would be double the pleasure of playing. Based on the list and replies though, it seems my cheap a** is alone? lol

 

Given that the overall list is almost entirely private, cost is hard to factor in.

 

It's also not a "best value" list...

 

That's fair, but shouldn't it at least be considered as a rating? If a course is beautiful but in the surrounding area there are near as good courses for way less, shouldn't that be a knock on the super expensive one? I guess doesn't matter since most are private and crazy expensive anyways...maybe I should take my gripes to the public/accessible courses list :-)

 

I think there is absolutely a place for a "best value" ranking (I think it has been done); but that's not the topic at hand.

[az2au]

BTW, I think many of the complaints about GD’s rankings will be addressed with the changes. I’m ready for the new whining once people understand those changes. ;)

[Chanceman]

Surely a lot depends on what handicap you play off. Not much point discussing the positioning of fairway bunkers if you are routinely 100 yards short. And a green surrounded by deep bunkers, steep run offs or with multiple levels is not much fun for we hackers. So for me, the worth of a course is its visual attractiveness, conditioning, ambience, uniform quality and memorability. Level of difficulty will be a factor in proportion to your hcap. I often wonder how I would feel at Pine Valley going round in 175. But from what you hear a round at Augusta is always fun.

[Matt J]

BTW, that's a great list. I'm going with "all of the above."

[mallrat]

So a question for the raters, how or what do you rate higher a great layout with average to poor greens complexes or an average layout with outstanding greens complexes? Does one outrank the other?

 

I will use Tetherow as an example. The pure layout, routing and shot making ability might be second to none, IMO. BUT the green complexes are average to poor. They don’t reward good shots, are way too severe and very rarely give you any room for error.

 

What do you guys do with your ratings in that case?

 

[raynorfan1]

BTW, I think many of the complaints about GD’s rankings will be addressed with the changes. I’m ready for the new whining once people understand those changes. ;)

 

The problem with “changes” is that if it creates any significant shake up in the rankings, it calls into question the past and present credibility of the rankings. And if it doesn’t change anything...then what was the point?

[az2au]

BTW, I think many of the complaints about GD’s rankings will be addressed with the changes. I’m ready for the new whining once people understand those changes. ;)

 

The problem with “changes” is that if it creates any significant shake up in the rankings, it calls into question the past and present credibility of the rankings. And if it doesn’t change anything...then what was the point?

I don’t think it will shake up anything. I think there will be minor changes.

 

The point was to evolve over the course of time and clarify the way rating is completed. At least it seems that way to me.

[az2au]

So a question for the raters, how or what do you rate higher a great layout with average to poor greens complexes or an average layout with outstanding greens complexes? Does one outrank the other?

 

I will use Tetherow as an example. The pure layout, routing and shot making ability might be second to none, IMO. BUT the green complexes are average to poor. They don’t reward good shots, are way too severe and very rarely give you any room for error.

 

What do you guys do with your ratings in that case?

I don’t know how to answer that question. I rate to the best of my ability in each category. I’ve never evaluated Tetherow so I have no idea how it would come out but each hole would be examined individually and as part of the whole course.

[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.

 

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"

 

Is it too bad? Like most on here I don't agree with all the criteria that the magazines use. No matter how snarky or condescending you are trying to be your missing the fact that I never claimed that Golf Digest didn't take conditions into account and I've clearly stated multiple times that I don't agree with all of the magazine criteria.

 

As far as conditioning goes I do think it's important but I think it's almost impossible to capture and fairly rank in a one day snapshot. There are too many external factors and it changes too much day to day and season to season.

[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

 

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.

I get that you can’t do that but you should understand that several people are capable of it. Doesn’t matter if you believe it or not.

 

+1

 

RK simply cannot believe that everyone doesn't think like him. It's a very small minded point of view. We are all different, nobody's opinion is wrong and we all see things differently especially when it comes to golf.

[duffer987]

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.

If you are going to rank and rate something, by definition you need criteria to do so. There needs to be a baseline to work against, otherwise you are in a "truth isn't the truth" situation and we all know what that gets you.

All these Top Whatever lists are good waiting for your flight material, bandying about on the internet filler, or for the course a little marketing boost. That's all.

 

And of course it's really hard to have a "good example" when you have not even played one of the courses. Maybe you could at least choose two tracks you've played and know what it's like. Playing #2 a decade ago and then watching the post-restoration US Open on TV really isn't the same thing.

 

I think we can all find examples from a list where we prefer a course that is at a lower position than another. That's just personal preference, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. And it's no indictment of a list or some odd personal validation of what we think a good course is. And it still doesn't mean that lower course is "better".

 

For instance I much prefer Pacific Grove (which won't sniff a list) over Spyglass Hill. I wouldn't try and convince anyone PG is a "better" course based on list criteria, because it simply isn't. Yet there I am, time and again playing it instead because the back 9 is just good fun.

[dhc1]

I’ll be interested to see how the new GD ratings criteria impacts the rankings.

 

My guess is not much: people go in with a perceived ranking and for the scores to where they think it should be.

 

For example, I love Pacific Dunes but it doesnt deserve its “Resistance to Scoring” ranking. To this end, doak has stayed that he doesn’t want to design [resort] courses that aren’t geared to bogey and worse golfers (which is fine). It’s a great and deserves a high ranking and it’s very difficult to design a course to challenge scratch golfers with resistance to scoring while being accessible and fun for duffers.

[raynorfan1]

For example, I love Pacific Dunes but it doesnt deserve its "Resistance to Scoring" ranking. To this end, doak has stayed that he doesn't want to design [resort] courses that aren't geared to bogey and worse golfers (which is fine). It's a great and deserves a high ranking and it's very difficult to design a course to challenge scratch golfers with resistance to scoring while being accessible and fun for duffers.

 

It is "interesting" that it has basically the same (actually slightly higher) "resistance to scoring" rating as Congressional Blue (7.86xx), but when the State associations rated the respective courses, Congressional comes out almost 3.5 strokes more difficult.

 

Or Torrey Pines South, which has a lower "resistance to scoring" ranking than Pac Dunes...but a Scratch Rating of 78.2 vs. 73 for PD...

[Matt J]

I'll be interested to see how the new GD ratings criteria impacts the rankings.

 

My guess is not much: people go in with a perceived ranking and for the scores to where they think it should be.

 

For example, I love Pacific Dunes but it doesnt deserve its "Resistance to Scoring" ranking. To this end, doak has stayed that he doesn't want to design [resort] courses that aren't geared to bogey and worse golfers (which is fine). It's a great and deserves a high ranking and it's very difficult to design a course to challenge scratch golfers with resistance to scoring while being accessible and fun for duffers.

 

I think the caddies would say if you didn't account for bogey or worse players you would miss about 95% of your market.

 

Bandon brings people back and will soon have 5 courses in the top 100 because the whole experience is fun. It's very nearly a "men's only" golf resort and to the credit of the design teams they put reasonable tee boxes in on all 4 courses. The starters are smart enough to really encourage groups to move up when there is chance of weather which is pretty much always.

 

I must say that Raynorfan1's comments concerning conditioning had me thinking the last couple of days. It does seem there's a continuum of ultra-exclusive private ANGC, Cypress Point, Pine Valley - of course the condition is going to be great if you only get a few thousand rounds per year. ANGC probably even less.

 

In my mind, there is a public golf baseline, and the fact that a course is available to everyone should be accounted for as a positive attribute most definitely. So, perhaps we have "great condition for a public" and that would not be the same as "great condition for a private." In essence if you're rating on a scale of 1-8 perhaps there should simply be a 2 point bonus for being public.

 

There's a course in the region where I live and I always joke with other players when they complain about conditioning saying that the course might get as much play as any other course in the world outside of Pebble Beach. It's open 365 days a year, never has a day go by that doesn't have at least 100 rounds played and some days 300+. They try pretty hard to keep it in good shape, but that would be my baseline. A well maintained but busy golf course. Spyglass, Harding Park, PB, the Bandon courses, etc. - I'm sure Torrey and Bethpage fit into that description. If they can get those courses up to a 6 then that should be the equivalent of a perfect 8 at Cypress or Seminole.

[Malvern]

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.

If you are going to rank and rate something, by definition you need criteria to do so. There needs to be a baseline to work against, otherwise you are in a "truth isn't the truth" situation and we all know what that gets you.

All these Top Whatever lists are good waiting for your flight material, bandying about on the internet filler, or for the course a little marketing boost. That's all.

 

And of course it's really hard to have a "good example" when you have not even played one of the courses. Maybe you could at least choose two tracks you've played and know what it's like. Playing #2 a decade ago and then watching the post-restoration US Open on TV really isn't the same thing.

 

I think we can all find examples from a list where we prefer a course that is at a lower position than another. That's just personal preference, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. And it's no indictment of a list or some odd personal validation of what we think a good course is. And it still doesn't mean that lower course is "better".

 

For instance I much prefer Pacific Grove (which won't sniff a list) over Spyglass Hill. I wouldn't try and convince anyone PG is a "better" course based on list criteria, because it simply isn't. Yet there I am, time and again playing it instead because the back 9 is just good fun.

 

Duffer, have you ever seen 147 Custodians on GCA (unsure if you are allowed to link other sites) I think its an attempt to quantify and list what you are talking about with regard to Pacific Grove. You come off some courses and just go...…..wow, I really had fun.

[duffer987]

Duffer, have you ever seen 147 Custodians on GCA (unsure if you are allowed to link other sites) I think its an attempt to quantify and list what you are talking about with regard to Pacific Grove. You come off some courses and just go...…..wow, I really had fun.

 

I have, unfortunately I think the North American ones listed point to the affectation, clever by half, and even pettiness that can waft over that site at times.

Including 3/4 Bandon courses, but leave off the one that got it started? I wonder why. Same reason as Gamble Sands I suspect. Guess which 1 of 3 Streamsong courses got picked ;) And leaving Caledonia F&G off is a pretty sizeable miss too, for what it represents, all to add one more upper crust private? I think there are only 3 or 4 you could rightly consider a 'regular' pay and play course.

 

Not trying to be overly negative or snarky, but when I saw that list it felt like The Onion sending up GCA.

 

The international selections are a better representation IMHO :)

[CheckJV]

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.

 

Kohler shower head experience is on my bucket list!

 

How are their hotdogs?

[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.

 

Nothing is close to the shower heads in Kohler.

 

Kohler shower head experience is on my bucket list!

 

How are their hotdogs?

 

I must admit I did not shower when I was at Kohler. Apparently a huge mistake!

[duffer987]

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.

 

Kohler shower head experience is on my bucket list!

 

How are their hotdogs?

 

I must admit I did not shower when I was at Kohler. Apparently a huge mistake!

C'mon FF - it's like being in a Kohler showroom there. Their jets and nozzles have jets and nozzles.

In hindsight I guess I should update my criteria selections.

[FairwayFred]

It makes total sense. What was I thinking?!

I guess I DID make a double bogie that day despite not having one on my card.....

 

Looks like I need to make a return trip and remedy this situation.

[Schley]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

[FairwayFred]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

 

Trinity Forest might have the best water pressure in golf. That's the only shower I have ever had to turn the pressure DOWN on in my life. That said it doesn't get the coverage of a Friars Head or say a Dismal River which is why I have it ranked 2 not 1.

[Schley]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

 

Trinity Forest might have the best water pressure in golf. That's the only shower I have ever had to turn the pressure DOWN on in my life. That said it doesn't get the coverage of a Friars Head or say a Dismal River which is why I have it ranked 2 not 1.

 

Your talking DR in your lodge rooms right? Ours was good yes, but LACC was a bit more powerful IMO.

[FairwayFred]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

 

Trinity Forest might have the best water pressure in golf. That's the only shower I have ever had to turn the pressure DOWN on in my life. That said it doesn't get the coverage of a Friars Head or say a Dismal River which is why I have it ranked 2 not 1.

 

Your talking DR in your lodge rooms right? Ours was good yes, but LACC was a bit more powerful IMO.

 

Yes the room in the cabins we stayed in. Never showered in the locker room. I'd agree about LACC being a bit more powerful but DR has more coverage and wider spray. All comes down to personal preference..... ?

[Schley]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

 

Trinity Forest might have the best water pressure in golf. That's the only shower I have ever had to turn the pressure DOWN on in my life. That said it doesn't get the coverage of a Friars Head or say a Dismal River which is why I have it ranked 2 not 1.

 

Your talking DR in your lodge rooms right? Ours was good yes, but LACC was a bit more powerful IMO.

 

Yes the room in the cabins we stayed in. Never showered in the locker room. I'd agree about LACC being a bit more powerful but DR has more coverage and wider spray. All comes down to personal preference.....

 

I have read where shower pressure is in the top 5 features hotel guests desire, for me I totally agree. I'm not a plumber, so I have no idea if you need some extra large pipe to get volume or booster pump? Very bizarre how DR can get unbelievable pressure in the middle of nowhere but your 5 star hotel doesn't. Anyone know?

[raynorfan1]

I have heard of Friar's Head having unbelievable shower pressure. I was at LACC a couple months ago and the shower rooms are somewhat old school and had great shower pressure. I maybe will offend some more environmentally conscious posters, but I like showers with big shower pressure, not the rainshower heads that just fall on you. I'd say Hamilton Farm in NJ had powerful water pressure.

 

The way to rank courses based on the water pressure is cool. It reminds me of the Big Mac Index, where some theroize that the cost of a Big Mac in USD gives you the relative health of that countries economy. :taunt:

 

Trinity Forest might have the best water pressure in golf. That's the only shower I have ever had to turn the pressure DOWN on in my life. That said it doesn't get the coverage of a Friars Head or say a Dismal River which is why I have it ranked 2 not 1.

 

Your talking DR in your lodge rooms right? Ours was good yes, but LACC was a bit more powerful IMO.

 

Yes the room in the cabins we stayed in. Never showered in the locker room. I'd agree about LACC being a bit more powerful but DR has more coverage and wider spray. All comes down to personal preference..... ��

 

I have read where shower pressure is in the top 5 features hotel guests desire, for me I totally agree. I'm not a plumber, so I have no idea if you need some extra large pipe to get volume or booster pump? Very bizarre how DR can get unbelievable pressure in the middle of nowhere but your 5 star hotel doesn't. Anyone know?

 

Plumbing code and inspection regimes. Beginning in 1992, new shower heads sold in the United States were limited to 2.5 GPM of output (this is even lower in some drought prone regions, ie California).

 

“Old School” clubs tend to keep their ancient shower heads rather than replace them for this reason.

 

New places in rural locations with their own water supply (Dismal River) can probably skirt around the rules with a friendly inspector. Big resorts just aren’t willing to take the risk.

 

Our locker room has two showers (out of a dozen or so) that exhibit all the charm of a water cannon. Anytime you have a guest who cares about water pressure, you point them that way. The volume and pressure proves that you can have too much of a good thing...