[Patrick_Mucci]

The current magazine rankings have it all wrong.

Most have forgotten that A, if not, THE key component to the game is, to have fun, and not to torture yourself.

Having now established the "proper" criteria, how would you rank golf courses based on both the challenge and FUN of playing them ?  The SPORT in them.

For uniformity's sake, all rankings should be from the golf course's back tees.  A seperate thread will address play from middle or member's tees.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I disagree.  Afterall what is fun about beating your head against a wall from playing at 7200 yards on an overwatered ultra green golf course?  

How many golfers in the country are qualified to have any fun under those conditions?

[Patrick_Mucci]

W H Cosgrove,

Your reading comprehension skills are questionable, go back and re-read the initial post, again and again, until you get it  

[HamiltonBHearst]

I'll have to sit this one out for a while.  Most of the "great" courses I have played have been from the member tees.

[RJ_Daley]

Can someone estimate how many or these rankings course raters play from the tips?  I have played with fellows that were raters, and they didn't play from the tips.  I didn't hold that or the fact that they were raters against them either...

I think that for the vast majority of players, tips and fun are not generally compatible on courses that trend over 6800 yards.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Pat, I get that we want to have fun!  We could build Starbucks on the back tees for all I care.  Lets just get right to the ratings from the human tees!

Have you considered an editor?  That second sentence/paragraph is really something!

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

I agree with your perspective. Even with modern technology, very few golfers (less than ten percent) can handle the back tees. That being the case, course rankings should probably put very little weight on how the course plays from those tees.

The focus should be on the middle tees. That's where most people play from.

Besides that, discounting the importance of back tees would have a beneficial effect: it would dampen the already out of control golf technology arms race.

Another way we could make progress is to limit the number of single digit handicappers serving as course raters. If only a small percentage of golfers play to a single digit, then the number of raters at that handicap should be limited to something representative of the golfing population as a whole.

[rgkeller]

Another way we could make progress is to limit the number of single digit handicappers serving as course raters. If only a small percentage of golfers play to a single digit, then the number of raters at that handicap should be limited to something representative of the golfing population as a whole.

And we would end up with higher ratings for courses more accepting of weak slices and the occasional ground ball.

[Andy Hughes]

And we would end up with higher ratings for courses more accepting of weak slices and the occasional ground ball.

Is the punishment of a weak slice or the occasional groundball the sign of a good course? I'm just, you know, asking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

W H Cosgrove, et. al.,

I'll try to help out.

NGLA from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
Maidstone from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
Hidden Creek from the tips is challenging, yet fun
Friar's Head from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
GCGC from the tips is challenging, yet fun.

Now do you get it ?  

[Wayne_Freedman]

As I understand it, course rating crews usually include several levels of golfers.
They want a scratch player.
They want a bogey player.
They want people in between.
They also look at what hypothetical players would do, based on statistics for driving, iron shots, and accuracy.

Then, they  compare scores and other variables in determining slope and course ratings.

I am not certain what tees the course raters play, but believe they move around. Huckaby would know. He actually is a course rater, as opposed to a course rating critic.

Having said that, Patrick, perhaps we need an additional measurement---A fun/sport rating.

What the heck, let's name it after you...

'The Mucci Rating'

I'm all for that. You're such a fun guy..

As for rating actual courses in this thread...forget it.
I'll defer. Let's keep this esoteric, for once.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Pat maybe what we need to determine is a graph comparing max possible length as compared to maintenance meld!!

Here is my perfect example....those going to Cuscowilla might get to experience something like this....

I play from the tips with a couple of members while my wife plays from the most forward tees.  I have a fabulous time getting my head stove in shooting something like 86 with my then 4 handicap.  My wife stills considers this her alltime favorite where she had a great time shooting her personal best.  

In retrospect I would probably have scored better playing from a shorter tee, but the course is so well designed players of drastically different capabilities walked off of the 18th green with broad smiles.  

Pat is that what you are looking for?

[JDoyle]

Patrick,

How about CC of Fairfield.......probably the most walkable course of high quality I have ever played.  I know you also like Fairfield a great deal.  And just like NGLA, Fairfield has also taken down many trees and have opened the course up.  From the right vantage point you can see nearly every flag on the course.  The stretch of holes from 6 - 9 is a personal favorite.

Others for your new list:

Eastward Ho!
Old Town GC
Fishers Island

[THuckaby2]

As I understand it, course rating crews usually include several levels of golfers.
They want a scratch player.
They want a bogey player.
They want people in between.
They also look at what hypothetical players would do, based on statistics for driving, iron shots, and accuracy.

Then, they  compare scores and other variables in determining slope and course ratings.

I am not certain what tees the course raters play, but believe they move around. Huckaby would know. He actually is a course rater, as opposed to a course rating critic.

Wayne, that's pretty close to how Course Rating gets done (note the initial capitals, which is as it should be for the  process of determining course rating and slope, a very honorable process indeed).

The only thing you have wrong is that scores are not factored in at all.  Basically 1-10 values are given to several very specific criteria about the golf course (as laid out in the USGA handicap manual), then it's all math after that as to how the course rating and slope comes out.

We do use a hypothetical scratch player and a hypothetical bogey player - but what each does is also very specifically laid out by the USGA.  We determine what each does on each hole, rate such using the criteria presented, then voila - scratch player gives us course rating, bogey player gives us bogey rating, slope is determined based on the difference between the two.

That's it in a nutshell.  John V. is VERY much more expert than me though, as is Scott Seward - I have only been doing this for 3 years now.  But you have it right, the way the NCGA does it anyway:  they do want players of all abilities to do this, to give all perspectives.  Just remember also that while we do play during the rating process, such serves only to confirm or change ratings we do outside of playing... that is by observation and measurement.  The processes happen separately, and we surely don't rate based on our own games.  As to what tees we play, well.. we rate all tees that are 25 yards apart.  We play what the rating captain tells us to play.  Typically the lower cappers play tips, higher play up, just to get the thing done most efficiently.  But often times they do want a higher capper to try a shot from the tips, just to confirm what our ratings might have told us, or not.

Maybe this makes sense, maybe not!  In any case, we have gone wildly afield from what Pat intends here - so my apologies.

TH

[Dan Bock]

This is a tough question since a course like Pine Valley would not be fun for a high handicapper (I have only seen pictures and read about it), but it would be hard to argue against it being great.

One publication requires a low handicap to even be a rater.  They also recommend that each course be rated from the back tees.

I would also suggest that the back tees are certainly not appropriate for all handicaps so to suggest that a course should be fun for all skill levels from there is ridiculous.  The challenge can be to find the appropriate set of tees for a particular skill level.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Pat,

The best example that I could offer of being both EXTREMELY fun and challenging from the back tees is the Kingsley Club.  

The course definitely rewards good golf shots and presents you with many options to get those results, however, there is a fine line and a wayward shot can get into big trouble fast.  

For example, #2, the short par 3.   A wonderful little hole.  When the pin is on the front very narrow portion of green, if you are flag hunting you better be precise.  The smart play is about 25 feet over the pin the back larger portion of green.  The last time that I played, I went at the flag and pulled my approach about 15 feet left.  I was in the greenside bunker.   This is not the place to be.  You pretty much need to take your medicine and play either extreme left to the back of the green or right to the front fringe.  I refused to take my medicine and played at the flag, and thought I pulled it off.  The ball kept trickling and rolled all the way down the hill off the right side of the green.  From here, I basically couldn't go at the flag either or I risked the same result.

Even though I ended up making a big score, I loved it.  It was still a fun hole to play.  The hole just beat me that time.

It's just the type of thing that you can run into on nearly every hole at Kingsley.  There are just certain spots that you must avoid.  Once you know where those spots are and then shoot a good score, you really feel like you've accomplished something.

[Dan Bock]

I agree that Kingsley is everything you say and the challenge it presents along with most great courses is not the length.  But I also believe that not everyone would have fun from the back tees on every hole there - probably a greater percentage could play from there than some other courses, but not everyone.

Somehow, raters need to take into account the course as a whole and assume that people will play the tees most appropriate to their skill level.  Playing too far forward or too far back can eliminate some strategy the architect had in mind.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

I played Macrahanish a few days ago and thought that was about as much fun as you could have playing this game.

The lumpy fairways mean second shots, at least for me, were never 'full' shots, and therefore the course played a little longer than its yardage.

The lumpy greens, and the fall-offs around several of them ensure you need a good short game to hold your score together if and when you miss them.

There is enough rough around to make sure you can't let loose with everything, but it still has enough room to breathe.

Is this the sort of course you mean?

[Norbert P]

 "I see a red tee and I want to paint it black.
  No colours any more. Ashamed I can't play back.

  I see those girls walk by dressed in their golfing clothes.
  I hit the ball to where the Super never mows!"

  (Variation on a theme by The Rolling Stones)

         or

  "Meet the new boss!
   Same as the old boss!   ...

   Won't get fooled again!"            The Who
 
 

 

[JNC Lyon]

 A course like Teugega or Oak Hollow might do very well in these rankings. In the case of both courses, the main challenge and fun is in the greens. Oak Hollow does not have a single fairway bunker allowing the average golfer more fun, but it doesn't give up any strategic interest because of it.
 
 Teugega is a different case. It is quite a few fairway bunkers, many of which are short carry. However, these add interest to the average golfer's game, and there is often an easy way around them. Both courses are short enough to accomodate all play, but still maintain interest.

  The dilemma is how to make a course interesting without making it a slog for the high marker. I believe the most effective way to do this is to create vexing greens are the key to fun on a golf course.

  The course that most epitomizes these principles is of course TOC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Yes,

et. al.,

You're making this more complicated then it really is.

What courses, when played from the back tees provide both challenge and fun ?

The courses I cited are just a few examples, surely you can name others, with the benefit of understanding the context of the question in light of seeing my selections.

What courses, when you walk off the 18th green make you want to head directly to the 1st tee ?

[George Pazin]

I think Lehigh fits the bill. Not beat-you-up long with brutal rough, just a wonderful walk with enough teeth in the greensites to be lots of fun.

[Andy Hughes]

Tobacco Road.
Cool visuals, cool greens, cool choices, cool holes not seen elsewhere (and cool bunker guarding the 11th green, though I've never had to hit a bunker shot quite that high before!)

[Mike_Cirba]

Kingsley, Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse all leap to mind.  

But Patrick...

Is your basic contention here that Hidden Creek is underrated?

[JNC Lyon]

After the clarification, here is a short list, some well-known, some little know, one not known at all:

Orchards, Massachusettes
Country Club of Buffalo, NY
Oak Hill West, NY
Teugega, NY
Mark Twain, NY
Brook Lea, NY
Oak Hollow, NC
Canterbury Woods, NH
The Ocean Course, SC
Links at Squam, NH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()