This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
DanIt seems to me that you are talking about the experience rather than the course itself. What if you had played Caledonia the very next day when there weren't any other golfers ? The course would be the same and in substantially the same condition. Would you rate it any differently ?Niall
Quote from: John Mayhugh on March 29, 2023, 08:06:10 AMRick,I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.Thatís why I shudder at the Raynor templates being lionized.[/quote] Shudder? Give me a Short and Biarritz every time and you can keep the Eden and Redan. Iíll never get enough of the first two.
Rick,I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.
The idea of knocking a course from consideration for slow play is hard for me because it's so random. I guess there are some course designs where play tends to back up, and some venues that overbook every day they can, so that the slowness is really a phenomenon. But it's just as likely to be a day where you were unlucky, had a late tee time, and were stuck behind some bad golfers.However, I would be okay with people including the "experience" as a part of their rating, if everyone did it consistently. In that case, a one-time bad experience wouldn't have nearly the effect of a course which was consistently slow.I got onto this idea when considering weather as a factor in the rankings. No one ever really addresses that, either, but there are a few courses where the weather is a factor so often, that being told to disregard it is disingenuous. Indeed, on a course in a windy place, a design that allows players to get around in the wind and still enjoy themselves should be a major consideration as to whether the course is really good.You could do the same for conditioning -- as long as everyone did it consistently, then the bad days would be scored at the proper rate.