How do you rate a golf course?

[Mr. 82]

Specifically, what's the most important factor in rating a golf course high or low?  Conditions?  Scenery?  Layout? Greens?  Challenge?

In my way of looking at golf courses I look at the layout, and how interesting it is.  Having a scenic backdrop sure as heck doesn't hurt a golf course in my book.  Elevation changes seem to make a course more interesting to me, which is why I guess playing golf in the mountains, versus at home in Florida always gets me more excited when playing golf.

Beyond the layout/elevation/scenery I would definitely say that good greens are a must for any golf course I would rate highly.  You can have great tees and fairways, but if your greens aren't rolling true or good, then why waste my time, right?  And I would even say the opposite is true.  I played a course last night where the tee boxes were pretty worn out, and the fairways were ok, but not great, but their greens were fantastic bent grass, that rolled really true.  Well, I can overcome the poorer conditions on the front end if I know that I'll have a great surface to putt on.

And I guess with any golf course, if it's too easy, then I get bored and lose interest.  I need a track that works me out not only physically, but mentally.  My home course, for example, I am thinking on almost every shot, because I really have to focus to score well.  And if I miss a shot out there I will pay the price.  So any good course will really keep my mind engaged from start to finish.  I played a course last night for the first time, where I had to pull out a GPS map, because on half of the shots I had no idea where I was supposed to hit it.  But the end result was great, because I was definitely engaged for 18 holes.

So what do you like in a golf course, more than anything else, that keeps you coming back?

[Shankster]

Layout, amount of trees, conditions, and the general atmosphere of the place.

[Kenny B]

I've played in many parts of the country, and I generally like most courses as long as the conditions are good; they don't have to be great, but they should be good based on what I pay.  I generally research courses as best I can before I pick them.  Most any course is challenging the way I play, so not being overly difficult is a plus for me. I played a course in Florida once that had fairway bunkers that I could only hit a sand wedge out because the lips were so high.  That's stupid, not challenging.  I enjoy courses that have nice scenery and no or minimal housing.  If houses or condos are set back far enough or they get lost in the trees, that's OK.  I've been spoiled by playing on courses here at home that are not in housing developments.

[PlaidJacket]

Hmmm? I guess I rate courses after playing them more than once. Usually. I've played a ton of courses around the country - private - resort- and muni. There are exceptions however. Wherever I play these days I'm not looking for a beat-down. Challenging yes. Tricky no. I tend to play better on parkland style courses as opposed to wide open desert or perhaps links style. I do enjoy scenery as where I live there is little natural beauty. It's mostly flat. Greens and fairways are most important and when I find those two to be in great shape the tee boxes are as well. However, I can live without beautiful tee boxes because most if not all the time I'm hitting off a tee and a prefect lie. I also like to see a course that's cut and groomed properly for good play ability. As many of you  probably say; to play a course well it has to "suit your eye." Some do and others don't regardless of course conditions, etc. Scoring. Of course when I score well I rate them higher as many of my personal rating factors probably aligned. One man's 5 star is another man's 3 star. It all depends doesn't it?

[revkev]

Nice thread - I used to think about this more frequently than I do now because I rarely play a new course and when I do it’s one that has a good reputation going in.

Good conditions especially greens, pace of play, a variety of tee options and nothing too tricked up. That sounds about right


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[DaveP043]

I think I'm like the others in most ways.  Conditioning is a significant factor.  Greens don't have to be really fast, but must roll true, fairways should be mowed appropriately, bunkers raked, the grass healthy (I know that depends largely on weather).  I'm playing for fun, so I want a decent challenge, but I don't care to get beat up.  I enjoy good designs, with a variety of hole lengths and shapes.  I enjoy thinking my way around, so I like at least a few holes that give me choices, with varying risks involved.  Scenery is nice, but not critical.  Last, and probably just as important, is the staff, they should be professional but welcoming.  On one hand, golfers like me are paying their salaries.  On the other, when they do a good job, it makes my day a whole lot better, they deserve my respect and consideration.

[tony@CIC]

15 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think I'm like the others in most ways.  Conditioning is a significant factor.  Greens don't have to be really fast, but must roll true, fairways should be mowed appropriately, bunkers raked, the grass healthy (I know that depends largely on weather).  I'm playing for fun, so I want a decent challenge, but I don't care to get beat up.  I enjoy good designs, with a variety of hole lengths and shapes.  I enjoy thinking my way around, so I like at least a few holes that give me choices, with varying risks involved.  Scenery is nice, but not critical.  Last, and probably just as important, is the staff, they should be professional but welcoming.  On one hand, golfers like me are paying their salaries.  On the other, when they do a good job, it makes my day a whole lot better, they deserve my respect and consideration.

+1 on all your comments I would also add, Carts in clean and good condition along with the course well marked. On the latter i play a course where the first few times it was a guessing game how to get to the next hole. 

[silver & black]

Layout, good conditions..... fairways and greens. Must be fair... I hate what I call "gimick" courses..... total blind tee shots, severe dog legs, greens with trouble on three sides and multiple breaks,etc...

[PlaidJacket]

44 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Last, and probably just as important, is the staff, they should be professional but welcoming.  On one hand, golfers like me are paying their salaries.

That's a very good point. Although it's not what I usually take away/remember so much when playing a course it's always nice to encounter a professional, helpful, and courteous staff. I play now and then at our local muni which is fun with the guys I know that play there regularly. However, the staff isn't professional and are a avatar of typical city government workers. Entitled and a bunch of do nothings; hangers-on that can't be fired. And like Dave said... I'm having to contribute to their salaries! 

[DaveP043]

53 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Layout, good conditions..... fairways and greens. Must be fair... I hate what I call "gimick" courses..... total blind tee shots, severe dog legs, greens with trouble on three sides and multiple breaks,etc...

In many cases I enjoy these courses, as long as I can get a decent yardage book.  Mike Strantz has designed a bunch of courses that some feel are gimicky, lots of visual illusions and intimidations, a number of blind shots, but once you figure out where to hit it they're lots of fun.  Similarly, some of my favorite courses in Ireland and Scotland have numerous blind shots.  I guess I enjoy the challenge of deciphering the challenges and (occasionally) hitting the shot that the hols demands.

[Mr. 82]

18 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Mike Strantz has designed a bunch of courses that some feel are gimicky, lots of visual illusions and intimidations, a number of blind shots, but once you figure out where to hit it they're lots of fun.  

I played Tot Hill Farm once.  

PB Dye - played it once as well.

There's a fine line between "fun" and tricked up/gimmicky.  Granted, I played both of these courses before the advent of smart phones with GPS golf course apps with maps, etc, but I don't think it would have mattered at either of these places.  The most frustrating thing I've ever encountered on a golf course is picking a line to play a shot, and absolutely nutting it, only to walk up to where my ball was headed to find out I was in a hidden lake, or bunker, or some other nonsense that even with a course map or yardage book you would have had no clue that that was there.

Pete Dye is the perfect example of a golf course architect that some call a genius, while others mutter four letter expletives under their breath any time his name is mentioned.  To each his own I say.

[MaxEntropy]

Like everyone else, condition matters a lot. A few years ago I played the Riviera Maya Golf Club near Akumal, Mexico. I still rate it as one of the most enjoyable rounds I've ever played. Part was due to the immaculate conditions, but the other was something I never really considered related to the layout. Perhaps I picked the perfect tees for me, but there was a lot of trouble I avoided given my combination of length and the tees I picked - a lot of the trouble was either out of my range or I was able to carry it which meant that, for the most part, even when I was in trouble, it wasn't terribly penal, which made for a lot of fun. Don't get me wrong, I still penalized myself a number of times, but overall I wasn't punished too terribly bad for the slight misses. I assume designers/architects try to take these kinds of things into consideration.

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, GSwag said:

I played Tot Hill Farm once.  

PB Dye - played it once as well.

There's a fine line between "fun" and tricked up/gimmicky.  Granted, I played both of these courses before the advent of smart phones with GPS golf course apps with maps, etc, but I don't think it would have mattered at either of these places.  The most frustrating thing I've ever encountered on a golf course is picking a line to play a shot, and absolutely nutting it, only to walk up to where my ball was headed to find out I was in a hidden lake, or bunker, or some other nonsense that even with a course map or yardage book you would have had no clue that that was there.

Pete Dye is the perfect example of a golf course architect that some call a genius, while others mutter four letter expletives under their breath any time his name is mentioned.  To each his own I say.

I've only played Tot Hill Farm once, and I wasn't crazy about it.  I really enjoy Tobacco Road, and liked Stonehouse and Royal New Kent when I played them.  Its been forever, but I played Caledonia and True Blue way back when.  For all of them I bought the golf course yardage book, and that helped a whole lot.

I've played a few Pete Dye courses, all in the last dew years, and I generally enjoy them.  Most of the time it seems that there's reasonable room off the tee, and things just get tighter and tougher as you get closer to the green.  If you're having even a little trouble, they can get pretty punitive.  PB Dye, his son, doesn't seem to be as penal.  I've played the course in MD just once, and a few others in Myrtle Beach a few decades back.  The one in MD did seem to have a number of blind tee shots where they could easily have been avoided.  I don't mind when it fits the terrain, especially in really old courses where little or no earth was moved, but to make a blind shot with no obvious reason isn't my favorite design.

[Will_Mac]

Greens first, layout, varying holes, overall condition, flat(ish) tee boxes, challenging, numerous tee boxes, pace of play, practice area.

[chisag]

... Layout and scenery are paramount for me. Don't care for houses on a course unless they are far enough away from greens and fairways. The more nature the better. This is one of the reasons I love Champions Gate in Orlando as it has an amazing amount of exotic birds as well as alligators. Condition is also a must. It does not have to be pristine, just in reasonably good shape. Aguila and Papago in Phoenix are great examples of picturesque courses that get a ton of traffic but are in decent shape for the price.  Walking is a huge bonus. I am not going to skip a course like Quintero because I have to take a cart, but I will always choose a walkable course for most of my rounds. 

... Like others I am not a fan of blind shots and certainly not multiple blind shots. But my biggest gripe is tricked up greens that don't match the natural terrain and have fabricated humps, mounds and tiers. Especially when the lay out is so nice but ruined by silly greens. Hitting a good drive and a great iron shot to 8 feet and looking at a possible bogie because of a mound or tier just isn't they way I want to play golf. I don't mid a tier if they keep the pins a good distance from the top or bottom but my experience has been if they have tiers they like to put the pin right at the top/bottom edge or even on the slope. Mystic Dunes/World Woods in Florida are perfect examples. Here is a review I wrote on Golf Advisor about Mystic Dunes:

 Beautiful course ruined by greens

I do not normally write negative reviews. But in this case I wish someone would have and saved me a wasted round of golf. The greens are virtually unplayable if you are looking to post a score. It was a wind advisory day but they still put pins on slopes. Of course there are so few flat spots I guess the didn't have much choice. Putting defensively on every single putt gets old quickly. What is really dissaponting is the lay out is very picturesque, especially the back 9.

... Interestingly the couple I played with at Mystic Dunes were high index players and they loved the greens. They said they struggle and 3 or 4 putt on all greens so they had an excuse for poor putting and they loved watching a better player struggle like them on tricky greens LOL.

[Mr. 82]

52 minutes ago, Middler said:

• courses where you can't hit a driver very often - a course I played regularly had a dogleg par 4 with a creek across the bend, that I couldn't tee off with more than a 5 iron. 

Yeah, that reminds me of St James Bay, in Carrabelle, Florida.  It's somewhat of a resort course, right near the beach, and about an hour from Tallahassee, so I've played it a bit.  I think I pull driver on one hole outside of the par 5s.  Every hole has wetlands across the fairway at about 230 yards or so from the tees, so you are forced to pull something less than driver on almost every hole.  It's target golf at it's finest.  Most of the guys I know have a love/hate relationship with that course.  I know very few people who have a positive response when you mention you are considering playing there and would they like to join you.  And man, brutally penal too.  I took a friend of mine there who is about a 15 handicap, and can be somewhat wild with shots.  St. James Bay literally has no rough.  If you miss it right or left it's gone into a nature area, and you are just dropping and hitting again.  I don't believe my friend broke 100, and lost at least a dozen golf balls, maybe more.  The conditions there are usually pretty good, but you really have to pick your targets carefully, and if you miss, just know it's gone.  So yeah, that fits the narrative you are describing above to a tee.

[SteddyGolf]

You can judge a Golf Course’s commitment to excellence by the quality of the parking lot. If an organization doesn’t do the little things well they probably don’t pay attention to the big ones. If the parking lot is clean and well organized....... if the attendants greet you with a smile and a willingness to help........... if directions to the bag drop and club house are well placed....... then more often than not the Golf Course itself will not disappoint.

 

Then of course there are those hidden gems located off the beaten path. Usually these fall in the Muni category and the overall golf experience rivals that of the most exclusive private clubs. I’ve played this course twice. The experience was like no other!

 

 

 https://youtu.be/IbRFfXOeB0w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

 

 

 

[Kenny B]

2 hours ago, SteddyGolf said:

You can judge a Golf Course’s commitment to excellence by the quality of the parking lot. If an organization doesn’t do the little things well they probably don’t pay attention to the big ones. If the parking lot is clean and well organized....... if the attendants greet you with a smile and a willingness to help........... if directions to the bag drop and club house are well placed....... then more often than not the Golf Course itself will not disappoint.

 

Then of course there are those hidden gems located off the beaten path. Usually these fall in the Muni category and the overall golf experience rivals that of the most exclusive private clubs. I’ve played this course twice. The experience was like no other!

 

 

https://youtu.be/IbRFfXOeB0w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

 

 

 

I never really thought about golf course parking lots.  None of the golf courses in my area have bag drops, private or public... well, unless you count me dropping off my wife to pick up a cart and bring it out to the car after I park.    If I'm alone, I park, carry my bag to the clubhouse, get a cart or put it on my pushcart and walk.  There are no attendants, only the person who checks you in.  

Of course, when we travel and play a nice course, the bag drops are almost always right by the clubhouse front door, and it is very nice that our bags are put on a cart and transported to the back of the clubhouse where we exit to head to the practice area after checking in.  However, courses like this are not always highly rated in my book.  They can be,  but not always.

[GB13]

For me, conditions/greens are paramount. I kind of combine those into one category since they are so closely related. Yes, scenery is important, but good scenery on a poorly maintained course leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The main other characteristic that goes into judging a course for me, is pace of play. If any given day on a particular course is a 5 hour round, the chances of me returning are slim. Occasionally, I’ll go on a day that isn’t busy, but that is only if the course is phenomenal. 

 

[Charli]

For me personally it’s conditions. A pristine course for me will always beat the best layout and crappy conditions.  

[pulledabill]

If I find fast and true greens, Im in heaven as generally the rest of the course will be well kept in my opinion. I like a course that offers me a variety of clubs off the tee and multiple tees to play from. I want to manage te course and not a fan of just blasting driver off every tee.  I like mtn courses with trees and scenery. 

If its not my home course or a course I play often, I dont pay much attention to the pro shop help after I walk out. 

Not a fan of courses with 100 bunkers. Seem like a waste of budget dollars to keep up.If I find multiple broken tees on the tee box, I would bet the course isnt paying attention to the rest of the ground. 

[ED13]

I walk only so courses that are cart only are out.  Consistent rolling greens whether slow or fast and decent fairways are important.  Holes that have some risk/reward element always make things more interesting.

All of the above are important but if I don’t enjoy the general atmosphere of the course I am not interested in going back.  Not a fan of house lined courses, would rather look at nature.  Prefer courses that separate holes visually from each other.  More of a feeling you are the only people there.  I play golf for enjoyment in my limited free time.  I am looking for the total experience, if not, what is the point.

[cksurfdude]

@chisag said...
------------------------
>> Layout and scenery are paramount for me. Don't care for houses on a course unless they are far enough away from greens and fairways. The more nature the better.

>> Condition is also a must. It does not have to be pristine, just in reasonably good shape.

>> Walking is a huge bonus.

>> Like others I am not a fan of blind shots and certainly not multiple blind shots.

>> But my biggest gripe is tricked up greens that don't match the natural terrain and have fabricated humps, mounds and tiers. Especially when the layout is so nice but ruined by silly greens. Hitting a good drive and a great iron shot to 8 feet and looking at a possible bogie because of a mound or tier just isn't the way I want to play golf. I don't mind a tier if they keep the pins a good distance from the top or bottom but my experience has been if they have tiers they like to put the pin right at the top/bottom edge or even on the slope.
------------------------------------
 

Quoting Chisag 'cuz he said all that good stuff I wanted to way better than I would have - especially the last part about "tricked up greens"; just seems really silly .. and unnecessary .. to me particularly on muni/public courses where you have pace of play problems!

In re: walking, I'd also add, to paraphrase Alistair McKenzie "teeing grounds proximate the last putting green". I understand some courses may have a forced "bridge" between 2 separated parcels of land that divide up two parts of the course, but poorly planned layouts with too much distance between holes don't make sense to me.

Was on a very popular - and well-rated - course in CO this summer that had a long distance to the next hole on most of the course, and I for one wouldn't care to play there again.....

[Flog4]

New to the forum. Important characteristics of a golf course to me. First is the design. How it fits in the land it resides. Are the greens interesting. Nothing worse than continuous flat greens. So a few humps and bumps and strategic entry required. Conditioning is very important.   And conditioning is important more from the green back than vice versa. Interesting scenery. Yes I'd much prefer holes on cliffs and views of water than holes thru housing developments. Is it walkable. I love and prefer to walk. So green to next tee distances are important. That's why many classic courses are better to me. They are more efficient. Varied holes. A group of par 3's which require different clubs vs the same. Some risk reward holes. Short par 4 which dares you. Reachable par 5 in 2 that presents options.  Ultimately there are so many courses to pick from. The cost is much for the best. The time commitment is long. As with so much in life....You get what you pay for. Members at top private facilities pay dearly for their privilege. What is an appropriate cost for a top course. Is $500 too much. My guess is the members at clubs that charge you once to play $500., fork over more than that for each of their many rounds...I'm a massive hunter for bargains. I have found many angles  and have been quite blessed to play typically 1/2 of any list of top courses you can view.  I love the old classic designers but todays new breed of designers are quite good too. This is a grand time to be playing this crazy game. 

[bens197]

For me, how memorable were the holes?

Seems strange but there is one course that will support this.

I was fortunate enough to play some top tier clubs in Palm Beach County when I was in the PGA. One of these clubs was the Champ at PGA National.

This course was one of the least memorable I’ve ever played. Aside from the Bear Trap (nothing more than a lack of geography to accommodate for some tricked up holes) it is a wandering maze of 440 yard par 4’s that meander through flat Florida terrain.

There are many others in northern PBC that share this lack of creativity. Bear Lakes, Old Palm and Admirals Cove.

Two of the three are $200k equity memberships and despite that, they leave you feeling underwhelmed.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Smellis745]

The things I look for are...

1 - General layout...meaning, I prefer playing courses that aren’t lined with houses down both sides of every fairway.  I play golf to enjoy nature and prefer to play with minimal houses.  Some houses are fine, just don’t like seeing them everywhere.  Again, this is more of a preference.

2 - Can I hit every club in my bag...  maybe not necessarily every single club, but will I at least hit long, mid, short irons, maybe even a fairway or two, etc...  Playing courses that are driver or fairway off the tee and wedge to short iron on every hole gets a bit boring.  It’s not that the course has to be 6800+, well designed holes can do this.  

3 - Green and tee box condition...  inconsistent green speeds from hole to hole will piss me off more than slow play.  Tee boxes need to be level and good turf grass without bare spots.

4 - Professional and courteous staff...  Treating me and my group with respect can make up for some other shortcomings.  There are two courses I’ll never step foot on again because of this.

Thats really it, I’m not hard to please and generally just getting out to enjoy a round of golf.  Those things tend to make it more enjoyable.

[Quigleyd]

There are many ways to enjoy a round of golf. I have played some absolute dogs of courses in both design and condition and had a great time because of company or other factors. 

Generally when I am playing I look at condition and course layout. I look for something that is interesting or unique. I like playing hilly and tree lined courses. I really enjoy the mountain courses around my area in Reno, NV. With Tahoe, and the Sierras right in my back yard Mountain courses are soo much fun. 

[HardcoreLooper]

The flow of the land does it for me.  Does it move, or is it pancake flat?  I like playing golf courses that would be fun to ski.  Up/down, side-to-side movement.  Flat lies are boring.  

Bouncy or mushy?  The red clay of central VA holds water forever; courses can get soggy just by overwatering.  Getting to play a course where the ball bounces is a real treat.

Open or narrow?  I don't mind a couple of narrow holes, especially short ones.  But give me some holes where I can swing my arms and not care so much where I hit it.  A well-placed tree here or there is fun.  Make me curve the ball around it one way or the other.  But courses hacked out of a forest?  I play them frequently, but I don't love them.  I wind up hitting lots of irons off of the tee, or I just hit driver and blow up my card.

While everyone prefers good conditions to bad ones, I'll take a great layout with subpar conditions over the reverse.  Two of my most fun rounds this year were on courses that were in absolute goat track condition.  But they had so many memorable holes.

 

[GregB135]

As far as playing the course itself, for me, I think condition of the course is first. Speed and consistency of the greens has top billing, then fairways, tees, and rough/bunkers. Then I consider the layout and challenge of the course. Finally, I weigh how well the conditions and the design work together to create the total experience. The final considerations on how I rate a Course are value; or how does the course experience compare to the price, and the course employees. One of my favorite area courses to play I rate below others because of the negative experience with the people there.

I don't mind a course that challenges but I don't like unfair. If you play the appropriate tees and make good tee ball choices shot-making designs are a lot of fun to play. I like some variety in the layout, and a course that feels natural to the surrounding environment.

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:44 AM, GSwag said:

Pete Dye is the perfect example of a golf course architect that some call a genius, while others mutter four letter expletives under their breath any time his name is mentioned.  To each his own I say.

I had to LOL on this comment. My summer league plays a Pete Dye designed course (Southern Hills Plantation in Brooksville). It's a terrific course but a few of the players in the league struggle on the greens. They are fast and roll true which is great, but Dye tends to design green complexes that can deceive your eye if you don't consider everything that goes into determining the break of a putt. Their motto for Southern Hills is "Screw You Pete Dye!"

 

[sixcat]

This requires  a three-part answer

1. Playing conditions - For me, the best courses are always designed with walking as a premium design feature.  I prefer natural surroundings with native vegetation and naturally flowing topography.  Not something contrived by dozens of pieces of heavy equipment moving millions of cubic feet of dirt.  Which is why I am not a fan of Pete Dye!  I like openness and angles.  I grew up on a William S. Flynn design that had all kinds of room off the tee but penalized severely for being on the wrong side of that open space.  Utilizing proper angles is rewarded far more than distance.  I enjoy greens with character.  You know when you've played a green complex that utilized the natural topography while factoring in strategic, subtle break that rewards playing into the green from the proper angle.
2. Atmosphere - Nothing beats a proper golf club atmosphere.  Nothing too fancy, rigid or stuffy.  Proper golf clubs should be welcoming, inviting, friendly and simple.  
3. Staff - The staff should be knowledgeable, friendly and courteous without patronizing.