What’s the best criteria to review a golf course?

[chern]

If you had to start reviewing golf courses, what criteria would you base the reviews on? 
 

What makes for a good or bad review?

[teejaywhy]

I lean towards the Golfweek criteria as a good starting point:

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2024/06/03/golfweeks-best-how-we-rank-courses-rater-program/

 

Edited May 24 by teejaywhy

[hammergolf]

22 hours ago, chern said:

If you had to start reviewing golf courses, what criteria would you base the reviews on? 
 

What makes for a good or bad review?

Well, you’re going to get some different answers for sure. I was a rater for Golfweek for several years, but gave it up due to them wanting to control how we rated courses. For me it’s always been ALL about the course. The design of the holes, shot value, strategy, and esthetics are the categories I use. However some will judge the facilities, whether or not there are houses on the property, exclusivity, or other categories.

[CMCSGolf]

I've always tried to have a very simple rule - If I could teleport to the first tee of any course tomorrow, which would it be?  Strip away the cost and travel.  From there, you could select and weight a million different factors, but I mostly rank my favorite courses*  in this way.  Whatever course would be my first choice in this scenario is the best for me.

 

* I deliberately use the word favorite over "best".  There are certainly some courses that are better than others.  But within a certain strata of course, there is no way to prove one is better than the other. It is all about preferences and tastes.

[me05501]

59 minutes ago, CMCSGolf said:

I've always tried to have a very simple rule - If I could teleport to the first tee of any course tomorrow, which would it be?  Strip away the cost and travel.  From there, you could select and weight a million different factors, but I mostly rank my favorite courses*  in this way.  Whatever course would be my first choice in this scenario is the best for me.

 

* I deliberately use the word favorite over "best".  There are certainly some courses that are better than others.  But within a certain strata of course, there is no way to prove one is better than the other. It is all about preferences and tastes.

 

 

That's probably in line with the way most reviewers would do it. I think my method would put a strong weighting on the logistics your method ignores. 

 

Real world concerns like access, cost, travel, crowding, tee time spacing, etc. are a huge part of the overall player experience and should factor into ratings. 

Bandon Dunes could theoretically be my favorite golf course on earth but chances are I'll never know. If I started trying to play there today it might be a good two years before I could do so (and that's with some luck involved). What good does that do me? 

 

Access wouldn't be in my top three rating criteria but it would probably be either 4th or 5th. 

Edited May 27 by me05501

[Abh159]

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that immediately came to mind in no specific order...

• Course conditions
  • Greens conditions and also green speed (are they an appropriate speed for their contouring?)
  • Bunker conditions
  • Level tee boxes 
  • Turf conditions (grass abundant in fairways and rough or a lot of bare spots?)
• Design / layout
  • Strategy (am I just pulling out driver on every tee or do I have to actually think about what shot to hit?)
  • Memorability (after a month or so, how many holes can I recall right away from memory?)
  • Risk reward holes (I think every great course needs at least one good r/r par 5 and par 4)
  • Variety (mixed yardages or do all par 3s, 4s, and 5s play close to the same length?)
• Cost
  • Overpriced, underpriced, or competitively priced
  • Availability (can anyone book a tee time or are there stipulations like being forced to stay on site or etc.?)
• Experience
  • Pace of play
  • Walkability
  • Friendliness of staff
  • Facility cleanliness

[umassgolfer]

Are we talking subjective, written reviews like to start a new content stream? Or more objective, numerical scoring for you to rank courses?

 

If the former, @Abh159 laid it out nicely. The best reviews take me there. What stood out to you - describe the things you noticed and the feelings you had. For example, individual holes can be great, but if 4 of them play within earshot and in sight of a busy intersection, it might not have been your favorite. There's a course down there with three or 4 wonderful holes that run directly along I-95 (out of sight thanks to trees but you can definitely hear them). That makes me like those holes a lot less - worrying about causing a 100 car pile-up if I hit a big foul ball.

 

From there, what were the holes like? Were the par-3's interesting? Picturesque? Varied distances? Were the par-5's reachable? What were the carts like (if you took them)? Old, new, GPS? Overly restrictive on where you can bring them? Do you have to take caddies and/or have to walk? 

 

What else did you remember about the experience? How were the practice areas? Did you have any notable food or drink? Was the shop well stocked? Any other nice little touches (I love the courses that have the little par-3 height tees, for example)? Wrap it up with a simple question - if you were asked to play there again how would you respond and why? Would it be a drop everything and go? Let me try to make it work? Only if it fits into the schedule? Only if nowhere else is available? Or I'd rather not play.

[act0fgod]

2 hours ago, umassgolfer said:

Wrap it up with a simple question - if you were asked to play there again how would you respond and why? Would it be a drop everything and go? Let me try to make it work? Only if it fits into the schedule? Only if nowhere else is available? Or I'd rather not play.

Kind of reminds me a bit of the Doak scale.  

https://golfcoursegurus.com/rankings/doakscale.php

 

Interestingly most of the other stuff (practice, food, shop, swag...) in the last paragraph Doak would say don't impact the course rating.

[Mullenboy]

Doak and most others like him are attempting to evaluate architecture - which to me is a wholly different question from which course would one most want to play, either for the first time or again.

 

Architecture is an art and a science.  One evaluates how great the achievement is by the designer, in these criteria. This would not take in anything other than what is present on the course or directly effects the play.

 

Where one enjoys the round the most would seem to necessarily take in all things... asthetics (although Doak himself says that plays into design quality also, in terms of how well views and other sensory things are optimized), cost, history, feel, ambience, conditions, clubhouse... hell everything.

 

So the question is:  what are you trying to evaluate?

Edited May 27 by Mullenboy

[DArnie]

I'll just go with the cow rating system. 🤠

[Mullenboy]

46 minutes ago, DArnie said:

I'll just go with the cow rating system. 🤠

That is a great one for determining how great a course is for ARG.  🙂

[DArnie]

1 minute ago, Mullenboy said:

That is a great one for determining how great a course is for ARG.  🙂

😁😁😁

[CMCSGolf]

6 hours ago, me05501 said:

 

 

That's probably in line with the way most reviewers would do it. I think my method would put a strong weighting on the logistics your method ignores. 

 

Real world concerns like access, cost, travel, crowding, tee time spacing, etc. are a huge part of the overall player experience and should factor into ratings. 

Bandon Dunes could theoretically be my favorite golf course on earth but chances are I'll never know. If I started trying to play there today it might be a good two years before I could do so (and that's with some luck involved). What good does that do me? 

 

Access wouldn't be in my top three rating criteria but it would probably be either 4th or 5th. 

 

I suppose, but access (or any other metric) for you and for me (or any person) could be wildly different.  You can have access as your 4th weighting and assign a score to that, but the ratings you ultimately create would be particular to you (which is great!).  But if you are going to end up with a rating that is for you, you might as well skip all that work and just rate your favorites at the end of the day.

 

That's essentially what my method does. I could assign numbers to 'shot value' and conditions, and history and whatever else I value, but these are subjective to me and I just end up back at favorite because there are so many thing I can't quantify.  

 

I'll give an example here - Nairn is one of my favorite courses in the world.  I can see architectural deficiencies against the top course in the area Royal Dornoch. And I can see why people love that place and think it's the best course in the world.  But I liked how Nairn played right along the beach and I could hit one literally off the sand if I miss right (which I did). I liked that there were fewer tourists. I liked that one hole has a tee box that plays back over the previous green.  I liked how Nairn has a few holes that play away from the linksland and up into the trees.  I have no idea how to quantify these things in a rating system.  But if cost and transport were no hindrance, I would probably tee it up at Nairn tomorrow if I could.

[ChrisSP]

On 5/24/2025 at 3:56 PM, chern said:

If you had to start reviewing golf courses, what criteria would you base the reviews on? 
 

What makes for a good or bad review?

 

There needs to be some differentiation between rating a course, which many posts have mentioned, and reviewing it.

 

In my opinion, if you're talking about a review, that's nothing more than what you thought of the golf course. There are no wrong answers. Think of it as a book review or a movie review. I liked it or I didn't like, I recommend it or don't recommend it, and here are the reasons why. It's a purely subjective exercise.

 

Ratings, on the other hand, I would argue require established criteria, as the idea would be that you're comparing different courses to each other based on certain factors. That said, there can certainly be some subjectivity in the criteria you choose to value most highly, but I believe some sort of methodology and consistency would be expected from an audience if you're doing ratings.

[cassel191919]

Honestly there is no right way, everyone has different opinions. If you want to start reviewing courses you need to give us your opinion on that course and what makes it special or dull in your mind.

[david.c.w]

I could never be a rater.  90% of how I would rate a course would be how I played.  Made a HIO at a goat track muni?  10/10.  Grips got wet during a pop up shower at NGLA so made 4 doubles?  3/10.

 

All kidding aside (not really), the overall experience is very important to me in my personal ranking.  I don't need or want parking lot valet or shoe shine service, but my rating starts the moment I step out of the car.  

[Mullenboy]

And sometimes it even begins on the drive to the course.... some places have incredible entry drives or approaches to the place.... 😉

 

This is all good.  Everything matters if one is reviewing or evaluating a golf experience.

[teejaywhy]

56 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

I could never be a rater.  90% of how I would rate a course would be how I played.  Made a HIO at a goat track muni?  10/10.  Grips got wet during a pop up shower at NGLA so made 4 doubles?  3/10.

 

All kidding aside (not really), the overall experience is very important to me in my personal ranking.  I don't need or want parking lot valet or shoe shine service, but my rating starts the moment I step out of the car.  

You do you, but understandably, such a rating is not particularly useful to others.

 

[Mullenboy]

1 minute ago, teejaywhy said:

You do you, but understandably, such a rating is not particularly useful to others.

 

Hmmmm...
 

I'd say basing it on how one plays - or having that have too large of an influence - would of course make the rating/review pretty useless to others, of course.

 

However... including all parts of the experience... I'd say makes the rating/review the MOST useful for others.... no?

 

 

[cassel191919]

1 hour ago, david.c.w said:

I could never be a rater.  90% of how I would rate a course would be how I played.  Made a HIO at a goat track muni?  10/10.  Grips got wet during a pop up shower at NGLA so made 4 doubles?  3/10.

 

All kidding aside (not really), the overall experience is very important to me in my personal ranking.  I don't need or want parking lot valet or shoe shine service, but my rating starts the moment I step out of the car.  

A good shoe shine service is nice though. I remember having an old pair of shoes at Oakland Hills and that guy made them look brand new.

[me05501]

16 hours ago, DArnie said:

I'll just go with the cow rating system. 🤠

 

Ah yes...the scale of 1-10 where every rating is 4, 5 or 6.

 

 

:) 

[teejaywhy]

16 hours ago, Mullenboy said:

Doak and most others like him are attempting to evaluate architecture - which to me is a wholly different question from which course would one most want to play, either for the first time or again.

 

Architecture is an art and a science.  One evaluates how great the achievement is by the designer, in these criteria. This would not take in anything other than what is present on the course or directly effects the play.

 

 

As this is primarily my interest, my personal ratings skew towards the golf course itself.  Don't care about the clubhouse, pro shop, driving range, food/bev,  parking lot, etc.

 

Conditioning is a lower factor for me.  While very bad conditions can certainly detract from a round, the most perfect Augusta-like conditions don't make a boring course more interesting.  

 

I like the idea if when you putt out on 18, would you be motivated to go directly to the first tee and play it again? Sign of a good course!

 

Also I've kind of figured out that lesser courses might wow you on the first play, but they tend get less interesting with repeat visits.  Better courses get better the more you play them.

 

[teejaywhy]

13 minutes ago, Mullenboy said:

Hmmmm...
 

I'd say basing it on how one plays - or having that have too large of an influence - would of course make the rating/review pretty useless to others, of course.

 

However... including all parts of the experience... I'd say makes the rating/review the MOST useful for others.... no?

 

 

As you said, depends on one's interest.

 

Ratings skewed towards conditions don't interest me.

 

[Mullenboy]

1 minute ago, teejaywhy said:

As you said, depends on one's interest.

 

Ratings skewed towards conditions don't interest me.

 

I too like the idea "if when you putt out on 18, would you be motivated to go directly to the first tee and play it again? Sign of a good course!"

 

I also think that ratings or evaluations skewed toward any one particular criterion are of little interest.. especially conditions... which can change so frequently.

 

But I do not understand why one would only care about "the course itself".  As I said earlier if one is attempting to evaluate the performance/skill of an artchitect, then yes, it is all about the course.  But if one is recommending a course to a friend... or evaluating how great the golf experience was... why shouldn't everything matter?

 

 

[Warrior42111]

I liked what @Abh159 did, just edited it for my thoughts

Course conditions

• Greens conditions and also green speed (are they consistent?)
• Turf conditions (grass abundant in fairways and rough or a lot of bare spots?)

 

• Design / layout
  • Strategy (am I just pulling out driver on every tee or do I have to actually think about what shot to hit?)
  • Memorability (after a month or so, how many holes can I recall right away from memory?)
  • Risk reward holes (I think every great course needs at least one good r/r par 5 and par 4)
  • Variety (mixed yardages or do all par 3s, 4s, and 5s play close to the same length?)
• Cost
  • Overpriced, underpriced, or competitively priced
  • Availability (can anyone book a tee time or are there stipulations like being forced to stay on site or etc.?)
• Experience
  • Pace of play
  • Friendliness of staff
  • Facility cleanliness

[david.c.w]

5 minutes ago, teejaywhy said:

As you said, depends on one's interest.

 

Ratings skewed towards conditions don't interest me.

 

 

So what exactly do you base your rating on?   Only the routing, hole layout and green complexes?   

[teejaywhy]

2 minutes ago, Mullenboy said:

 

I also think that ratings or evaluations skewed toward any one particular criterion are of little interest.. especially conditions... which can change so frequently.

 

Exactly, conditions can be improved, a poor design cannot.

 

2 minutes ago, Mullenboy said:

 

But I do not understand why one would only care about "the course itself".  As I said earlier if one is attempting to evaluate the performance/skill of an artchitect, then yes, it is all about the course.  But if one is recommending a course to a friend... or evaluating how great the golf experience was... why shouldn't everything matter?

 

If asked to evaluate a golf course, the golf course is what I will evaluate. That's what is interesting TO ME.

 

I guess if someone wants an eval of the whole experience, I'm not the best person to ask.  

 

[Mullenboy]

4 minutes ago, teejaywhy said:

 

Exactly, conditions can be improved, a poor design cannot.

 

 

If asked to evaluate a golf course, the golf course is what I will evaluate. That's what is interesting TO ME.

 

I guess if someone wants an eval of the whole experience, I'm not the best person to ask.  

 

Just seems odd to me that so many things that can effect one's enjoyment would be discounted.  But I get it.  It's all about the course for you.  Unfair price or crappy treatment or horrid conditions or awful views would not effect your enjoyment so long as the course was interesting, well-designed, whatever.  And all of that other stuff being great would not make you love a place if the course was poorly-designed or otherwise unsatisfactory to you.  

 

You are far from alone.  It's all good.

[teejaywhy]

21 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

 

So what exactly do you base your rating on?   Only the routing, hole layout and green complexes?   

 

I should say the course design carries the highest weighting.  Conditioning and other factors can be considered but would carry a lower weight in the overall.  Some things should not be considered at all, like how I played. 

 

Fact is, I don't really have a rating "system."   I discovered long ago that I like some courses better than others.  And as I try to figure out why that is,  the common factor seems to be the golf course layout.  Options and variety perhaps the two major factors.

 

 

[smashdn]

Shower pressure.

 

There was one guy on youtube rating the Jewish clubs based upon the quality of their pickles he ate at lunch or the halfway house.