It's probably obvious that Magic Meadows is the inspiration for my question here, and I don't intend for this to be a "badmouth MM" thread, but rather "what constitutes the best of the best?"
Is it possible for a course with an average hole length of 228' to be one of the top 10 in the country? If not, where is that line?
Is it possible for a course with "natural" tees to be top 10? Or single chain baskets?
DGCRs own review guidelines say "Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way."
One thing I've learned through playing and reviewing courses is that there are "controllable" factors that contribute to my ratings for a course, and there are "uncontrollable" factors that also contribute to my rating. In other words, if a course has poor teepads, or poor signs, or even poor design...all "controllable" factors, then my rating will reflect that. However, even if a course is perfect in all of the "controllable" factors, that doesn't mean that it's going to get a 5 from me...because there could very possibly be "uncontrollable" factors that limit the ceiling for a given course. Typically, these would involve the topography and/or space available.
If a course is built on land that is boring, flat, and featureless....or is shoehorned into such a small plot of land that even the best design only manages to produce an average hole length of 220', then that course isn't going to get a 5 from me, even if all of the "controllable" factors are perfect.
Am I in the minority here? Are the twelve people who have ignored both controllable and uncontrollable factors and still given MM a 5-disc rating the norm?
Note: before someone mentions it, I understand that the problem is self-correcting in that once more trusted reviewers get out to play the course it will get a more accurate rating, but is that the only solution? The way I see it, there is at least one legitimate top 10 course out there that is not getting the exposure it deserves because it's spot in the top 10 is being occupied by an imposter.
Is it possible for a course with an average hole length of 228' to be one of the top 10 in the country? If not, where is that line?
Is it possible for a course with "natural" tees to be top 10? Or single chain baskets?
DGCRs own review guidelines say "Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way."
One thing I've learned through playing and reviewing courses is that there are "controllable" factors that contribute to my ratings for a course, and there are "uncontrollable" factors that also contribute to my rating. In other words, if a course has poor teepads, or poor signs, or even poor design...all "controllable" factors, then my rating will reflect that. However, even if a course is perfect in all of the "controllable" factors, that doesn't mean that it's going to get a 5 from me...because there could very possibly be "uncontrollable" factors that limit the ceiling for a given course. Typically, these would involve the topography and/or space available.
If a course is built on land that is boring, flat, and featureless....or is shoehorned into such a small plot of land that even the best design only manages to produce an average hole length of 220', then that course isn't going to get a 5 from me, even if all of the "controllable" factors are perfect.
Am I in the minority here? Are the twelve people who have ignored both controllable and uncontrollable factors and still given MM a 5-disc rating the norm?
Note: before someone mentions it, I understand that the problem is self-correcting in that once more trusted reviewers get out to play the course it will get a more accurate rating, but is that the only solution? The way I see it, there is at least one legitimate top 10 course out there that is not getting the exposure it deserves because it's spot in the top 10 is being occupied by an imposter.
