[Patrick_Mucci]

Some raters of golf courses have a category that is given a good amount of weight when evaluating a golf course.

"resistance to scoring"

At NGLA it is not unusual to see good amateurs turn the front side in 3 to 5 under par, lamenting that they could have had a few more birdies.

The back side may be more difficult, but if you're lucky enough to have the wind turn, scoring may be easier.

How do rating magazines that profer
"resistance to scoring" as an integral component in assessing a golf courses relative value reconcile NGLA's position on the totem pole, to its obvious failure to provide a substantive "resistance to scoring"
test ?

Does the same apply to Maidstone ?
Does the same apply to Cypres Point ?

What other courses fall into the same category ?

Is there a conflict when it comes to NGLA, is something wrong with the rating system ?

[john f]

As a side note to that, what do say about a course that has wind as a primary element and you catch it on a calm day. I remeber the Pro's went very low at Kiawah-Ocean a few years back when they had no wind, but w/ the wind up it's a killer. I'd also comment that PB & Sand Hills play much easier w/ no wind. So is a course deamed "less" when you can score on a calm day?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Take "par" out of the equation and what does "resistance to scoring" mean?

If I shoot 59 at National GL of America, but still feel adequately challenged by the course -- and, more importantly, that it's an ABSOLUTE BLAST TO PLAY -- what does "resistance to scoring" have to do with anything?

In general, golfers should be less consumed with how "difficult" golf courses are, and more concerned about whether or not they are "interesting" to play time and time again.

[John_Conley]

Pat:

GOLF DIGEST is the only magazine that overtly mentions resistance to scoring that I know of.  I don't think GOLF uses the same procedure of different criteria being totaled, but Ran is a better expert on how they run things.

GOLFWEEK only has a bottom line number that is used, and some leeway is given to the rater on how heavily each of the intended criteria are weighted.  "Difficulty" or its brethren are not a criteria, but you could argue that it spills into some of the other.

The National Golf Links of America is generally rated in the Top 20 of all courses in the nation, so it appears to be getting its due.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the rating systems in place today.  There are 3 flavors to choose from.  If you can't find one magazine that you find some agreement with I don't know that creation of a 4th with altered criteria will suit your tastes any better - assuming it is an amalgamation of 100+ individuals' opinions.  (Example:  Some people are far more tolerant of below standard conditions than others, for them I suggest GD rankings may hold more weight than others.)

By observation, your favorite courses include Garden City, National, and Merion... all of which are highly regarded by anyone that ranks courses.  I'd think you'd find the current systems in place satisfactory.

Something would be wrong if there were a course that nearly everyone agreed was outstanding that was left off of the lists of all three major magazines.  You seldom post about courses other than National, Garden City, and Merion, so perhaps a better turn on this is to ask yourself, "Which courses have been left off of all three lists that should be there?"  Some have obvious "shortcomings", and I use that term loosely because some quirky characteristics are hailed by some even when they know they won't have universal appeal.

Are there any great courses that fail to get recognition you feel they deserve?

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, resistance to scoring by the magazines ratings and panels might be worth something but not much. How do those ratings geniuses determine resistance to scoring anyway? They probably do it much the same way as the course rating teams rate a course for difficulty (the course rating). And the course rating is about 90% determined solely on distance!

Should the courses mentioned, NGLA, Maidstone and Cypress worry about that? I don't think they should but if they do there is a real low cost way to go about compensating for that. That would be for NGLA to print up alternate score cards that go from par 73 to par 70! For Maidstone to do the same from 72 to 70. And for Cypress to do the same from 72 to 70.

Then when those genius raters came around the club could hand them those alternate score cards and then see how they feel about that "resistance to scoring" category.

The interesting thing about all the courses mentioned is they have the kind of diversity and unformulaic variety and consequently just the holes to do that without doing one single thing to the golf course. Think about it, and you'll see!

[ForkaB]

Patrick

Good question.  The answer, if you include the pros, is that everybody fails the test--no course is complete resistant to scoring.

Another way of looking at the isue is to develop the golfing equivalent of the skill requirements for baseball (run, throw, catch, hit, hit with power) and see how each course tests those skills.  Let's assume that the golf skills are--putt, pitch, recover, hit and hit with power.

If so, courses like NGLA fail at the latter hurdle "hit with power," which is probably something of a surrogate for "resistance to scoring."  I personally think that this is a fair "criticism" if you are in the business of picking nits to see whether great golf course A is "better" than great golf course B.

However, if you are not in that business, it should not at all affect your immense enjoyment in playing a course such as NGLA.

[Joel_Stewart]

On the evaluation form, Golf Digest asks, "how difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees"?

In my mind they are looking for balance, making sure the course plays as a championship course for scratch players as well as fair for high handicap players from the front tees.

[THuckaby2]

I gotta say, you really NAILED that one, Rich.  Given in my ignorance/enthusiasm I so often rail at you with disagreements, for fairness' sake I gotta give you your due here - that is 100% right on.

Of course, me saying this might cause you now to re-think your position!

TH

[BarnyF]

Patrick,

If NGLA were given the highest "resistance to scoring" rating that Pine Valley receives NGLA would only move from 16th to 11th in the rankings.  If NGLA were given the lowest "resistance to scoring" rating that Shoreacres receives NGLA would only move from 16th to 21st.  I really don't see without the reinstatement of the stymie how your argument that NGLA was treated unfairly holds up....and without the stymie why argue at all.

[Mike @ Kiawah]

john f--

One of the reasons the pros when low during the World Cup in '97 was that the course was set up at about 6,800 yards (about 1,000 yards short of its total length) to accommodate, as Colin Montgomery put it "the lesser nations."  Add to that virtually no wind and there was a 62 and a handful of 63s.  During the Ryder Cup, the course was set at around 7,300 with 25-30 mph winds and the players would have been tested to keep it out of the 80s (had it not be a match play competition)...

[ForkaB]

BarnyF

If "stymiability" were a criterion (as it should be, of course), NGLA would drop even further in the rankings as with its green contours stymies would be very difficult to lay and, even if you laid one properly, it would be child's play to chip over or around the intervening ball using the slopes of the greens.

Mike@Kiawah

You forgot to remind us this time of the silly season "Ryder" Cup thingy that you guys are sponsoring .

[Ted_Sturges]

To Joel Stewart,

Your comment about the statement on Golf Digest's course ratings ballot is interesting.  The comment "how difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees" is a lot to digest.  I must admit that I have no idea what this means.  I guess I've always believed that golf really isn't "fair". I always get a kick out of a golfer making a comment that a particular feature of a course is "unfair" (another usage of the dreaded "u-word" my friend Jim Urbina would say).  As a Golf Digest panelist, how do you interpret this statement on the ballot you submit?  Do you have your own standard for what constitutes "fair" in a golf course's design?  Would you mind elaborating on how you apply this statement when submitting your annual ballot?

TS

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Conley,

The theme, or question I posed, is not about being critical of golf courses, rather, the
category "resistance to scoring"

As Jeff said, what does it mean ?  
Do most raters look at a resistance to scoring strictly in a linear context: yardage

Perhaps you haven't seen the many posts I've made regarding clubs other than NGLA, GCGC or Merion.  

ANGC, Atlantic, Shinnecock, Maidstone, Pebble Beach, Spanish Bay, Spyglass, Seminole, Pine Tree, Boca Rio, Yale, Plainfield, The Knoll, Essex County,
St. Andrews (old), Prestwick, Troon, Turnberry, Old Marsh, Jupiter Hills, The Medalist, The Bears Club, Newport, Wannamoissett, Metacomet, Ridgewood, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Fenway, Atlantic City,
Mountain Ridge, Hackensack, Forsgate and
Prairie Dunes are just a few.

I questioned if Maidstone and Cypress would fall into the same category as NGLA, since I don't perceive they present a resistance to scoring that might exist at... Shinnecock.

Barney F,

If the influence is as limited as you depict, and your ranking numbers are correct, then why include that category at all ?
Doesn't it give the false impression that DISTANCE, ADDITIONAL YARDAGE is the way a club can improve their rating ?

I'm not arguing that NGLA was treated unfairly, I'm questioning the existence of the category and holding up NGLA as a perfect example of the category's meaninglessnous.

With regard to SYMIEs, Rich Goodale is correct, one hopes his ball will stop within three to six feet of the cup on many a green.

TEPaul,

You make an excellent suggestion.  
But, that suggestion implies that the raters are out of focus on the architectual merits of a hole or golf course, consumed again by distance.

Joel Stewart,

Difficult, but fair, would appear to be a primarily linear determination, and again, place emphasis on distance until one reached a point where a hole, due to its length, would be decried as unfair.

[Jeff_Lewis]

NGLA is a wonderful course that is getting as much recognition for its quality as any in the country. Do we really need to go to such lengths to have it go from 17th to 11th by removing what is clearly not an arbitrary criterion? Trying to determine if a course is "fair" is not only worthwhile, but inevitable. By the way, one could also argue that this criterion has been misapplied at NGLA. Are the raters playing this course in the usual two club wind? If they decided to take a couple of the short par 5s on the front and call them long par 4s, all of a sudden you would have one tough, but fair,  par 71 golf course to deal with.

Perhaps GD should go back to telling us the top 10, next 10, etc. The distinctions between 11th and 15th are probably not meaningful anyway.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
If "distance" as you say was the main criteria for determining "resistance to scoring", why would Pine Valley (a mere chip and putt design at 6600 yards   ) be rated the highest in this category??  

The raters who do have a clue (which I like to believe is most of us) understand and properly guage the importance of course difficulty.  Some of the older panelists who still think GD is rating the 100 toughest courses, might over state the importance, but most of them don't rate much anymore and even they are coming around.

And think about it Jeff, if a course were really that "easy", you'd have to believe it would get boring over time.  It's a common trait that most people (golfers included) like to be challenged in some way.  

Mark

By the way, don't take any bets with anybody who shoots their handicap at Maidstone first or second time around.  They are clearly a sandbagger  

[Mark_Fine]

One more comment, to me there is no such thing as an "unfair" golf hole.  But there are "poorly designed" ones out there!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Pine Valley was/is so PENAL that its penal nature overrides any other factors, including distance.

As a simple example, just hit it over the first green at both courses, and look at the consequences, the ability or inability to recover.

NGLA has a more benign nature to it, though errant shots pay a price, they rarely result in unplayable lies, or unrecoverable shots.
And, if the caddies didn't miraculously find balls in the woods, with perfect lies, with perfect openings back into play, PV would be even more penal, and rounds would be longer, taking away from the playing experience.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff Lewis:

As a GD panelist I concur with your comment that ratings hsould go go back to groupings of ten -- rather than the numerical system in place today.

Who is really to say that such and such course is #13 anot #15. At either position --that particular course is of high quality. Golf ratings should not copy the inane manner in which college football teams are "ranked." To say you are in the "first ten," as GD previously did, is testament enough to me and I'm sure to others that the course is of the highest caliber.

I understand "resistance to scoring" and believe it has a place. Why? As a fairly decent player I believe too many courses slide in because people sometimes opt for courses that are deemed "classic," but woefully short in terms of real challenge. Golf holes are not just about style -- but in executing a series of shots, and in my mind, when it comes to top courses being considered for GD's 100 Greatest, they should be exacting in a number of ways.

I believe NGLA is a superb course and worthy of its position in the GD rankings. Clearly, the category of "resistance to scoring" has not held the club back, but RtoS is crucial in eliminating scenic wonder courses that really don't push the player to hit high quality shots throughout the round.

Regards,

[Joel_Stewart]

Ted:
Like I said earlier, its all about balance.  

GD qualifies it as "Its never boring for the back tee player yet doesn't cost a high handicapper a dozen balls during a round."

GD gives an example of the Renegade Course at Desert Mountain (I haven't played it).  It has 8 different sets of tees, wide fairways, huge greens that offers many different options for players of all levels.

I also agree with Jeff that NGLA is probably not a good example for this criteria.  I'll throw out Shinnecock as an example that from any tee it's tough with or without the wind.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
That's my point, it's not just distance that determines difficulty and most guys surely know that!  Do you see any big issues when you look at the numbers for the other courses?
Mark

[TEPaul]

Listen, you uncouth revisionist whippersnappers, there will be no talk of any "laying of stymies" at an august and traditionalist establishment such as NGLA.

A gentleman and a sportsman tries as best as he can to put the ball in the hole! Period! If a stymie happens to result, well than such is life and the prohibition of touching the ball until holed. Have you been talking with this, this, this, Oh, I can hardly say it, this Pat Mucci man? If so, your clubs will be confiscated for an entire weekend!

You do not "try to lay a stymie" on your opponent! Extremely poor form to even consider such a thing, much less mention it! Haven't you children learned anything?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Being the fine law-abiding citizen that I am, I haven't laid a stymie since 1951, when I was 4.  That one allowed me to close out my grandmother 3 and 1 on the putting green at Winchester, and never forgave me for that, up to the day she died.

Rich

[TEPaul]

I knew you were a good lad, Rich, and you learned your lesson at an appropriate age, thank the nurse! There are these little guilts in life that we must carry with us like big men, fortunately or otherwise! I know of what you speak, though, as I had borrowed $.50 from my own grandmother and had already polished off the ten Milky Ways the day she died and I was never able to repay her! Oh my, what a cross to bear!

[Ran Morrissett]

Joel,

Did GD imply that the eight sets of tees at Renegade Course at Desert Mountain were a good thing or bad?

Certainly GD's architecture editor said FIVE sets were a waste in his Feature Interview on this site.

Couldn't Garden City GC's famous one set of tees  be viewed as eight times more clever?

Cheers,

[Mark_Fine]

I have to admit I've never been a fan of The Renegade Course.  To me it just got a little goofy. I saw players in foursomes each playing different tees to different pins.  Aren't there three pins in every green?  But regardless, it's one of those courses designed by Jack and built for Jack.  It might have variety but it doesn't have too much else going for it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()