Top 10 Resistant to Scoring

[cary lichtenstein]

After playing Oakmont and Oakland Hills in the past 10 days, it got me thinking about  "Golf Digest's Resistance to Scoring" category.

I found both courses very difficult and I thought back to other difficult courses and Carnoustie, Muirfield in Scotland, Medinah came to mind.

Curious as to what others fit in this category and how many of you feel these difficult courses belong in your top 10.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary,

It's a valid category.

A measure of how the architecture frustrates the golfer's ability to score.

Unfortunately, with the advances in hi-tech equipment and the resultant distances produced, this category could become a hybrid that is strictly length oriented.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, I have to disagree.  I think the modern technology, fitness etc insure that length will never be the final determinant, but the difficulty of small, devilishly contoured greens and great bunkering will keep scoring in check.

Many of the modern very long tracks with flattish greens are more conducive to scoring than the classic tracks (Shaughnessy in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago a good example) that keep scoring down with defense at the greensite.

Now a 7500 yard course with small, devilishly contoured greens, that's another story!

[Michael Moore]

Are you saying that the category is flawed because difficult courses that are in the GOLF magazine top ten are not in your top ten?

Are you saying that if "resistance to scoring" carried less weight, then these resisting courses would not be in the GOLF magazine top ten?

Are you saying that the difficulty of the aforementioned courses caused you rate them lower? Are you some sort of rater type?

I can't follow any of this.

[A_Clay_Man]

Unfortunately, with the advances in hi-tech equipment and the resultant distances produced, this category could become a hybrid that is strictly length oriented.

I wonder if the statistics back-up this opinion?

The pros seem to go lowest on the longest courses, each year. While the older venues always seem to resist the 22 under par final score. Why is that?

[Tom Dunne]

Adam Clayman,

Royal Ashdown Forest has hosted regional Open Championship qualifying the past two years. Only three players have broken 70 (par 72). Two 69s and a 67 by Magnus Suneson of Sweden.

The course plays all of 6,500 yards. Now that's resistance to scoring!  

[A_Clay_Man]

I tried to do some comparisons;
Riviera- 6987yards, -9 (36 holes only)
Pebble Beach Pro-Am-6799yards -19
Chrysler-7109 y -19
Western- 7326 y -14
GMO- 6739 y -20
Buick- 7127 y -24
Reno- 7473 y -21
Texas- 7508 y -14

While there is no clear pattern, the lack of one is somewhat  telling.

[A_Clay_Man]

The hardest hole in the world is overcome with fine shots. So, the biggest resistance is between the ears.

[David_Elvins]

Mike

I am just asking the treehouse here their opinion of resistance to scoring and whether it is a legit category. One can make a course extreme.y difficlut, does that make is good?

Cary,

In some ways I think you are right.  There is not a perfect correlation between "resistance to scoring"  and course quality.  BUT, there is not a perfect correlation between any single category and course quality.  It is the ability of a course to succesfully blend the requirements of all categories that relates to their greatness.  I think it might be unfair to the ranking process to single out a single category as in a well done survey the categories should be integrated to produce a complete final result.

BTW, what are all the ranking categories of the various magazines?

[Sean_A]

Cary

I think a high score in a resisitance to scoring category is just as lamentable as a low score.  Courses such as Carnoustie and Oakland Hills are ones I would mark down in appeal because of their difficulty.  However, I suspect the better player one is the more they appreciate scoring resisitance.

For me, courses such as Lahinch and Ballybunion are better balanced (between difficulty, birdie opportunities and a bit of funk)  and therefore funner to play.

Ciao

Sean



Ciao

Sean

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Golf Digest's top 10 courses as it relates to "Resistance to scoring:

1. Shinnecock Hills -- 9.02
2. Oakmont -- 8.99
3. Pine Valley -- 8.93
4. Winged Foot (West) -- 8.90
5. Bethpage (Black) -- 8.76
6. Medinah (No. 3) -- 8.71
7. Oalkand Hills -- 8.65
8. Pinehurst (No. 2) -- 8.52
9. (tie) Kiawah (Ocean) -- 8.45
9. (tie) Augusta National -- 8.45

[Steve Lapper]

Very Legit Category

Here is my top ten (no particular order and  any weather conditions)

Carnoustie
Muirfield
Medinah 3
Butler National
Oakmont
Bethpage Black (from back tees)
Koolau
PGA West (Stadium)
Kiawah Ocean
Bayonet


Many others jump into this category when natural conditions come up (i.e winds and rains)

All that said, I'd only prefer to make this category 10-20% of my play.

[THuckaby2]

If "Resistance to Scoring" were the ONLY criterion, that is the sole and only thing on which courses were judged, then hell yes the system would be flawed, because of course difficult does not equal good.  One only need play The Ranch at Silver Creek to see the proof of that.

BUT the fact is GD uses this as one out of many criteria.

So as one criterion weighted correctly with many others, heck yes it's relevant.  The game is nothing without a challenge.   And remember this isn't about distance, or penal nature, or any one particular WAY a course gets difficult... tricky greens could do the trick just as well.

The idea is just not to give it too much weight.  It's one criteria, that's it.  Many courses are not so strong in this category and are still great overall, many courses are also very strong in this category and still suck overall.

TH

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think it is an intersting idea as a category, but clearly even more subjective than most other "top ten" lists that we discuss.
The top ten listed above by Mike are hard to argue with, as all are very tough golf courses, and deserve their inclusion, Merion should also be there.
What it actually means as a list I am not really sure, to me it just serves as a useful comparison between layouts that a group of panelists have played and made their opinions.
I am sure we as a group could come up with a similar list, some would be the same and some would differ.

However I do think it is an intersting concept as far as lists go

[THuckaby2]

Michael:

I don't think Cary's asking for a list of the top 10 most difficult courses - what he's asking is how do these very difficult courses fit into one's top 10 overall... and thereby also asking how important is this difficulty criterion.

And it's interesting - as valid as I find the criteria, for me personally it would be the least among equals.  That is, inherently difficult courses with no other redeeming qualities don't come close to making my personal overall top 10.  This is why (admittedly seeing it from afar) I've never felt any love for Oakmont... I just see it as a boring difficult slog.  Others have tried to convince me it's not, but I remain a doubting Thomas and need to study it more or see it myself.

There is hope though - I used to think the same thing about Winged Foot West, then I played it and man were my eyes opened as to its greatness going far beyond its difficulty.  Good lord what greens....

In any case I digress and these are just obvious examples.  The question here, which is a very good one, is just how important is difficulty?

So I'll clarify by saying to me, it is a very valid criteria and ought to count for something... just not all that much.

Which is pretty much how GD does it.

TH

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

BTW, Marion (East) just missed the top ten with an 8.36, ranking behind Pebble (8.37), Spyglass (8.38), Victoria National (8.38), Butler National (8.41) and Olympic Club (Lake) (8.41).

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

The inclusion of the category is certainly fair game IMHO. Golf is a challenge and challenging shotmaking is part and parcel of the game. Golf, to me, is more than just the most scenic or most eye-oriented course available.

The key is having that one aspect balanced with other considerations. Such as does the course require the player to play the greatest range of clubs during the round -- if a course is simply tough as nails because it only requires driver and the fairway metal for each and every hole for the single digit player than the course lacks the versaility I would want to play continually. The course should require a deft ability to work the ball (both fade / draw and high / low) on command throughout the round.

The second aspect -- does the course distinguish proportionally between the range of shots played. If a player were to hit a shot at say 80% of execution level the course should come close to rewarding that execution at the level provided. I am fully aware that not all situations can match such a stringent requirement but there are courses that are so demanding -- because of forced carries and extreme narrowness -- that the element of proportionality that I weigh in with any evaluation is simply either minimized by the architect or worse yet disregarded in its entirety.

You can have a very tough course but there has to be some element of connection to a basic embracing of the good shot rewarded / bad penalized dynamic.

[Tom_Doak]

The actual GOLF DIGEST category says something about how tough "but fair" the course is.  That's because they recognize that it is flawed just to give a course credit for being difficult.  Places like Koolau, the old Stone Harbor, and my own Black Forest are extremely hard to score on, but they're not great architecture.

A personal "top 10" in resistance to scoring also depends on the user.  For the short but straight hitter, The International in Massachusetts would be torture.  For the long but wild, Merion might be an extreme test.  For the player without a good short game, Augusta National and Crystal Downs would be killers.

I will agree that a course's ability to test good and great players is an important factor in weighing its merits, but you could really include that in the "Shot Values" category, could you not?  "Resistance to Scoring" only hangs on in the GOLF DIGEST system because it was the basis for the system thirty years ago and they hate to abandon it altogether.

[Michael Whitaker]

How many courses try to pump up their R-T-S numbers (thus their ranking) by keeping the fairways narrow and the rough deep?

I know of one greens committee in SC that proudly pursues these RTS numbers, even in the face of numerous member complaints about the deep rough. Their response? "You don't want us to lose our ranking, do you?"

Adam - Another one for your list: Heritage Classic (Harbour Town) 6973 -7

[Patrick_Mucci]

Unfortunately, with the advances in hi-tech equipment and the resultant distances produced, this category could become a hybrid that is strictly length oriented.

I wonder if the statistics back-up this opinion?

The pros seem to go lowest on the longest courses, each year. While the older venues always seem to resist the 22 under par final score. Why is that?

WHAT OLDER VENUES ?

Do you mean old venues like Winged Foot, Baltusrol and Shinnecock that are deliberately lengthened and set up, specifically, to frustrate scoring ?

What older venues have a proven track record of resisting scoring by the Tour Pros ?[/color]

Tom Doak,

I'd agree that "shot values" would be a better category.

Resistance to scoring will only spawn more length.[/color]

[Sean_A]

Matt

I am not sure I understand your idea of 80% execution.  Golf is a game of inches.  Sometimes you strike the ball wonderfully, but it catches the sandy patch on top of the bunker and rolls back.  A snowman later you are caught saying "It was a great shot I was just unlucky".  Golf is just this way.  

Ciao

Sean

[Will E]

and my own Black Forest are extremely hard to score on, but they're not great architecture.

I must see something in Black Forest that others miss. I don't find it extremely hard to score on and I think it's great architecture. Yes, I said GREAT. I love the scale of the place and the challenge. In fact, I'd argue that it's Doak's best work in Michigan. The bunker work is spectacular. I played there again a couple of weeks ago and the course was in wonderful condition. Why is Tom so down on this course?

[AndrewB]

And it's interesting - as valid as I find the criteria, for me personally it would be the least among equals.  That is, inherently difficult courses with no other redeeming qualities don't come close to making my personal overall top 10.  This is why (admittedly seeing it from afar) I've never felt any love for Oakmont... I just see it as a boring difficult slog.  Others have tried to convince me it's not, but I remain a doubting Thomas and need to study it more or see it myself.

What does seeing it from afar entail?

I'm curious because I had the pleasure to walk the course several times while watching the 2003 US Amateur and I had perhaps the exact opposite reaction.  It was the first time that I'd seen a course without having the opportunity to play it and felt it was clearly one of the best courses I'd ever seen.

I thought the course had many interesting and creative holes, including quite a few on the shorter side (2, 5, 11, 14, 17).  I also particularly liked the way 1 and 10 played, requiring landing the ball well short to hold the green.  I have heard "boring difficult slog" used to describe many long courses that are featureless and don't require good shotmaking skills besides length (UK papers used exactly that phrase to characterize Baltusrol Lower during this year's PGA), but I would certainly not put Oakmont in that category.

[THuckaby2]

Andrew:

Seeing it from afar means seeing it only on TV and in pictures.

I watched the US Amateur.

Doing so didn't fill me with any love for the course.

But many have told me that seeing it in person might change that.  I remain skeptical as it really doesn't seem to be my cup of tea - yep, from all I saw it looks like a painfully difficult torture test - but hopefully I do get to find out some day.

TH