Are great courses necessarily difficult: a call for slope, ratings and yardage?

[Tom Huckaby]

Well, Olympic Lake is a par 71... so those figures are a little tougher relatively.  But slopes are the same.  I suppose this can be explained by lack of penalty-stroke producing hazards at Olympic Lake, keeping its slope relatively low.  Also keep in mind the course is rated for normal summer play - absolutely NOT what you see in US Opens there.

I've never been to Lawsonia...  

TH

[Jason Blasberg]

Tom:

What's your experience re: the slope of courses with wickedly undulating greens  (all other things being equal)?

Engineers current slope is only 130 from the tips, no hazards and no real out of bounds save a few really really really foul balls.  As a result my index has gone from a 3.1 to a 5.1 in the last two months while my ball striking is actually getting better.

My putting average has to be about 32 per round and it seems I often have nearly 36 putts per round.

I had 75 at The Creek with 35 putts for cryin out loud!  

It seems that every 6 footer at Engineers has at least 4-6 inches of break and some have 2-3 feet.  I'm having all kinds of speed trouble to boot.  

Slopes never account for green difficulty do they?  I'm not sure but I don't think ratings do either?  The good news is my game travels very well now, but the bad news is I'm becoming happy with 2 putting.

What are your thoughts on how green severity is factored into the slope and rating of great courses?

[Doug Siebert]

I'm pretty sure rating & slope take green difficulty into account.  I think that the USGA system takes everything into account, I just don't think it is widely applicable to all types of golfers.  Put me on a wide open 8000 yard course where you can hit it about anywhere without penalty and have me play just that course all summer long and my handicap will go down down down, I could probably give scratch a run for the money.  Stick me on a 6500 yard housing development course with OB or water everywhere you turn and by the end of the summer I'm don't see how I'm not a double digit handicap.  A short accurate hitter would be the other way around.

I don't know what the relative difference in rating and slope you'd get from flat and boring greens versus some slick and crazy greens, but I suspect I'd be less affected by that than by greens that are just in crappy shape.  If the ball won't roll true I lose confidence in my stroke and can't make anything, even on flat greens.

[Jim Nugent]

Slopes never account for green difficulty do they?  I'm not sure but I don't think ratings do either?  

JVB said in a thread a few months ago that a team of raters from the USGA (?) plays and/or examines the course, and that helps them decide what numbers to give it.  So I'm pretty sure slope and CR both take into account green difficulty.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Green difficulty is definitely included in rating a course, although raw yardage accounts for a majority of the rating and slope.  Factors such as size, shape, undulation, slope, speed, % surrounded by bunkers, depth of bunkers, slopes and rough in the surrounds, and length of approach shot are all measured and taken into account in determining the green difficulty.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's my understanding the in our area the MGA rates/slopes all courses.  I recall at Seawane the slope increased about 7 points because the addition and extension of bunkers and addition of fescue.  Greens were not touched except to reclaim some mowing patterns.  Meanwhile thousands of trees were removed.  Making misses in many instances more playable unless it buried in fescue.  The slope there was nearly 140 and it was under 6,800.  Greens were relatively benign and difficult to three putt once you learned them except in a couple of spots, most notibaly above a front pin on #7.

I always thought the factors were length and the amount of hazards.  

[Tom_Doak]

What is NOT well accounted for by the Slope System is strategy.

If the fairway is 50 yards wide, but you can only hold the green from one half of the fairway, they don't count nearly enough for that.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree the common perceptions on the rating system needs re-evaluation. It's based on the wrong things.

[BCrosby]

Agreed. I can't think of any standard measurement of "difficulty" that factors in strategic issues. Most measures of difficulty are made on a shot by shot basis. How far, what do you have to carry, how steep are the penalties for misshits? Those are the questions slope asks.

Note that such measurements don't just leave out strategy. They also leave out the concept of "holes". A golf course is seen as a series of ball striking tests interrupted by greens and tees.

Bob

[John Kirk]

Are great courses necessarily difficult?

Yes, but they do not depend on hazards or out of bounds to generate that difficulty.  A great course has to be challenging, because challenging shots are fun.

[Tom Huckaby]

As others have said, green difficulty is most definitely one of the criteria assessed.  It is just one of many though - and has a point ceiling just like all other criteria - so my personal feeling is that at courses with REALLY crazy greens in terms of speed and contour, the 10 value we can give doesn't adequately account for the added strokes these greens cost one and all.  But these courses are a tiny minority... I just wish like Spinal Tap our "surface" criterion could go to 11.  

Re strategy not being adequately accounted for, well... we do take that into account when the benefit is obvious.  That is, we can make a judgement to narrow a fairway when one side is worthless in terms of an approach.  That's not in the book per se, but I have seen it done.  The benefit has to be very clear, however, and it has to work for damn near all pin positions.  There aren't many holes like that... But when we come upon them, well.. we do use some judgement.

TH

[Paul Payne]

Huck,

You are a Chicago guy aren't you? I have gotten the impression that you are all about great golf at reasonable prices. You really need to get yourself in a car and go play Lawsonia some time. It is worth the 3 hour drive.

While you're at it you should try Janesville and play Glen Erin once. I think one of the best deals in Wisconsin $25 for really good golf. I am throught the area enough I'd be glad to meet you there if I could work it out. Lawsonia gets enough press here you should really play the course.  

PS... Glad to see you finally reached full member status.

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul - thanks.  It's been a lot of hard work.

 

And I am a Chicago guy in attitude only, and perhaps heritage... My Mom grew up in Berwyn and I still have a lot of relatives there.

But although heck yes I love great courses at a great price and thus would love Lawsonia for sure, it's sadly at least 2000 miles away.

I live in San Jose, CA.
TH

[Paul Payne]

Hmmmmm....

San Jose is nice. Especially in the winter.

I suppose Lawsonia would have to pull a mighty Doak number to warrant a trip from there eh?