GOLF DIGEST "Resistance to Scoring"

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

What is "resistance to scoring" ?

"How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?"  -- GOLF DIGEST

I mean, seriously...  We talk about all these thing all the time.  But really, what do they mean?

And more importantly, should it be a consideration (given that "shot value" seems to be a more relevant criterion) when judging the quality of the course?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeremy - what part of that is difficult to discern?

Seems pretty simple to me.  How hard is the course for the scratch without being stupidly hard - that is, what type of fair test of golf is it?

Now if you want to argue that such a criterion has little place in evaluating the worth of a golf course, I'll stand idly by and agree.... it should be at the bottom of many criteria used.  Oh, I think it matters a little... but not all that much.

But I find nothing mysterious about the definition....

TH

ps - obviously this was posted before your edit!

[cary lichtenstein]

What is "resistance to scoring" ?


And more importantly, should it be a consideration (given that "shot value" seems to be a more relevant criterion) when judging the quality of the course?

I never thought it was a valid consideration in judging the quality of a course. I think it is an old relic from when GD originally had the 100 toughest courses, and then switched it to the top 100 courses.

[Tom Huckaby]

Cary - that could be true - interesting thought.

And I'd say it shouldn't have MUCH value - in fact if you have 10 criteria, make it #9 or 10.  But there is something to be said for a test of golf... Thus I can't discount it completely.

What I'd say is worthless is making it the sole and only consideration.

TH

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The definition is easy enough but where do they find the players to carry it out?  

How many scratch players are there and how many find their way onto the GD panel?  

[Tom Huckaby]

WHC:

Well, the rule for GD panel is that it's 3 handicap and lower.  So at least the theory is most can at least relate to a scratch....

BTW I am not saying that's a good or a bad thing, but that is the rule.

TH

[Dan Herrmann]

Why not just look at the course rating (par rating)?  Take the highest, and you supposedly have best of breed, right?

(yes, I'm being facetious)

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Huck, While the rule is 3 or lower, do you think that GD enforces that rule?  

I've played with a few GD panelists and while they were great guys, they didn't all appear to be 3 or lower.  

Does anyone have the figures for what percentage of players are in this group of 3 or lower?  

[Matthew Hunt]

A hard course alwaysis not a good course. A good course is fun, some are easy, some are hard. A GCA should should set out to design a course that is challaging for a good golfer but playable to a hacker .

[Tommy Williamsen]

Huck, While the rule is 3 or lower, do you think that GD enforces that rule?  

I've played with a few GD panelists and while they were great guys, they didn't all appear to be 3 or lower.  

Does anyone have the figures for what percentage of players are in this group of 3 or lower?  

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I got on the panel 15 years ago the rule was "low handicap."  At that time I think it just meant single digit.  GD began getting complaints from clubs that panelists couldn't break 90, so "How could they rate a golf course?"  That precipitated a change in their qualifications.  They chanaged the the handicap qualification to five.  Those older panelists that were higher than five were grandfathered in.  I hadn't heard the three handicap rule.  The last I heard it was still 5.
TH may have newer info than I. have.  

[Adam Clayman]

The reason the category is IMO, flawed, is that anyone can build a hard GC.

[Brad Klein]

I think it ironic that Ron Whitten presides over such a standard for defining architecture. Every course resists scoring when he plays. Maybe what they really mean is "the difficulty a rater has meeting women after a round."

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

If they wanted a good definition it would be:

Is the course difficult enough from the back tees to be challenging and interesting and fun for a scratch player?  I think that's really what they are after, but it's hard to put a number on that, so they start with "resistance to scoring" and then stick in the "fairness" part so there is a point at which the difficulty starts to work against you.  But it's apparent that some of their panelists just equate "difficult" with good.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, I probably know 20 panelists.  I can't think of any of them who eqaute difficult with good.  They want challenge but more than that they want interesting and challenging shots.

I suspect that ten years ago hard and good were equated.  If PGA West if did anything it was to separate the two.  People thought it was over-the-top hard for the vast majority of players.   The last time I played it, it had been softened.

[Adam Clayman]

Tommy,

If PGA West if it did anything it was to separate the two.

Are you saying the separation of Difficulty and Quality were brought together because of the Stadum course?

Tom, If I catch your drfit, that makes two categories that are open to an individual's interpretation? Shot values being the other.

Brad, I suspect for all the women panelists, scoring, is always easy.

Does GD have women on their panel? I

[Tommy Williamsen]

Adam, sorry the sentence was worded poorly.  I think with the advent of PGA West and its great difficulty, people started thinking that because a course is difficult does NOT mean it is good.
Yes there are women panelists.  I don't know how many, however.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm a fairly new panelist, I didn't see anything when I was added about there being any specific requirement other than "low handicap." I was a 3 at the time, so that doesn't really help, and another two guys that were added around the same time are both equal or better than I am generally.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I guess what I'm trying to ask relates to some of the discussions we've had lately on fairness and difficulty.  In other words, the explanation for Resistance to Scoring, while it "sounds good", really is a lot of mearningless hot air, as it is so hard to define what is difficult and what is fair.

Let me ask the question another way:  "What is a difficult course?";  "What is a fair course?"

To answer these two questions simply and clearly is, in my opinion, very challenging.

[Andy Troeger]

Jeremy,
I think Mr. Doak's post best explains what I feel the RS category is after...well put and concise. Does everyone look at it that way...not sure.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I have read each comment and still do not feel I really would know how to quantfy this test in evaluating a course. Many factors impact resistance to scoring on a given day.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I understand what Tom Doak (and Golf Digest) is trying to say.  I think we ALL understand what Tom is saying.  But I think Tom's description, while a good one, is more about Shot Value than Resistance to Scoring.  

Think Augusta National 10 or 20 years ago: incredible shot value!  It would tempt you here, you would resist there, you'd take a risk now, you'd back off later.  It would be "challenging, interesting and fun for the scratch player".  However, it's Resistance to Scoring wasn't very high.

Nowadays, Augusta National seems to be more about Resistance to Scoring, and has lost Shot Value.  And we all seem to think that it's suffered for it.  So in that sense, does Resistance to Scoring belong as a criterion for great courses?

But I'm trying to go deeper.  

What is a difficult course?

Is it simply in relation to par?  If so, is Pebble Beach at the 2000 US Open (as a par 71) a "better" course because, all other things being equal, it offered more resistance to scoring with the 2nd hole as a par four?

Please tell me there's more to it than that!  And if so, what is it?

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeremy,

Are you a scratch player or have you ever been one...I have and can tell you that it is very simple to tell the difference between a course that is hard and one that resists score.  It is not uncommon at all to find a course with a relative low course rating that just won't give up a score.  I'm sure that no matter what your handicap you can name a few yourself.  Some people refer to the members of those courses as having handicaps that travel well.

[Joe Bentham]

All the bandon courses have lowish ratings and yet very rarely does a golfer play to his handicap.

[Paul Richards]

ugh.....