[Scott Szabo]

I was reading the Architectural Issue of Links Magazine and came across an article on Tony Hebel, course rater who has rated more than 1,000 golf courses.

In the article, the author quotes Hebel as saying that he has noticed some trends in golf course architecture.  "Nicklaus does great courses, but they are all tough for the bogey golfer.  Tom Fazio does the best job of making a course playable for all levels".

I have only played a handful of Nicklaus courses and might tend to agree with his assessment.  I've never played a Fazio course.

Thoughts?

[John Kavanaugh]

He is correct about Fazio from the standpoint of architects who attract raters.  This is why I hate golf magazines...He is not comparing every architect or option out there, this is a Nicklaus vs Fazio diatribe because he assumes his reader is either too stupid or lazy to know anything else.  I see no point in quoting magazines on this site.

btw..How does Fazio do when making a course playable for every income level?

[John Gosselin]

Just curious, did it say how long it took him to rate 1000 courses?

[John Kavanaugh]

Just curious, did it say how long it took him to rate 1000 courses?

Does this mean he has played 1000 courses?  I would like a beakdown of how many he played against how many he rated.  I believe you can rate a course without playing it but can you play a course without rating it?  I'm sure Tony is a friend of the family but does the fact that he is a member of the 1K Club really have any bearing on the value of his opinion?

[Scott_Burroughs]

As an FYI, I read the article, and the guy is a Course Rating and slope rater (not the other kind), and he's done this for over 1000 courses.

[Scott Szabo]

John (s),

The article indicated that Mr. Hebel began in the early 80s and began rating up to 20 courses a week indicating that he has done this over three decades.  Mr. hebel is a 79 year-old getleman who has played in two U.S. Senior Amateurs, for what that's worth.

We all have heard Tom Doak's contiual references to making the course difficult for the scratch golfer while still making it playable and enjoyable for the average golfer.  I think it's that mindset, along with his obvious talent and ability, that set him apart from many in the profession today.

I believe Cary L. had mentioned once that he and his wife recently played both Dismal River and Ballyneal and she thought Dismal River was a bit easier for her to get around.  (I apologize to Cary if I'm getting this wrong   ).  I thought at the time that comment seemed a bit contrary to what I had heard from others, but hadn't played DR yet so I couldn't comment on it myself.

[Scott Szabo]

As an FYI, I read the article, and the guy is a Course Rating and slope rater (not the other kind), and he's done this for over 1000 courses.

Scott,

Thanks for posting that.  My original post wasn't too clear on which kind of rater I was referring to.  My point for the post was to get a response concerning the playability of their courses as they relate to both the scratch and bogey golfer.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think it has been well documented on this site and our own on course experience that people who rate by that method garner zero architectural insight.  This weekend we moved up to the 5500 yd tees from the 6500 and the handicaps did not travel equally.  The 17 kicked ass with more gross birdies than he had made in his life...Us poor low cappers still had to make putts, with the exception of the par fives, that is.

The difference in rating and slope does not travel as you move up tees.  I can easily shoot the rating from 5500 and am around eight strokes above at 7300.  The system stinks and should be soooooo ignored by anyone interested in architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

People are people, John.  I'd guess that if one wants to try to garner intellectual insight while going through the course rating process, one could, if he had the capacity for such things.  Remember that we do typically play the course also either before or after doing the actual rating mechanics.

So heck, I'd be interested in this guy's opinion just because he's PLAYED 1000 courses!

As for differences in rating and slope "travelling" and whether the system stinks, well, we've sure beaten that to death in here, so at least I have no need to battle it again. I just find it oddly comforting that you're an equal-opportunity offender and now have slammed BOTH types of "course raters" who participate here.

TH, who as you know is both and takes no offense, but just grins wryly.

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

Please explain to me how I adjust with a guy who I give 11 strokes at 6500 yds when we move up to 5500 yds.

[John Moore II]

I think the actual purpose of this thread was to comment on Nicklaus and Fazio designs, not the merits of course rating or the person doing the ratings.
--On that note, I have played two Nicklaus courses and I felt that they were both equally accessible to bogey golfers and scratch golfers. I have also played 3 Fazio courses, and I think they could beat the breath out of all types of golfers unless you are really executing.
--I think both designers, and all designers for that matter, build the courses to what the client wants. If they want Oakmont hard, the architect gives them Oakmont hard. If the client wants an accessible member club or daily fee club, then thats what they get, a course that won't beat your face in. Its very hard to generalize what architects do I think.
--Tom Doak I would say is the same. Charlotte Golf Links I have played and would say that it is accessible for all types. Sebonack, where I have not played, I would ASSUME is difficult for golfers, if only because they have aspirations to host major events. Good architects do what the client wants.

[Garland Bayley]

I think it has been well documented on this site and our own on course experience that people who rate by that method garner zero architectural insight.  This weekend we moved up to the 5500 yd tees from the 6500 and the handicaps did not travel equally.  The 17 kicked ass with more gross birdies than he had made in his life...Us poor low cappers still had to make putts, with the exception of the par fives, that is.

The difference in rating and slope does not travel as you move up tees.  I can easily shoot the rating from 5500 and am around eight strokes above at 7300.  The system stinks and should be soooooo ignored by anyone interested in architecture.

John,

One sample point does not make a statistically valid sample.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:  while Garland is correct that one bad instance does not mean an entire system is flawed, I shall try to answer anyway.

The guy ought to get a few less strokes at 5500 than he does at 6500.  The slopes ought to be different.  If they're not for tees 1000 yards apart, then it's either a very odd course, or something went wrong somehow.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

Sure the slopes are different, but not by enough.  Pick any course you want and I can prove the difference does not equate.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:  ok, at least you're doing the process correctly (apparently).

I have no need to fight the rest, thank you very much.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Huck,

Sure the slopes are different, but not by enough.  Pick any course you want and I can prove the difference does not equate.

I am sure we all breathlessly await the new JakaB course rating and handicapping system. Please contact the USGA to get their flawed system replaced ASAP.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK:  ok, at least you're doing the process correctly (apparently).

I have no need to fight the rest, thank you very much.

TH

Sure Huck, don't piss in the free soup.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:  I'd never do such a thing.

But the point is that this has been battled AD NAUSEAM in here, and those who don't like the USGA/GHIN system will never change that opinion.  It's fruitless, pointless and futile to discuss.  And while you enjoy those kind of things, well I have better things to do.

So Garland, tag, you're it, if you want the duty.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

JK:  I'd never do such a thing.
...So Garland, tag, you're it, if you want the duty.

TH

I've assigned him the task of replacing the current system with a better system, what more can I do. By association with USGA gurus like TEP on this website, he ought to be able to form an alliance of influential people that will take the USGA by storm and set them right.

So, if you wish to continue rating courses, you best be nice to Barney.

[Scott Szabo]

I think the actual purpose of this thread was to comment on Nicklaus and Fazio designs, not the merits of course rating or the person doing the ratings.
--On that note, I have played two Nicklaus courses and I felt that they were both equally accessible to bogey golfers and scratch golfers. I have also played 3 Fazio courses, and I think they could beat the breath out of all types of golfers unless you are really executing.
--I think both designers, and all designers for that matter, build the courses to what the client wants. If they want Oakmont hard, the architect gives them Oakmont hard. If the client wants an accessible member club or daily fee club, then thats what they get, a course that won't beat your face in. Its very hard to generalize what architects do I think.
--Tom Doak I would say is the same. Charlotte Golf Links I have played and would say that it is accessible for all types. Sebonack, where I have not played, I would ASSUME is difficult for golfers, if only because they have aspirations to host major events. Good architects do what the client wants.

JohnnyM:

I do think, because of Nicklaus' background, his courses are typically designed a bit more difficult for the bogey golfer than some other architects.  His abilities as a golfer go way beyond most in the history of the game, so he may (or may not) be able to relate to what a typical bogey golfer would.  

Never played a Fazio, but from comments that I've heard from others and on this site, I was surprised to hear his name associated in that context.  I have heard Tom Doak reiterate many times his desire to make a course both difficult for a scratch golfer, while playable and enjoyable for the bogey golfer.  I thought his name would have been a likely choice Mr. Hebel's comment, although Tom is relatively new to golf architecture in a sense if Mr. Hebel has been rating courses since the 80s.  I'm sure he's seen more of Nicklaus' and Fazio's work than Doak's.

[Garland Bayley]

... I have heard Tom Doak reiterate many times his desire to make a course both difficult for a scratch golfer, while playable and enjoyable for the bogey golfer ....

Which is exactly what Fazio says he does in his book. TF says that he will only do a course as difficult as the likes of Victoria National if the client absolutely insists upon it. Since TF has done many more courses than TD, it is not surprising to have a rater use him as the comparison to JN.

[Scott Szabo]

Garland,

I wasn't aware of that.  I don't know much about Fazio - thanks!

Scott

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()