[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Here it is for the Big Dog on the Block -- The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island Golf Resort:

Where we don't set up tees: 79.6/155 (max) -- 7937 yards (we can get the course to over 8,000 yards if need be)
Tournament: 77.2/144 -- 7356 yards
Ocean: 73.4/139 -- 6744 yards
Dye: 71.1/133 -- 6495 yards
Kiawah: 70.9/132 -- 6202 yards
Carolina: 72.7/124 -- 5327 yards

[JeffTodd]

Remember - slope needs to be combined with course rating to determine "difficulty" for the bogey golfer.

I'd love to see a 65 course rating with a 140+ slope.

Doug Ralston's Eagle Ridge had one of the crazier slope/rating combinations I can recall:


61.9/129
63.6/131
66/137
68.5/142
70.8/144

[J. David Hart]

John K. thanks , gentlemen, Honored Dignitaries.....I must be using a completely different language than you...... I am only trying to discern a quanity, a % of  courses that engage in serious, real golf, where golf is not
defined as fun followed by the word easy or cheesey. Of the approximate
9.8% of the US population that play this wonderous game, would you guesstimate .5% actually take it for real, play the ball down? Out of the near 18000 courses how many actually maintain a membership that plays near scratch golf? 

[John Kirk]

OK, let's try again.

I am aware of two clubs that have great playing memberships:

The Champions in Houston, TX.
Columbia Edgewater in Portland, OR

Once again, Oakmont is renowned for a membership that prides itself on playing a very difficult form of the game.

[Jim Nugent]

So Oakmont has a course rating 4.2 shots more from the tips than TR with an identical slope.

Yes, but just so you're clear: bogey golfer should still shoot 4.2 strokes higher at Oakmont than at TR, if these ratings are accurate. 

This is why I think they should drop slope, and put Bogey in its place. 

Just based on what I've seen on TV and read here in GCA, I really question those Oakmont ratings.  Seems like both should be much, much higher. 

I also don't see why they set the max for slope at 155.   

J. David Hart: I'm not sure what your question is in this thread.  But I am interested in slope and bogey ratings and what they do and don't do. 

[David_Madison]

Oakmont is much, much harder than Tobacco Road for a scratch golfer. Maybe the 4-shot difference in course rating should be for the front nine alone. The model used for determining course rating can't possibly capture the true differences in difficulty. 

TR for a scratch golfer is an easy course, but for an 18-handicapper or higher can be torture. Nearby Pinehurst #2, at least when the greens aren't super firm and fast, is just the opposite. I believe it's slope rating is pretty mild, but still with a high CR. The bogey golfer will still be a bogey golfer, but the scratch player from the back tees can play pretty well and still shoot in the mid-high 70's with a slow death by missed 8' putts for par.

Just played the Ocean Course in an average wind. No way will the low half of 100 scratch players playing from the 7356 yard tees average under 80. Maybe with a max of double bogey...

[Tom Huckaby]

TomH:

Maybe you said that above but I don't believe you thought of it. Ever hear about our saga at GAP a number of years ago with Aronimink in that vein? In my opinion, it was what finally convinced them to stop bugging our rating teams about their slope rating.

Oh great one:

Obviously I know nothing about what occurred at Aronimink.  However, I've been touting for years on this site the value of high CR/low slope as the ideal course, and in fact that is what I mentioned earlier on this thread.  Of course I have no way of knowing either if I was the first one to ever think of this.  However, when you said nearly the identical thing as me a few posts after mine, well... a gentle ribbing was in order.
 

As for the rest... heck I still believe the less we talk about slope the better.  Just let it do its job in obscurity.

TH

[Steve Lang]

 

Well.. my favorite at WCC is because of all the varied shots required, not the slope per se..  its stats are:

tips.. 75.1/151,  7162 yds
next in tees: 72.9/141, 6753 yds
next in tees: 71.3/138, 6200 yds
next in tees: 68.3/112 for men 71.3/128 ladies, 5571 yds
next in tees: 70.2/123, 4964 yds

next favorite course:

tips.. 74.4/138, 7018 yds
next in tees: 72.1/131, 6535 yds
next in tees: 70.0/128, 6140 yds
next in tees: 71.0/124, 5248 yds

next favorite course:

tips.. 74.4/131, 7199 yds
next in tees: 71.5/126, 6642 yds
next in tees: 68.6/116, 6077 yds
next in tees: 71.6/124, 5086 yds

and then our old West & North courses which we have access to were nuetered some years ago and now part of resort/Canongate .. I'll never forgive the changes made, so who cares..

p.s. I know Oak Tree in Edmond ,OK, once rated as amongst the hardest courses in USA used to have a great group of low indexers.. but not as broad as at Champions..

[fred ruttenberg]

Rating teams determine a course rating for the scratch golfer and the bogey golfer. The slope is determined by taking the bogey rating,subtracting the scratch rating and multiplying by 5.381.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Canterwood in Gig Harbor WA isa Robert Muirs Graves Design that opened with a slope in the 150+ range.  Peter Jacobson at its opening said it was too hard, and it was.  The course has been softend some but remains extremely difficult. 

For information on Slope you should take some time on Dean Knuth's website for everything you will ever need to know about slope.

http://www.popeofslope.com/

[John Kirk]

In general, I am wary of courses with a slope rating of over 140, since they tend to defend par with lots of water and/or narrowness, two of my least favorite things.  Give me lots of room to play and defend par with undulation and fast turf and I'm happy.  The good type of course tends to slope out lower, say 125-137.  Great classics like Merion and Oakmont have all the good characteristics, and then enhance difficulty with narrow fairways and deep rough.

[Doug Ralston]

Remember - slope needs to be combined with course rating to determine "difficulty" for the bogey golfer.

I'd love to see a 65 course rating with a 140+ slope.

Doug Ralston's Eagle Ridge had one of the crazier slope/rating combinations I can recall:


61.9/129
63.6/131
66/137
68.5/142
70.8/144

My Eagle Ridge? Thank you, I always wanted one of those!

Yes, ER is a very 'different' kind of course. Its route through the mountains crosses chasms, and untouched woodlands. The nature is such that, at 6650yd, it is still very tough for people not very consistent at shotmaking [bogeyites]. Thus, though scratch to -6 types can score on this course, those of us who are less consistent are inclined to find losts of doubles or worse out there.

I find ER the most fun of any course I have played [Tobacco Road a close second]. But it is definitely not everyone's cup of tea. One person whose golf I quite respect say "built on property clearly never intended for golf". To each their own.

But EVERYONE should play this once to decide what they think. I know groups from Michigan and even Canada who come to Eastern KY every year to play the wonderful courses there, but especially they mention ER. It's just one of those courses.

As for the high slope, it is actually two courses in one that way. The second half is a mere 135 slope, but the front is a legit 153, and if you could measure only #2 - #7, it would easily be slope 155, about the toughest [and most fun] stretch of hole you could ever enjoy IMHO. I found Tobacco Road much easier.

Doug

[TEPaul]

"However, I've been touting for years on this site the value of high CR/low slope as the ideal course, and in fact that is what I mentioned earlier on this thread. Of course I have no way of knowing either if I was the first one to ever think of this.  However, when you said nearly the identical thing as me a few posts after mine, well... a gentle ribbing was in order."

TomH:

Of for God Sake, when we first said that about Aronimink this website didn't even exist and you were still dumpin' in your diapers!

 

[W.H. Cosgrove]

"However, I've been touting for years on this site the value of high CR/low slope as the ideal course, and in fact that is what I mentioned earlier on this thread. Of course I have no way of knowing either if I was the first one to ever think of this.  However, when you said nearly the identical thing as me a few posts after mine, well... a gentle ribbing was in order."

TomH:

Of for God Sake, when we first said that about Aronimink this website didn't even exist and you were still dumpin' in your diapers!

 

I would have to disgree, as I am more accurate than long, I would prefer a low CR with a higher slope.  Am I correct in assuming that the greatest issue with CR is that is is overly delendent on length to provide the number?

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP:  OK, OK.  Let's just say we agree on the issue.

WEC:  CR is mostly dependent on distance yes.    So yes, low CR and high slope would generally mean a shortish course with a lot of penal hazards and or other things to ratchet up the difficulty.  If you enjoy that, more power to you - I somewhat do also - that is, I prefer that to a long course with few hazards.  However, the more general point is that a course with low CR means easy for the scratch, and high slope means harder for the bogey.  Who needs a harder course, a great golfer or a lesser?

Thus you may be the exception, and that is very cool.  But the rule should be that the ideal course remains high CR, low slope.

TH

[TEPaul]

"TEP:  OK, OK.  Let's just say we agree on the issue."

TomH;

No siree, that's not close to good enough. Let's just say we agree that you got the idea from me! And, by the way, that's not negotiable nor is it discussable any longer.

[Doug Ralston]

No!

Low CR, high slope is ideal. How boring to have a course that is simply long! I am a bogey+ golfer, and I can think of nothing more boring than a wide open fairway that, even when hit, gives me no chance to reach a green in regulation.

And I just care so little about my score, compared to the fun of trying to make shots.

We looked in the GD 'Best places to Play' book, and searched out the courses we have liked. They almost universally had high slopes, and then either had low CR's or tees short enough to make par-4's reachable and low CRs on those. In other words, CR is mostly about length! Bah, humbug.

But, far be it from me to say what you should like. If you just like banging it long and putting, revel in it.

Doug

[Tom Huckaby]

"TEP:  OK, OK.  Let's just say we agree on the issue."

TomH;

No siree, that's not close to good enough. Let's just say we agree that you got the idea from me! And, by the way, that's not negotiable nor is it discussable any longer.

How very Goodalian of you.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

No!

Low CR, high slope is ideal. How boring to have a course that is simply long! I am a bogey+ golfer, and I can think of nothing more boring than a wide open fairway that, even when hit, gives me no chance to reach a green in regulation.

And I just care so little about my score, compared to the fun of trying to make shots.

We looked in the GD 'Best places to Play' book, and searched out the courses we have liked. They almost universally had high slopes, and then either had low CR's or tees short enough to make par-4's reachable and low CRs on those. In other words, CR is mostly about length! Bah, humbug.

But, far be it from me to say what you should like. If you just like banging it long and putting, revel in it.

Doug

Low CR, high slope seems to works for you.  But what it means in general is indeed a course that's easy for scratch player and painfully difficult for the bogey.  That would indeed seem to me to be the opposite of the optimal.  Remember CR gets most of its worth due to distance, but not all.  What gets it to be either less than stated par or more than such are hazards (either none, or lots) and/or distance at the extreme short or extreme long.

High CR and low slope would mean a course with challenge for the scratch, and a fighting chance for success for the bogey.  It most definitely would NOT mean just "banging it long and putting"; far from it.  To get a high CR, there would have to be hazards; distance alone cannot achieve such (get it over par) unless it's way way way at the extreme.  And there's no way a course that long could possibly have a low slope, so chalk that off.  No, a course with high CR and low slope would have hazards for sure - they would just be more in play for the scratch than the bogey.  They surely would exist and challenge the bogey - the course would not be boring -they'd just be more at the distances scratch tends to hit the ball.  Approach shots would be tough for scratch, but not crazy hard for bogey...

It's all theoretical in any case, as like I say, courses that work out this way are few and far between.  But I still think if they are found, they should be celebrated - far more than high slope courses, which really are everywhere.

TH

[Doug Ralston]

Tom;

You are, of course, quite right about there being a lot of high slope/low CR courses around. And those are better for me. Better, IMHO, for most bogey players, who care about challenges instead of scores.

For the 5% who are so good, and so long, that high CR is needed to challenge, there should be a FEW good long challenging courses [I speak, as I must, of publics. Privates should go their own route, and let those join who like what they are]. But when I play those long ones, I hope the front tees still offer many of the 'features' that make it more than a putting game.

What I clearly must never do is play in Britain. The "all REAL men must play from back there, no options" idea does not appeal to me. In the USA, when I do play a very long tough course, I can at least hope for tees suitable to my game.

Tom; the reason I vary my tee positions during rounds is that I want all the course I CAN play, and not to lose features and have only greens all day. So I might move up to a 330yd tee on a par-4, then back to 180 yd tee on a par-3. I get as much 'slope' as my length allows, and accept that a certain number of doubles and worse will come; but they won't be because I had no chance to reach, only because I failed to perform the shots. THAT is golf! That is fun!

Doug

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug:  again, that all works for you.  I just don't believe for one second that no bogey golfers care about their score.

I'm speaking in generalities, and in general, I am correct.

But I make no attempt to say what's best for you personally.  I just bet if you asked most golfers AFTER PLAYING A COURSE which they enjoyed more, more bogey players would say those with lower slopes than higher, and more scratch would say those with higher course rating than lower.

Those caps are intentional - I do believe people are unduly influenced by the numbers.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

I'd prefer high course rating and low slope.

Scratch golfers would shoot around 75 and bogey golfers around 95.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'd prefer high course rating and low slope.

Scratch golfers would shoot around 75 and bogey golfers around 95.

Exactly.  And on the courses Doug suggests, scratch golfers would shoot around 70 and bogey golfers around 105.

That works for Doug as he doesn't keep score; I just doubt it works for many others.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

It goes a bit deeper than that for me. To me, that's indicative of the course allowing the bogey golfer to make their own trouble, as they are more likely to do and the better player to pick and choose their trouble - as the true nature of strategy is defined.

It's win/win.

[John Kirk]

Not only that, Kyle, but the course rating criteria seems to evaluate courses that defend themselves with short grass and wide playing corridors with low slopes, perhaps too low when compared with actual recorded scores.

I think the course rating system is fairly accurate, but has its limitations.  Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow, for instance, re-evaluated its slope after a couple thousand scores were sublitted to the USGA one year.  The slope for the blue tees (~6500 yards) was reduced from 137 to 131, and the white tees (~6100 yards) was left about the same at 134.

Clubs should submit a couple thousand scores to have their slopes evaluated.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()