[W.H. Cosgrove]

BCrosby,
While approaches to greens were made with long irons in the twenties, ball flights were, I supsect much lower and equipment was inconsistent, the targets were greens rolling at maybe 6-7 on the stimpmeter. 

Think of how much easier it would be to hit a green with a three iron if the ball bounced rolled and stopped rather that today when it bounces and then rolls endlessly off the back of the green and into trouble. 

The biggest change in golf isn't the club or ball but the mower and our ability to keep grass alive under ridiculously stressfull conditions. 

[Carl Rogers]

Dear Tom Doak,

Riverfront stands up well as a course that is resistant to scoring, in fact TOO WELL as the new 1 year old management has decided to speed up the greens.  I do not consider myself a wimp or a complainer but the 5th and 9th green last weekend were Shakespearian Tragedies.

Only through a lot of approach putt practice and exceedingly careful approach shot play have I been able to maintain a close proximity to my handicap in the last couple of years.  The stroke rating and slope rating at Riverfront are way too low compared with other area courses.

Only yourself and crew can attest if the green complexes were consciously or unconsciously designed for scoring resistance (only as one element of the design), but there is hardly an an easy pin on the course (unless it is the front third of 17).  Something tells me that there are no "accidents" on your courses. 

The more I learn and discover about the course, the harder it is getting.

I apoligize.

Yours faithfully,
Carl Rogers

[David Druzisky]

I guess I have never equated resistance to scoring with across the board difficulty.  Am I in the minority here?  I see resistance to scoring as balance between challenge and fairness at the highest level of play.  That may have even been the GD definition.  To me that does not automatically translate to how difficult the course is to play.  It does measure how vulnerable the course is to low scores by the better players.  Length is one of the things of many that help determine it.

I like Bobs input regarding the historical aspect.  As the players and equipmwent have evolved, especially at the higher levels of play, so have the fields of play.  Some reworked and some new. 

For our national championships of late the USGA has walked a very fine line between scoring resistance and difficulty by simply making the courses awkward to play with high rough, firm and fast greens, and throwing in new back tees.  This interpretation of resistance to scoring is what has effected the game.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Your post combined with Carl's previous post are right on the mark.

I have always been a believer in "resistance to scoring" in terms of trying to make it hard for a good player to "go low".  That's why I put so much attention on and around the greens on my courses, and that's what Carl is suffering from.

However, GOLF DIGEST's own definition of Resistance to Scoring has always been "How tough, while still being fair, does the course play from the back tees" [or something pretty close to that, I'm paraphrasing].  THAT has led a lot of people to concur that the more difficult the course (while still being fair ), the better, and there has been a lot of that going around the past 25 years in design. 

I think that's also what Patrick is talking about at many clubs.  Green committee moves -- new tees, tougher rough, added fairway bunkers, etc. -- affect DIFFICULTY more than RESISTANCE TO SCORING, as near as I can tell.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think that's also what Patrick is talking about at many clubs.  Green committee moves -- new tees, tougher rough, added fairway bunkers, etc. -- affect DIFFICULTY more than RESISTANCE TO SCORING, as near as I can tell.

Tom,

That's correct.

Some seem to take a diabolical pleasure in making their course harder, when the fact is that the great majority of the members find the course sufficiently difficult in its present state.

[John Moore II]

Pat--What is your opinion on a course such as Tobacco Road or Tot Hill Farm? These are courses that play almost easy for scratch players (I think 66 won the recent pro-am at TR) but plays nearly impossible for bogey players? Do you consider this type of course/design stems from this 'resistance to scoring' mantra?

--Would you also agree that at some level, 'resistance to scoring' has always been a major part of a golf course. Meaning that a course that is very easy would likely not be well liked over time, IMO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--What is your opinion on a course such as Tobacco Road or Tot Hill Farm? These are courses that play almost easy for scratch players (I think 66 won the recent pro-am at TR) but plays nearly impossible for bogey players? Do you consider this type of course/design stems from this 'resistance to scoring' mantra?

Having NEVER played either course I'm totally UNQUALIFIED to answer your question.[/color]

--Would you also agree that at some level, 'resistance to scoring' has always been a major part of a golf course.

JKM,

There's a difference between RTS being a part of a golf course and RTS being the focus of a golf course.[/color]

Meaning that a course that is very easy would likely not be well liked over time, IMO.

Some would say that NGLA disproves that theory.

I think you have to differentiate between a sporty course that allows for good scoring and a boring course that offers no substantive challenge.

I see so many courses that want to "beef up" some holes to heighten the challenge/difficulty, when the golf course already presents a test beyond the abilities of the membership.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--What is your opinion on a course such as Tobacco Road or Tot Hill Farm? These are courses that play almost easy for scratch players (I think 66 won the recent pro-am at TR) but plays nearly impossible for bogey players? Do you consider this type of course/design stems from this 'resistance to scoring' mantra?

Having NEVER played either course I'm totally UNQUALIFIED to answer your question.[/color]

--Would you also agree that at some level, 'resistance to scoring' has always been a major part of a golf course.

JKM,

There's a difference between RTS being a part of a golf course and RTS being the focus of a golf course.[/color]

Meaning that a course that is very easy would likely not be well liked over time, IMO.

Some would say that NGLA disproves that theory.

I think you have to differentiate between a sporty course that allows for good scoring and a boring course that offers no substantive challenge.

I see so many courses that want to "beef up" some holes to heighten the challenge/difficulty, when the golf course already presents a test beyond the abilities of the membership.[/color]

Pat-I was unaware you had not played TR or THF. So never mind.
--Not to be too picky, but you didn't say that resistance to scoring had become the major focus of course design, simply that it was a major facet. And I feel that it always has been.
--Having not played NGLA, I can only suppose a few things. Is the course truly EASY or simply playable with reasonable difficulty? I would also figure, based on geographic position, the wind can become a key factor in determining how the course plays from day to day? Having seen pictures, I can't imagine the course being judged as easy, at least not by my definition of easy. A course can allow for good scoring if the player hits excellent shots but still be difficult to that same player.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,

I am glad you took my post in the correct spirit. 

My last observation on this topic is that at Riverfront, there is a real absence of scratch or plus handicappers that tee it up there.  I believe, but of course can not 'prove' that the resistance to scoring (and not price point) is the issue.

In regard to Mr. Moore's and Mr. Mucci comment about Tobacco Road or Tot Hill, Riverfront (except for the 18th hole) does not overwhelm the 18 to 25 handicapper from the white tees which are less than 6400 yards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-I was unaware you had not played TR or THF. So never mind.

Not to be too picky, but you didn't say that resistance to scoring had become the major focus of course design, simply that it was a major facet.


No, I didn't say that.
I asked IF resistance to scoring had become a major FACET in the design of some courses.

That was the title of the thread.[/color]

And I feel that it always has been.

Having not played NGLA, I can only suppose a few things.
Is the course truly EASY or simply playable with reasonable difficulty?


I guess it depends upon who you ask, and, the conditions of play on a given day.

I know a number of amateur golfers who have birdied 6 or 7 of the first
9 holes.  I played with a fellow last weekend who birdied 7 of the first 8.

The first two par 4's are drivable and all of the par 5's are reachable in two with the 9th probably playing the longest of the set.[/color]

I would also figure, based on geographic position, the wind can become a key factor in determining how the course plays from day to day?


There's no doubt about that.
Golfers can get lucky and play the first nine in the morning when there's no breeze, then, if timed right, the winds from the south pick up making the back nine play downwind.

Unlucky golfers would play the front nine into a wind from the south, only to have it turn from the north on the back nine.

With no breeze, like Seminole, scoring becomes easier, but the thrill is lessened.[/color]

Having seen pictures, I can't imagine the course being judged as easy, at least not by my definition of easy.

Evaluating the play of a golf course based on pictures would seem to be fraught with errors.[/color]

A course can allow for good scoring if the player hits excellent shots but still be difficult to that same player.

At F&F tournament speed, NGLA can certainly present a daunting challenge, especially when the wind is up and the hole locations are meant to test one's will, judgement and execution.

But, one of the attractions of NGLA is the fun it presents for every day play to every level of golfer.

I don't believe you'll find that quality in BPB, WFW, Oakmont and others.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--I think you answered your own question about resistance to scoring with your last sentence in your last post. Those three courses you mention as all 'classic' or old courses. and Oakmont may very well be the most difficult course in the country (at least some people say so). So, I feel you answer your own question in that at some level 'resistance to scoring' has always been a major facet.
--BTW, I am always available to play any of those 4 named courses, esp NGLA, should anyone have an opening in a group there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--I think you answered your own question about resistance to scoring with your last sentence in your last post.

Those three courses you mention as all 'classic' or old courses. and Oakmont may very well be the most difficult course in the country (at least some people say so).

Oakmont narrowed the rough lines and moved the bunkers in to match them.  Then the deepened the bunkers and probably added height to the fronting berms.

Oakmont today is hardly the golf course it was ten short years ago.

BPB, WFW and Oakmont all amended their designs to heighten the resistance to scoring factor in preparation for the U.S. Open.

Course after course have been likewise been amended to heighten the resistance to scoring factor, but, there's NO U.S. Open coming to them, let alone the Ladies County Championship.[/color

So, I feel you answer your own question in that at some level 'resistance to scoring' has always been a major facet.

There's a huge difference between preparing a specific course/s for the U.S. Open and the systemic trend toward RTS at the local level.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Would these two following quotes seem to indicate that presenting pure difficulty has always been around for top tier clubs?
--And, IMO, today its only the real top tier clubs that try to go for a true difficult test, above a simple challenging round of golf.

Oakmont--Fownes oft repeated quote of ‘a poor shot should be a shot irrevocably lost’
Bethpage (Black)--A. W. Tillinghast (was) to build something that “might compare with Pine Valley as a great test.”

[Michael Moore]

No, I didn't say that.
I asked IF resistance to scoring had become a major FACET in the design of some courses.

That was the title of the thread.

George Pazin,

Like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife ?"

There's an implicit intent to indict

TEPaul,

You're drawing a conclusion in the presentation of your question.

It's akin to the question, "when did you stop beating your wife" ?  The implication is that the person queried has committed that act, when that may not be the case.

George Pazin,

The wording of the title of your thread predisposed GCA.com'ers unfavorably, much like the "when did you stop beating your wife ? " question, and I thought that was unfair.

[Rick Shefchik]

It's not just new courses. I recently played a senior event at a course that dates back to the turn of the previous century -- a 6300-yard antiquity that features greens simply not designed for the speeds that we encountered that afternoon. Four-putts were endemic; a full third of the holes were placed in areas of the greens where a putt from below the hole had a good chance at ending back at your feet, and putt from above the hole was headed off the green unless it hit the hole.

You want to talk about grumpy old men? The post-round conversations were toxic: "Goofy golf," "hard-pin scramble," "ridiculous" and "no fun" were some of the comments I heard.

And for what purpose? I suspect, as did most of the field, that the club simply wanted to prove that their 6300-yard course was not a pushover. Mission accomplished -- only seven players from a field of 108 players managed to break 80. The normal number of rounds in the 70s is closer to 40 -- even when we play courses reputed to be more difficult.

I overheard one of the members tell a club pro, "If they complain about how tough the course was set up today, tell them you guys set it up even tougher for the members."

Somehow, I doubt that, but if it's true -- why?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

The sad part is that what you experienced will result in an element at the club insisting that the greens are too sloped/contoured and therefore have to be flattened to accomodate modern speeds, thus eliminating the unique character in the greens which makes them different from other courses.

It's a trend toward standardization.

A terrible trend in golf.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rick,

The sad part is that what you experienced will result in an element at the club insisting that the greens are too sloped/contoured and therefore have to be flattened to accomodate modern speeds, thus eliminating the unique character in the greens which makes them different from other courses.

It's a trend toward standardization.

A terrible trend in golf.

But the good news is it doesn't HAVE to go that way, Patrick.

Look at Pasatiempo....

Rather than flatten, they have slowed.

Perhaps one good instance in an otherwise bad trend?  Or will it be a trend-setter?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()