I really don't believe that

[Patrick_Mucci]

The USGA did the research on this when they came up with the slope system years ago.

Length is overwhelmingly the most important factor in setting a course rating and slope.  It is the baseline for a course rating and all the other factors put together rarely move the needle by more than a stroke or two.

Tom,

That seemed logical to me, so is the GD category "resistance to scoring" all about length ?

If so, how does that assist in evaluating the architectural merits of a hole ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Meet me on the second tee at Kingsley with a bucket of balls, a 7 iron, lob wedge, putter and and a couple of Xanax and we'll see...

Jud,

We can all find unique short holes that provide a resistance to scoring, like the 1st at NGLA,# 5 at Sebonack, the 10th at Riviera, but, they tend to be rare, numerically.
Overwhelmingly, resistance to scoring equates to one primary factor, length.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that the majority of golfers can't hit the ball 200 yards with any consistency, if at all.  So by definition a hole over 400 yards becomes difficult.

Jud

If you can't hit the ball 200 yards, nearly all holes are difficult.  Even so, if a guy takes three to reach a 400 yard hole, one shot is likely to be fairly short, probably even a distance at which yardage doesn't matter as it will be a feel shot.  Then perhaps two more are going to be putts. Very probably, more than half the shots for a 400 yard hole in this case won't rely on distance to create the challenge.

I can understand distance being an issue when someone is terrible or just a beginner, but surely we don't want to base the game around this sort of golfer - do we?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that the majority of golfers can't hit the ball 200 yards with any consistency, if at all.  So by definition a hole over 400 yards becomes difficult.

Jud

If you can't hit the ball 200 yards, nearly all holes are difficult.  Even so, if a guy takes three to reach a 400 yard hole, one shot is likely to be fairly short, probably even a distance at which yardage doesn't matter as it will be a feel shot.  Then perhaps two more are going to be putts. Very probably, more than half the shots for a 400 yard hole in this case won't rely on distance to create the challenge.

Sean,

I disagree, since when is a 200 yard drive a poor or inadequate drive ?
Juniors, Seniors, women and a great many golfers would consider a 200 yard drive a big hit.
A 200 yard drive leaves he golfer with a 3-wood on all holes of about 370 or more and if they don't hit that drive and 3-wood perfect, they'll have a longer 3rd shot into the green.  Think of the monotony of hitting driver then 3-wood on every hole.


I can understand distance being an issue when someone is terrible or just a beginner, but surely we don't want to base the game around this sort of golfer - do we?

But don't the overwhelming majority of golfers drive the ball 200 yards or less ?
If so, Isn't that one of the groups that you DO want to build the game around ?

Club after club has lengthened their course and I have to wonder, with a membership where perhaps only a handful of golfers can break 80 under tournament conditions, why ?

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that the majority of golfers can't hit the ball 200 yards with any consistency, if at all.  So by definition a hole over 400 yards becomes difficult.

Jud

If you can't hit the ball 200 yards, nearly all holes are difficult.  Even so, if a guy takes three to reach a 400 yard hole, one shot is likely to be fairly short, probably even a distance at which yardage doesn't matter as it will be a feel shot.  Then perhaps two more are going to be putts. Very probably, more than half the shots for a 400 yard hole in this case won't rely on distance to create the challenge.

Sean,

I disagree, since when is a 200 yard drive a poor or inadequate drive ?
Juniors, Seniors, women and a great many golfers would consider a 200 yard drive a big hit.
A 200 yard drive leaves he golfer with a 3-wood on all holes of about 370 or more and if they don't hit that drive and 3-wood perfect, they'll have a longer 3rd shot into the green.  Think of the monotony of hitting driver then 3-wood on every hole.


I can understand distance being an issue when someone is terrible or just a beginner, but surely we don't want to base the game around this sort of golfer - do we?

But don't the overwhelming majority of golfers drive the ball 200 yards or less ?
If so, Isn't that one of the groups that you DO want to build the game around ?

Club after club has lengthened their course and I have to wonder, with a membership where perhaps only a handful of golfers can break 80 under tournament conditions, why ?

Ciao

Pat

I never said 200 yards is a poor drive.  For some its great, for some its poor.  Its all relative.

I don't have a clue as to the percentage of golfers who drive the ball 200+ nor do I know what your definition of a golfer is.

I'm not sure what you advocating - most holes less than 350 yards?  Given my distaste for 4+ sets of tees, the land would have to be suited to a course of this length.  I am not totally against the idea.  See threads for Painswick - it packs a punch, but I'm not convinced it should be the model for golf course design. 

Even taking a drive at 175 for a 400 yard hole that still leaves a third which is a feel shot and two putts.  Where is the challenge of distance in those shots?     

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

Sean,

You have a 525 yard Par 5 in front of you.  You have 3 golfers: a scratch, an 18 HDCP and a 36 HDCP.  The scratch player reaches the green easily in 3, possibly in 2.  The 18 has the distance to reach the green in reg, but there's a decent chance that he mishits his drive, his layup or his approach and is chipping or hitting out of a bunker in 3.  The 36 will rarely reach the green in reg because of length and or mishits.  Yes the scratch chips and putts better, but the defining difference in difficulty is the length.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You have a 525 yard Par 5 in front of you.  You have 3 golfers: a scratch, an 18 HDCP and a 36 HDCP.  The scratch player reaches the green easily in 3, possibly in 2.  The 18 has the distance to reach the green in reg, but there's a decent chance that he significantly mishits either his drive, his layup or his approach and is chipping or hitting out of a bunker.  The 36 will rarely reach the green in reg because of length and or mishits.  Yes the scratch chips and putts better, but the defining difference in difficulty is the length.

Jud

So now we are going to use 36 cappers as the guide for design?  If a guy hits it 175, he can reach in 3, but probably 4, so lets call it 5 and he can have at least one hopeless miss.  Thats two of the five which have nothing to do with length in terms of difficulty.  Then of course, there is the putting - something you lot conveniently ignore.  Again, what are you advocating?   Shorter holes?  Easier holes?  Better golfers?  I don't understand your argument.  I have conclusively shown that a significant, if not major percentage of shots (even for a scratch player - which is what resistance to scoring is based on) are not difficult due to length.  Yes, or no?  Length is important, but not much, if at all, more important than the feel (for lack of a better description) shots (putting being included as a feel shot). 

Ciao

[Joe McCormac]

Some of the language in The Confidential Guide seems to apply here, "The Downs is one of the toughest courses I've ever played on which to post a good score.  Par is 70 and the rating is 74;"

"...Each of them a unique use of terrain, and all birdieable for the 20-handicapper but bogeyable by the Tour pro..."

I've never played Crystal Downs, but the course certainly doesn't use distance to resist scoring (if anyone would even acquiesce to the fact that it attempts to do so)

[Jason Thurman]

Sean, I think you're confusing the factors contributing to a player's handicap with the factors contributing to a course's difficulty.

It's true that low handicappers are better than high handicappers for a lot of reasons, and that length is just one of them. However, when it comes to predicting the difficulty of a course relative to a player's ability, there's still no better predictor than length.

That doesn't even mean that length is the primary facet of a player's game being tested by those courses. A 375 yard hole is reachable in two for just about every male golfer. It doesn't "test length" per se. However, length is still a HUGE advantage. The long hitter gets a drive and pitch. Even poor pitchers hit the green around 50% of the time from inside 75 yards. The short hitter, on the other hand, gets a drive and 3w. While he has plenty of distance to reach the hole, he's still unlikely to actually hit his target from 175 yards with a 3w. The fact is that players are just less accurate from longer distances, and thus being able to hit the ball a long way, thereby shortening the distance of your next shot, is always valuable.

Lengthen a course, and everybody is facing longer shots with lower margins for error and therefore shooting higher scores.

The benefit of being a long hitter isn't just that you can be pin high more often. It's that you can be closer to the pin than another player almost all the time, and thus always facing easier shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean, Jud, et., al.,

To be great, really great, doesn't a golf course have to accomodate all levels of golfers, even if it favors one over the other ?

[Sean_A]

Sean, Jud, et., al.,

To be great, really great, doesn't a golf course have to accomodate all levels of golfers, even if it favors one over the other ?

Pat, I honestly don't know the answer to your question.  First however, golfers and accommodate must be defined.  It is likely my definition for both is different from yours.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Sean, Jud, et., al.,

To be great, really great, doesn't a golf course have to accomodate all levels of golfers, even if it favors one over the other ?

Pat, I honestly don't know the answer to your question.  First however, golfers and accommodate must be defined.  It is likely my definition for both is different from yours.


Ciao

To be truly great, yes. However, accommodating all golfers certainly doesn't mean setting a course up so everyone can break 80, TOC being the most obvious example that comes to mind.

Sean, I think you're confusing the factors contributing to a player's handicap with the factors contributing to a course's difficulty.

It's true that low handicappers are better than high handicappers for a lot of reasons, and that length is just one of them. However, when it comes to predicting the difficulty of a course relative to a player's ability, there's still no better predictor than length.

That doesn't even mean that length is the primary facet of a player's game being tested by those courses. A 375 yard hole is reachable in two for just about every male golfer. It doesn't "test length" per se. However, length is still a HUGE advantage. The long hitter gets a drive and pitch. Even poor pitchers hit the green around 50% of the time from inside 75 yards. The short hitter, on the other hand, gets a drive and 3w. While he has plenty of distance to reach the hole, he's still unlikely to actually hit his target from 175 yards with a 3w. The fact is that players are just less accurate from longer distances, and thus being able to hit the ball a long way, thereby shortening the distance of your next shot, is always valuable.

Lengthen a course, and everybody is facing longer shots with lower margins for error and therefore shooting higher scores.

The benefit of being a long hitter isn't just that you can be pin high more often. It's that you can be closer to the pin than another player almost all the time, and thus always facing easier shots.

+1

As has already been covered, and as Pat suggested in his initial thread title, regulatory bodies have consistently identified length as the primarily driver of course difficultly. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean, Jud, et., al.,

To be great, really great, doesn't a golf course have to accomodate all levels of golfers, even if it favors one over the other ?

Pat, I honestly don't know the answer to your question.  First however, golfers and accommodate must be defined.  It is likely my definition for both is different from yours.

Sean,

"Golfers" are those guys who wear funny clothes who hit and  chase a little white ball with sticks.
"Accommodate" ?   Let's use "suitable"

Example ?   Let's use Pine Valley from the Senior tees.