[Peter Pallotta]

Never say never --

especially in an art-craft with the potential for outside-the-box thinking.

Mike's posts had me remembering some low slope rated courses I've played -- and realizing that they'd all have been better and more engaging golf courses with even *wider* fairways!

And if an architectural turnip like me can have that thought and see that possibility, I can't imagine what top-flight professionals might be able to conceive

[Tom_Doak]

To answer the question I will start with a question:  have you played ANY new course in the last thirty years with a slipe rating below 113?  I haven't.


That theoretical average is not the average at all; as Garrison Keillor used to say about Lake Wobegon, "all the children are above average."  113 is a completely arbitrary number in an imperfect system.  You'd have to be an idiot to worry much about the actual Slope rating of the course you're building.


However it is entirely possible to design a beautiful and interesting course that is playable for everyone:


St Andrews
North Berwick
The Loop - I think the slope is in the mid 120's, which is about as low as any of my courses have been measured, and it would still be a great course with a Slope under 120 had I omitted some of the back tees.


Ballyneal, if it had a Slope, would only be above 120 because of the average wind speed.  (Pacific Dunes would be nowhere near a 140 slope if Bandon wasn't so windy.)


Many self-appointed good players also appoint themselves to be experts on golf architecture, so they can insist that everyone build courses to flatter their ability.  And as Mr Dye once famously said to me (about much better players), if you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble. 


ADDING:  I'm not sure what the Slope is for Tara Iti, but I suspect it is fairly low, and yet it is rated highest of any of my courses now, so I am "trending" in this direction.

[Ira Fishman]

To answer the question I will start with a question:  have you played ANY new course in the last thirty years with a slipe rating below 113?  I haven't.


That theoretical average is not the average at all; as Garrison Keillor used to say about Lake Wobegon, "all the children are above average."  113 is a completely arbitrary number in an imperfect system.  You'd have to be an idiot to worry much about the actual Slope rating of the course you're building.


However it is entirely possible to design a beautiful and interesting course that is playable for everyone:


St Andrews
North Berwick
The Loop - I think the slope is in the mid 120's, which is about as low as any of my courses have been measured, and it would still be a great course with a Slope under 120 had I omitted some of the back tees.


Ballyneal, if it had a Slope, would only be above 120 because of the average wind speed.  (Pacific Dunes would be nowhere near a 140 slope if Bandon wasn't so windy.)


Many self-appointed good players also appoint themselves to be experts on golf architecture, so they can insist that everyone build courses to flatter their ability.  And as Mr Dye once famously said to me (about much better players), if you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble. 


ADDING:  I'm not sure what the Slope is for Tara Iti, but I suspect it is fairly low, and yet it is rated highest of any of my courses now, so I am "trending" in this direction.

Tara Iti is 123 from the Championship tees.


Ira

[Matt_Cohn]

If a celebrity billionaire hired him to build an uber exclusive course on the ocean it would be top 100 even with the slope of a salt flat. Rumor pushes ratings further than results.

Almost every thread elicits an immediate JK reply that adds nothing to the conversation. What's the point?

[Sean_A]

I don't know for sure, but I think there are some low slope GB&I top 100 World candidates. I am not gonna research this because slope is a meaningless construct so far as course quality is concerned. An archie would have to be dumb as tits to factor slope as an important element of design.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
I wave the white flag; slope was the wrong criteria to use.  Maybe I should have said a very low SSS or a very low course rating or a course that really doesn’t challenge an accomplished golfer (as Tom Doak pointed out in the Doak scale for his definition of a 4).  That was my point - to be considered one of the greatest golf courses, what level of challenge (please numerically define that as you like) does a course need to provide? 


And by the way we all know architects don’t set out to attain certain slope ratings but they do set out to attain certain levels of interest and challenge.  That is all part of the design process.  They don’t design a course without any regard to how easy or how hard it will be for the golfers who will play there. 

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,


I have no idea why you think the SSS of Elie has a bearing on its slope.  Nevermind, according to the Pope of Slope website, Elie has a rating of 69.9 and a slope of 112.  I'm pretty sure but can't put my hands on it that we (the members) have been told that in advance of the WHS commencing here, the slope is 113.  Which doesn't mean it has no challenge.  It means that the challenge increases for weaker golfers slower than at other courses, so that the course handicap is the same as your handicap index.  That's achieved by, among other things, a large number of "half-par" holes where the handicap golfer either gets a good chance to make par, or a relatively easy bogey, but the birdie or par the good golfer expects is harder to achieve.  I do wonder if a large number of greens sloping away from the direction of play is a factor here?  Easy to run balls on to greens but hard to get close?

[jeffwarne]

Ally,
The slope rating for those courses is much higher than 113.  Think of the 113 rating as a bit more than a bunny slope 

Elie has a slope of 113.  If that's how a bunny slope plays, give me more.

+1
The thread had already lost me, but I stopped reading after this...

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
I won't get into slope calculations but length of the course is a factor.  It is hard to find courses for example with high course ratings e.g. par is 72 and the course rating is 73.9 and a slope of only 120.  I have never seen it.  I have played Elie and while it is a fun course to play it is not a Top 100     

[John Kavanaugh]

If a celebrity billionaire hired him to build an uber exclusive course on the ocean it would be top 100 even with the slope of a salt flat. Rumor pushes ratings further than results.

Almost every thread elicits an immediate JK reply that adds nothing to the conversation. What's the point?

The term top hundred course being used by a practicing architect deserves no more.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Not sure why you were lost?  It is a simple question - what level of challenge is required to make a golf course one of the best in the world?  Take an extreme, if  a course is wide open, has no interesting or in play hazards and benign greens would you consider it great?  What level of challenge is necessary? If the Tour de France was raced on flat oval track would it be considered a great race?  If the Olympic Downhill was held on the local bunny slope would the world tune in to watch?  Generally (if I am not mistaken) the most interesting design aspects of great courses are the ones that add options/challenge/temptation to the design. 


 

[Mark_Fine]

John,
It is actually an interesting topic.  Feel free not to participate.  No worries.
Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

Please take this as a compliment. Two ratings threads in a row is beneath what you have to offer.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
Compliment accepted.  I still think those threads lead to some interesting debate and discussion. 

[Daryl David]

To answer the question I will start with a question:  have you played ANY new course in the last thirty years with a slipe rating below 113?  I haven't.


That theoretical average is not the average at all; as Garrison Keillor used to say about Lake Wobegon, "all the children are above average."  113 is a completely arbitrary number in an imperfect system.  You'd have to be an idiot to worry much about the actual Slope rating of the course you're building.


However it is entirely possible to design a beautiful and interesting course that is playable for everyone:


St Andrews
North Berwick
The Loop - I think the slope is in the mid 120's, which is about as low as any of my courses have been measured, and it would still be a great course with a Slope under 120 had I omitted some of the back tees.


Ballyneal, if it had a Slope, would only be above 120 because of the average wind speed.  (Pacific Dunes would be nowhere near a 140 slope if Bandon wasn't so windy.)


Many self-appointed good players also appoint themselves to be experts on golf architecture, so they can insist that everyone build courses to flatter their ability.  And as Mr Dye once famously said to me (about much better players), if you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble. 


ADDING:  I'm not sure what the Slope is for Tara Iti, but I suspect it is fairly low, and yet it is rated highest of any of my courses now, so I am "trending" in this direction.

Tara Iti is 123 from the Championship tees.

A course that seems to garner universal praise (notice I didn’t say hype [size=78%]) is Gamble Sands. [/size]


Champ tees  slope 120
Back tees Slope 114
Regular tees Slope 109


I really doubt any of the raters that have played the course even glimpsed the Champ tees. So, those placing it so loftily are judging it at 114 or 109. The low slope has not seemed to have hurt it.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,
Not sure why you were lost?  It is a simple question - what level of challenge is required to make a golf course one of the best in the world?  Take an extreme, if  a course is wide open, has no interesting or in play hazards and benign greens would you consider it great?  What level of challenge is necessary? If the Tour de France was raced on flat oval track would it be considered a great race?  If the Olympic Downhill was held on the local bunny slope would the world tune in to watch?  Generally (if I am not mistaken) the most interesting design aspects of great courses are the ones that add options/challenge/temptation to the design. 
 

Like everything else in this business, the "top 100" is an arbitrary and subjective standard. The only reason a course has to be hard to be in a list is because there are a lot of guys like you who have pre-determined that if a course doesn't challenge you in a certain way it does not belong.  If you actually had an open mind you would see other possibilities, but John Lennon could not have gotten General Westmoreland to understand peace, so . . .


I do agree that good players (like all players) think a course must be challenging for them, but why good players should be allowed to establish some minimum threshold for golf course design has not been established.  If you let that happen they will tell you the best course of all is one that a lot of golfers can't finish, which is obviously stupid on the face of it. 😉

[Sean_A]

Guys,
I wave the white flag; slope was the wrong criteria to use.  Maybe I should have said a very low SSS or a very low course rating or a course that really doesn’t challenge an accomplished golfer (as Tom Doak pointed out in the Doak scale for his definition of a 4).  That was my point - to be considered one of the greatest golf courses, what level of challenge (please numerically define that as you like) does a course need to provide? 


And by the way we all know architects don’t set out to attain certain slope ratings but they do set out to attain certain levels of interest and challenge.  That is all part of the design process.  They don’t design a course without any regard to how easy or how hard it will be for the golfers who will play there.

I hope the influx of short courses of all sorts continues. If this does happen, I think the current ideas of what is top 100 consideration will be turned on its head.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

He already has.


Barnbougle Dunes has a slope of 113 off the blue tees.  Its a ripping course and would be top 100 if there were no tees behind it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
How do you then explain a 4 rating on The Doak Scale?  You yourself say a course needs to challenge an accomplished golfer to be rated higher?


David,
I guess I need to get around more (I have not yet played Barndougle Dunes so you educated me).  If that slope rating is indeed correct then that would be a first for me. 


I am not an advocate of difficult golf courses.  In fact I have been pushing my home club to use excess land they have to build a fun and unique par three course 😊 vs sell it to a real estate developer 😞.


My apparently incorrect understanding is that slope ratings and course ratings are indications of challenge and assuming that was correct my question was simply what level of challenge is necessary for a golf course to be considered great.  I do understand that challenge is relative to the level of the golfer playing it. 


I absolutely love the 13 hole short course by C&C at Bandon Dunes.  But sadly it doesn’t make any of the greatest course lists?  And while some here would say who cares, the lists do draw golfers to them so many golfers would never know about courses like that because they are not listed anywhere.  They will only stumble on it because of the fame of the other Bandon designs that has drawn them to the resort.

[JESII]

Mark, do you not feel a course with 18 shortish and easyish holes, but all really cool and interesting and enticing could be built?


We all love playing that just about drivable par 4 that forces decisions to be made...especially when you miss a shot and do not lose the ball.


Based on your arguments throughout, it seems you can't envision this course...

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Yes I can to a certain extent but do you find many of those out there?  I guess I have a different perception of what a low slope/low course rating design looks like.  I don't envision it having for example centerline hazards, complicated/intriguing green sites, risk/reward heroic carries, bunkers with any depth or challenge, lots of temptation, much length to the holes,...  My feeling (and apparently I have been proven wrong) is that there are lots of great courses out there that have these kind of interesting features and still have very low slope/course ratings.  I would have guessed otherwise.  I tend to find it is those kind of design features (for example one of Doak's diabolical greens) that pushes the slope rating up.  I don't find many heavily contoured greens on low slope courses. 


I go back to Tom's "4" rating on the Doak scale.  Even he says the courses needs to challenge the accomplished golfer to get a high rating.  What am I missing?
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

My write up of the 4 rating on the Doak Scale was meant to acknowledge that there were a lot of good players who would dismiss a short or "easy" course as being unworthy of greatness.  I didn't want them going to a cool little course and saying I had misled them.


That doesn't mean I agree with that, and indeed over the 30 years since, that's probably the one factor in rating courses where my view has evolved the most.  Although, I would note that I never applied that definition very consistently - most people back then considered North Berwick a course that was too short to be "great," but I started with it at 7 or 8 on the Doak Scale, and now I've got it up to a 9.


The flaw in your logic here is really that you accept the rankings as something more meaningful than they are.  I've had good players tell me they enjoyed the Preserve more than any of the other courses at Bandon - they just don't vote that way because they don't want their friends to think they're silly.  (Plus Ran doesn't put it on the ballot.)


I have to admit here that I grilled Ran pretty hard when he insisted on rating The Cradle a 7 on the Doak Scale - but that was mostly because if he made that the new ceiling for a par-3 course, then when someone builds a better par-3 course (and there might already be one) it would imply an 8 rating which is where the top 100 courses reside, and we would have to tackle this very topic and possibly rewrite the Doak Scale.  And I'm kinda too old for that.


I do think you've got to take a point or two off the ceiling for nine hole courses or par-3 courses because they cannot provide the same variety as a full on 18 holes, but I don't think that should exclude them from the mantle of greatness and unfortunately most people equate that with all these dumb rankings.

[John Kavanaugh]

I wish out of respect for Ran we would never mention ratings again. Golfweek is back out having get togethers during this pandemic all because of this stupid process. Now we are literally putting lives in danger.

[JESII]

Mark, I think the flaw in your logic is as simple as nobody that's paying for a golf course wants the limits (of length and overall difficulty) to stop at the relatively easy bar a 113 slope implies...hence there are not many (if any) out there...yet you asked if it was possible.

[Thomas Dai]

A question on slope if I may as the concept isn’t exactly well known on the eastern side of the Atlantic.
Is an 18-hole slope rating built-up on a hole-by-hole basis?
Or, in other words, can you break-down a slope rating into 18 separate parts with some holes having a higher individual number and some a lower individual number but when added together they equal the overall 18-hole rating?
Atb


Eastern - Damn these upside-down maps!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()