GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
How important is the scorecard yardage?
A.G._Crockett:
--- Quote from: Jim_Coleman on Yesterday at 08:35:34 AM --- How can one get a legitimate handicap on a course that hasn’t been rated from a given set of tees?
--- End quote ---
I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.
I think there are conversion tables/worksheets provided by the USGA that would allow scores from an unrated set of tees to be posted IF there are rating for other tees on that golf course. A very limited example would be my course hosting the NC Am last summer and playing the par 5 10th hole as a par 4. That said, I suspect that golfers playing an unrated set of tees, in effect making up their own “hybrid” course, either make up a course rating and slope, or, more likely just don’t post that score. Just a guess…
I think, though, that if the entire course is unrated, scores cannot be posted.
Ben Sims:
The overwhelming majority of my rounds are a sort of hybrid scoring where I’m keeping my score but also in some sort match/nassau/skin/wolf/whatever game with my playing group. We concede putts at times for the buddies competition and expediency, but we’re holing most everything. I don’t say this next part lightly; these sorts of rounds are easily 80% or more of the rounds I play.
Which means that for me, the card is important. It helps with scoring the competitions. And it helps me judge if I’m improving as a player.
But more than that, from an architectural perspective, I think a great hole from one yardage isn’t necessarily a great hole from another yardage. One of the truly great short 4’s is Ballyneal #7. In fact I’d argue it’s on the short list of best short par 4’s ever. If that hole were 350-410yds instead of the current 285-350yds, it’s kind of a penal hole. Only a select few would be able to get over the ridge. The angle into the green from further back would be blind, very difficult, and the allure of the green itself is watered down. And don’t even get me started on probably the best par 4 in the world, TOC #17, as a 270-320 yard hole. Ick.
I may have outed myself as uncreative or simply a boring card ‘n pencil golfer. I don’t think I am. Architects can’t help but consider how their work will be played. That includes yardages. They matter more than we care to admit I think.
Dan_Callahan:
From a pure practicality standpoint, yardage on the scorecard is very important to me when I show up to a course I haven't played before. I am most comfortable playing from a set of tees in the 6,400 - 6,800 yard range. On some courses, that could be the tips, on others, that could be two tees up from the tips. I find it helpful when I walk to the first tee to be able look at my card, see the total course yardage, see what par is over 18 holes, and then I have a really good idea of which tees are right for me.
Peter Sayegh:
Pretty damn important-especially for players visiting a new course.
The yardage may not be precise but it may dictate which tees they play.
Mark_Fine:
Good comments from all. But what I am really getting at is should the quality of a course be dictated (or determined from a particular set of tees) e.g. from the tips or from the middle tees or from the forward tees?
If most golfers had to play the 16th hole at Cypress Point from the tips they might not think the hole is that great. Same with the 3rd hole at Mauna Kea and I can go on and on with many examples where the tee location dramatically changes the hole not only from a distance standpoint but many times from an angle of play standpoint. Sometimes holes are much more interesting and thought provoking from starting locations other than those dictated on the scorecard. This is what I am really getting at. Putting handicaps and valid scores aside, why not judge the quality of a golf course from those ideal teeing locations vs from the yardages marked on the scorecard?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version