GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
How important is the scorecard yardage?
Ally Mcintosh:
--- Quote from: Mark_Fine on Yesterday at 12:17:20 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
The quality of a course should be determined by each individual based on the tees that give them the best mix of enjoyment and challenge.
Mark_Fine:
Ally,
Totally agree with you but how would you rate a course when you are trying to judge/determine what are the best courses in the world? I hope you aren’t judging greatness in this case based on your own game.
Ally Mcintosh:
--- Quote from: Mark_Fine on Yesterday at 02:12:36 PM ---Ally,
Totally agree with you but how would you rate a course when you are trying to judge/determine what are the best courses in the world? I hope you aren’t judging greatness in this case based on your own game.
--- End quote ---
No, but I am judging greatness based on the best choice of tees for my game. I have no other way to judge the course in practical terms. Only in theoretical. And theoretical can only ever be part of the equation.
Mark_Fine:
Ally,
Interesting comment but I can’t imagine what a Top 100 list would look like if all the panelists judged courses based on how they play the game!
If you are a poor putter or have a lousy sand game would you judge a course lower because the greens were too challenging or there were too many bunkers in places where you hit the golf ball? Not sure courses like Oakmont would fair well in the rankings if golfers judged it based on how they play regardless of what tees they started on. That said, there are some holes there that are or could be very different from different teeing locations. I feel this should be taken into consideration despite where the markers are placed.
Joe Hancock:
Mark, I know I’m off-topic when I say that you’re saying the quiet part out loud; to be able to recognize one course’s greatness over another, you have to be able to play to the demands of said great courses.
Here is why I disagree; a course CAN be great to very good golfers who happen to play in a way that isn’t the modern epitome of skill. For example, I have always been a low flight kinda guy. So, when I am at Bandon, am I unqualified to say Old Mac is a *better* course than Pac Dunes? I don’t say that because I may play better on OM, but it is because OM is better at accomadating and rewarding shots that tend to be lower and on the ground more.
Perhaps back on topic, if you’re saying card distance is prioritized too much when raters rate, perhaps there are other factors, like trajectory, imagination, etc. that are ignored too much.
If I have strayed too far, please disregard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version