Resistance to Scoring...a category that makes no sense.

[THuckaby2]

If this was the only criterion used, it would be pretty stupid.

As it is, it is one of many.

And thus it has its use.  Apparently the editors for some time just did base it on course rating/slope, but in recent years have decided to add a little subjectivity and let the raters chime in.  Who knows which works better, we'll see.

But in any case, I'd like to hear from Rich Goodale on this, who said that Carnoustie is the greatest course on the planet, because, in so many words, it is great for one and all AND can host championships (ie is tough enough to test the big boys).  Matt Ward used the same standard for trumpeting Shinnecock Hills as the greatest.  I believe that's what GD has in mind in using this criterion... that for absolute greatness, a certain raw difficulty helps.

And since it is one of the many criteria measured, well... a course that's off the charts on this criterion - that is outrageously difficult - isn't necessarily going to get a high overall rating, because all of the other criteria need be satisfied also... and on the other side, a course that doesn't have this raw difficulty can make up for this by being very strong in other areas...

I see no harm in keeping it in.  Just don't value it any more than the other criteria, that's all.

And GD only does US courses anyway, so this is a moot point for Royal Melbourne!

 

TH

[Jonathan Cummings]

Mark - then frankly you have failed to rate properly.  If your rating panel wants you to judge difficulty via the resistance-to-scoring category and you think the curse is brutal - then you should give it a "10" for RTS.  You employing your own "intrepretation" to this category injects subjectivity and acts to increase the category's uncertainty of the overall averages (the RTS averages for all the raters for this course).  It would be more appropriate for you to mark your 'one dimensional' course down for a, say, design variation category but not a scoring resistance category.

JC

[THuckaby2]

Jonathan is correct, as he always is.  

I believe the idea here is to do it straight up; that is, not try and fudge the criteria because it doesn't meet one's own thoughts on the subject.  So a course that is "stupid hard" would get a 10 on RTS... but almost certainly would get achieve low marks in one of several other criteria, so in the sum would not achieve an overall high score.

That's why I find RTS to be acceptable... In combination with other criteria, it can help.  But it can't achieve anything on its own, so it works.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Is this stupid hard? or stupid easy?



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby & A Clayman,

You're forgetting an important element in the "resistance to scoring" category, the caveate that addresses the retention of fairness.

I think we all know examples of holes that meet and fail that test.  It's not that esoteric

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I don't find it to be esoteric at all.  Yes, the criterion does say difficult while still being fair, in so many words.  That makes the idea of a "stupid hard" course achieving a great score even more impossible... Because one might not even give it a high RTS mark, because it exceeds the boundaries of what one considers "fair."

If anything this addition just makes it a more worthwhile criterion to me... And also might be what Mark Fine was saying - a very difficult course that exceeds the bounds of fairness gets a lower RTS score.  That's cool, I didn't think of it that way before.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Sorry Johathan and Tom, you are both wrong.  A brutally tough course doesn't automatically get a 10.  If you really think that, you both misunderstand the category.  

I don't like to use the "fair" word (as GD does) so a "one dimensional" course to some might be unfair, but to me, it is just poorly designed.  For example, a course with every green requiring a forced carry over water might be very tough.  I don't consider that unfair, it's just poorly designed.  Same goes for one where every par four is 475 yards long and guarded by trees on both sides of its 25 yard wide fairways.  That's a tough test but a poorly designed one as well.  Both such courses would NOT get 10's in the Resistance to Scoring category no matter how tough they are.

Nor does a course that is in "lush" or what some might call "perfect" condition always get a 10 in the conditioning category.  If the course looks over manicured to me and "artifical" I down grade it.  

Unlike what some people think, this is not connect the dots  
Mark

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

My posts here were very much trying to simplify what is a complex and subjective process.  I gather you know the criteria and instructions for GD raters as well or better than I do... no need to quote here.  The course you describe would not get a 10 in RTS, for sure... for most people.  They key is the insertion of the words "while still being fair" - that inserts the subjectivity which can make reasonable raters differ on how to interpret this.

Yes, it is not connect the dots.  I didn't mean to suggest that it was.

In any case, I still believe RTS to be a very worthwhile inclusion, as one of the many criteria assessed.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Ok Tom, we seem to be more in agreement.  I can't profess to know exactly what GD means but I know how I intrepret each category.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

How many of the panelists are qualified to determine resistance to scoring from the back tees while still being fair?  

The category is ridiculous because so few of the panelists could possibly judge.  How may scratch players are nthe panel?

Is it possible for a 2, 3, 5 0r 10 even make a stab at fairness under those circumstances?  I would contend that the category is impossible to control therefore useless.

I also believe strongly that this single category has done more to harm American golf than any other.  Developers, in an effort to achieve rankings, have asked architects to stiffen courses unnnaturally in order to attain rankings.  Then in an effort to speed play the tees aren't set on the longest tee boxes.  Added expense in building and development costs cause undo costs to the golfer.  Unfortunately it is length that is used all to often to achieve difficulty.  

Give me a course that makes me think and you have me.  It is uncertainty that drives my interest not sheer length!

[THuckaby2]

Gotcha Mark - and given they throw in the subjectivity, well... one can't really be "right" or "wrong".

And the main thing is it remains one of many criteria used, so isn't the be all and end all, can and does get balanced by other criteria, etc.

TH

[Jim_Michaels]

Tom, you said the editors used to just use slope and rating...for what? To figure out which course is hardest.  Their rankings were initally called the 100 Toughest. They have always had a bias that making something more difficult makes it better. End of story. If you guys don't think that's a bad thing, so be it, but you cannot deny that their rankings make a compliment out of difficulty, IN AND OF ITSELF. I don't think it means a darned thing and if I were going to ask a hundred questions about a course's quality," how hard is it?"wouldn't make the list.

I am sure that Jim Engh's course in Idaho is "harder" than Friar's Head or Dallas National. Well, woop de doo for him.

[JakaB]

I am sure that Jim Engh's course in Idaho is "harder" than Friar's Head or Dallas National. Well, woop de doo for him.

Mark my words...you are full of crap..I have not played any one of the three but if the Jim Engh course scores higher than both of these in Resistance to Scoring I will send $50 to the address of your choice.  Print this out and save it baby doll.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I don't think it means a darned thing and if I were going to ask a hundred questions about a course's quality," how hard is it?"wouldn't make the list.

This kind of hyperbole just makes your arguement weaker.  You might find support that Resistance to Scoring isnt the most important thing, but to say that it doesnt even make the list of 100 questions you would ask about a course in determining greatness is simply ludicrious!!!!  It may not be the most important but it is in there somewhere.

I am sure that Jim Engh's course in Idaho is "harder" than Friar's Head or Dallas National. Well, woop de doo for him.

As a matter of fact having played both Black Rock and Dallas National I believe DN exhibits better Resistance to Scoring numbers.  However there are some other categories that are considered and in some of those other categories BR has it in spades, that just might have something to do with how it finished.  Cant speak of Friars Head as I was unable to get on there.

Remember GD employs several catagories of which Resistance to Scoring is only one.  With Shot Values getting double the weight in points it is obvious that the people there also do not think it is the most important category, but again I say, It is definitely part of the mix.

[THuckaby2]

Jim Michaels:

Turboe explained well how it all works.  When I said one could just use course rating and slope for this (and the editors used to do so) I meant just to determine this one criteria:  Resistance to Scoring. Those numbers measure such quite well... and since it all balances out as Turboe says, well... I think it works.

As I say, if it were the ONLY MEASURE, yes all it would do is make a "100 Best" list.  But it's far from the only measure...

TH

[Jim_Michaels]

I will give myself a two stroke penalty for hyperbole, but I think you guys are unwilling to see a legitimate point here. The great courses, like RM and Augusta resist scoring when you make a bad choice, but they don't make unreasonable demands on the player.

[THuckaby2]

Jim:

No need for the penalty - that is a good point.  I'd just say that the GD system has that covered in the way it works, for the reasons I say above.  Believe me, RM would come out with very high overall marks, even if RTS came out lower than some other courses - that's the point.

Look at it this way:  I had the gall to submit a rating for Cypress Point, and in RTS the figure I gave was lower than what I gave for MANY other courses here in CA... oh, it was still pretty damn high, but it was lower than others... and if you think this meant CP came out lower than any course in our state overall, well... let's just say that it's place at the top is safe if they base it solely on what I said (a scary thought if there ever was one, btw).  

[THuckaby2]

I make no claim to be great at this... that's why I say for RTS, it's pretty easy to just rely on course rating/slope.  Use that and one will never be far off, and it remains separate from one's own play with perfect clarity.

As for the rest, I'd venture to say that not many are "great" at rating a golf course, whether it be specific criteria done 1-10, or a ranking 1-100, or whatever the heck those raters from that silly magazine Brad Klein represents do.    In the end it's all opinion, and as bullshit as one wants to believe or not believe.

TH