[Jason Blasberg]

I'm not just talking about major venue/championship tests.  

What about many of the sporty courses that many of us would consider great or near great?  Aren't they all considered difficult?

Here are the ratings, slope and yardages for some of the more admired by folks here, what can we discern from these numbers?:

Long Island:

Garden City:

par 73, 73.7/139 (6882)

National:

par 73, 74.3/141 (6779)

Shinnecock:

par 70, 74.6/145 (6821)

Fishers Island:

par 72, 72.9/134 (6544)

Maidstone:

par 72, 72.5/134 (6390)

New Jersey:

Plainfield:

par 72, 73.6/136 (6859)

Somerset Hills:

par 71, 71.8/129 (6572)

Kansas:

Prairie Dunes:

par 70, 74.0/139 (6598)

Oregon:

Pacific Dunes:

par 71, 72.9/133 (6633)

Note: the Long Island and NJ course information is from Dr. Bill Quirin's Golf Clubs of the MGA (yes, he gives Fishers to LI) which was copyrighted in 1997 so all of the courses are now likely rated more difficult.

All information is from the back tee markers.

What the numbers tell me is that the old great courses are short in length and high on challenge.

Please post slope, rating and yardage info from courses around the World and we'll see if there is an identifiable trend.  

Since I started the thread please post in yards.  

Cheers,

Jason

[Mark Pearce]

Not sure where else "slope" figures or even "ratings" are applicable.  Our courses only have par and standard scratch score (which is not terribly scientifically calculated).

[Adam Clayman]

Jason, Basing greatness on the formula that figures those numbers, seems wrong because it ignores the intangibles that make a place truely great.

Once again, your focus is on score. Implying that a number is paramount, when in reality there is so much more to golf than score.

 Every hole is easy with back to back to back fine shots?

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason, Basing greatness on the formula that figures those numbers, seems wrong because it ignores the intangibles that make a place truely great.

Once again, your focus is on score. Implying that a number is paramount, when in reality there is so much more to golf than score.

 Every hole is easy with back to back to back fine shots?

Adam:

You've missed entirely the point of this thread, I'm not saying the numbers define whether these courses are great (near great) I'm picking great courses and posting slope, rating and yardage information and simply observing what they are.

Why don't you pick your US top 5 played and post the numbers and then see if there is any trend.  

Jason

[Adam Clayman]

You're right Jason. I thought this was just a continuation of your other recent threads about great courses and whose capable of insightful evaluations. So my comments were based on the trend, or totality, of those other threads.

Somehow, I cant help but think all these recent threads have something to with a certain twosomes recent visit to a specific venue, but that would be too egotistical even for me.

[Jason Blasberg]

Adam:

Did that visit and those threads get me thinking?  Surely it did.  But the playing ability issue is one I've been kicking around for years.  

I'm actually usually biased against scratch or better players for the most part because in my experience they tend to think blind shots are "tricked up" and they prefer bombers paradises like most of the courses on the PGA Tour.

However, a scratch player that has a nimble mind for GCA, I think that's just about ideal so long as they can appreciate the average player's experience.  

So are great courses necessarily difficult?  Numbers please . . .

Jason  

[Tom Huckaby]

I've stated on here many times before something that would seem rather obvious, and that is that conceptually, the greatest courses should have high ratings and relatively low slopes.  With those, they would challenge the scratch player while allowing the bogey a fighting chance for some success.

I just doubt that the courses we believe are "great" are going to follow that model.  The slopes on all are going to be too high, I think.

But a collection of data is a worthy effort...

So to that end I contribute a few from CA:

Cypress Point
Blue     72        72.1     140      6509
White   72        71.3     136      6294
Green   71        69.1     128      5797

Pebble Beach
Blue     72        73.8     142      6742
Gold     72        72.3     137      6350
White   71        71.2     134      6116

Olympic Club - Lakeside
Black   71        73.9     138      6830
Blue     71        72.3     132      6523
White   71        70.9     129      6229
Green   69        68.6     122      5593

TH

[HamiltonBHearst]

The greatest course in the world does not have a CR or slope rating.  Shows just how meaningless these numbers are.  

[Tom Huckaby]

The greatest course in the world does not have a CR or slope rating.  Shows just how meaningless these numbers are.  

Indeed yes.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Have you noticed that most of the golf courses you listed have a common element.

The WIND

The wind can affect scoring far more than the ground features.

[Garland Bayley]

The greatest course in the world does not have a CR or slope rating.  Shows just how meaningless these numbers are.  

Indeed yes.
 

Tom,

I would have believed that Sand Hills had a CR and SR until you just agreed that the course you believe to be the greatest did not have them.

Or perhaps you have fallen out of love with Sand Hills?
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:  please.

Sand Hills has no CR or slope - they don't want such.  Given the lack of any one prevailing wind, and how much scores are effected by wind there, it does make sense to just go ahead and not have it.  I do firmly believe such ratings could be done - we'd just settle on a prevailing wind and the results would be close enough for at lease somewhat effective handicap use - but if the members don't want such, then that's the end of the story.  As I say, it makes sense to me why they wouldn't want it.

TH

[Paul Payne]

Huck is right.

The slope and rating are meaningless on a course like SH. In good conditions with no wind you can score well on most holes. If the wind picks up and conditions change you can be lucky to escape with bogey. How can you rate this fairly?

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul - well, as I say, you can get close enough to make handicaps valid, I think.  Even at Sand Hills there is one wind that's going to happen more than others, so you'd just take that and rate accordingly... make that wind very strong and the numbers will come out high enough.  What would be more difficult is allocating strokes... that would have to change hour to hour at a place like SH.

I do absolutely understand why they wouldn't want CR and slope at Sand Hills - it just kinda fits the mojo of the place NOT to have such, and yes they would be imperfect.  But that being said, if they wanted them, they surely could be done.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Huck and knowledgeable others,

I really don't know the close details of the course rating process, but based on my playing experience, I find the results sometimes as capricious and arbitrary as some of the rankings (best courses) we see.  If my "feeling" has some validity, Jason's exercise is futile.

What is the probability of three teams from different parts of the country rating the same course independently and coming up with similar course and slope numbers?  Say, within a half to a point in the course rating and 3 to 5 points in the slope?

OT- where does the USGA get its 113 slope figure for an average?  I am not sure that I've played a course with such a low slope in 10 years.

Just a thought, the most popular courses probably have a high slope rating with a moderate course rating.  I am making a distinction here between popular and critical acclaim- the latter being for the select few who have superior insights to what makes anything great vis-a-vis the normal consumer.

[Paul Payne]

Tom,

This is interesting to me because frankly the slope and rating system is a bit mysterious to me anyway. When it comes to wind as a factor I can see how you could possibly make a calculation for the predominant direction and average wind speed etc (possibly even by time of day).

What I cannot comprehend is how you could extrapolate that back into a higher rating number or as you said allocating strokes. The reason I think this gets so complex is wind seems to affect the ball in a varying way to begin with. Then you have to factor that for some golfers wind is not a problem as much as others and in my experience this delineation does not always correlate with the golfer who has the most talent. There are some very shakey golfers who can hit a low ball and play a mean ground game. I'd be interested if this has ever been done before and how they went about figuring this out.

[Garland Bayley]

Hey Tom,

I could have sworn that Hammy was referring to TOC and that you knew that and agreed. I was only tongue in cheek about Sand Hills. However, now that I am reminded, I do remember reading that Sand Hills had no CR and SR, but had assumed otherwise when I posted.

[Tom Huckaby]

Lou:

The USGA works very hard with each local association to make sure that we are all on the same page and rate in the same manner.  Calibration seminars are held very often in an effort to ensure this.  We all do the best we can.  So while I'm sure some differences do still exist, well, we are all trying.

In any case, I'd say the answer to your question is the probablity is a lot higher than you might think.

As for 113 being the average, I also believe that's just for the math... but we need John V. to explain this.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Hey Tom,

I could have sworn that Hammy was referring to TOC and that you knew that and agreed. I was only tongue in cheek about Sand Hills. However, now that I am reminded, I do remember reading that Sand Hills had no CR and SR, but had assumed otherwise when I posted.

No, Hammy does rather like to tweak me - I'd bet anything it was Sand Hills to which he referred.  He just gave me crap about my love for the place in a post a few days ago.

But yes, TOC works.  Of course it has SSS or whatever the hell they do use over there, so the point is less valid....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

This is interesting to me because frankly the slope and rating system is a bit mysterious to me anyway. When it comes to wind as a factor I can see how you could possibly make a calculation for the predominant direction and average wind speed etc (possibly even by time of day).

What I cannot comprehend is how you could extrapolate that back into a higher rating number or as you said allocating strokes. The reason I think this gets so complex is wind seems to affect the ball in a varying way to begin with. Then you have to factor that for some golfers wind is not a problem as much as others and in my experience this delineation does not always correlate with the golfer who has the most talent. There are some very shakey golfers who can hit a low ball and play a mean ground game. I'd be interested if this has ever been done before and how they went about figuring this out.

Paul - well, stroke allocation is done by the course, not the local associaton or whoever does the course rating and slope.  The USGA makes recommendations about the best ways to do this, but the bottom line is always up to the course.  If they wanted to get crazy with it, they could do whatever they wanted.

It just is always going to be tough at a course with unpredictable winds.

But how many of those exist?

TH

[Phil McDade]

Lawsonia Links:

Blue 72   72.8   130   6764
White 72   71.5   128   6466
Gold 72   69   124   5928

[Paul Payne]

Phil,

Are you suggesting that Lawsonia has factored the wind into their rating somehow or simply that they are a course prone to unpredictable wind and they do carry a slope and rating?

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul - my guess is he's just trying to add to Jason's request for data and not at all trying to get caught up in our little tangent.

 

[Paul Payne]

Oh......

never mind.

[Phil McDade]

Paul (and Huck):

Just adding to the initial request. Lawsonia's interesting, in this respect -- it has engaged in a serious tree-cutting effort, and it sits on land that, at times, can be exposed to the wind. But I don't know that the design or the terrain of the land plays any more or less difficult than other courses in the Midwest when the wind blows. My guess is that it's slightly more tolerant off the tee in what might be considered windy conditions, because nearly all of the fairways are fairly wide. But it's also probably pretty exacting on approach shots in windy conditions, as Langford's design penalizes indifferent approach shots much more than indifferent tee shots. The front nine has a bit more of a "compass point" approach, in that holes play in a variety of directions ard you're likely to encounter a variety of wind directions. The back nine is, for the most part, a back-and-forth affair and therefore the wind play is somewhat one-dimensional.

I am struck that Lawsonia from the whites is not rated that much harder than Olympic -- a pretty solid US Open test -- from the blues (both are the second set of tees). Am I reading that correctly, Mr. Huckaby? I don't know much about degrees of slope and relative increase in difficulty.......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()