One of the obvious problems with the Golf Digest ratings system is that it asks biased questions. I would argue that making Resistance to Scoring a question goes beyond bias and into the realm of stupidity. Look at Royal Melbourne.  With the fairways at the current width and the greens at the speeds they played at this weekend, the course does not resist scoring without wind or tough pins...but wait, isn't that what the criterion should be? Not "resistance to scoring", but "resistance to sameness". Ernie's 29 on the front Thursday followed by his 42 Sunday is proof, in and of itself, of the greatness of RM. If a course forces players to take risks, scores can go up, if it offers reward, scores can go down, so the best risk/reward courses will have volatile scoring possibilities. Let's dump resistance to scoring. How about Variety in Scoring?

Pat, I think Jim is on to something.  Resistance to scoring could be something as rediculous as a 30ft wall infront of the green.  That isn't good architecture.  But, variety in what could happen (if a then b, or if c then d, but if a&b then x).  Perhaps the variety can only come with great design incorporating options through matched and corresponding use of angles, contours, hazards placements, and maintenance meld specifications.

I don't believe that scoring resistance is integral to greatness.  I just can't abide by 'the harder the course, the better it is', which seems to be the meaning behind this category.

But for argument's sake, let's say I'm wrong and that resistance-to-scoring IS an important measure of greatness.  Then it is completely mindless to put this measure in the hands of the rater.  How in the world can his one visit to the course he is evaluating compare to the in-depth measure of scoring resistance done by the USGA through the slope and rating efforts.  A team of five USGA volunteers (4 voting) accurately measure 12 categories and compute a "scoring resistance" from a standard.  They usually spend 10 hours at the course they are determining slope/rating from (they evaluate the course and then play it).

If I were the powers at Digest I would have resistance-to-scoring a function of the candidate course's slope/rating, giving this category at least some modicum of integrity.

JC  

While Dick was generalizing, it has been tried. Here's a little known example, which hardly ever gets mentioned here.



At the base of this wall, it sure feels higher than 30'.

A Clayman,

Pat- Extremes? Those scores were on the same course, same guy just a different day.

Perhaps it's your choice of words but the "common denominator" theme, that I read into your comment, seems to have been more detrimental to the game.  

Not surprisingly, you've totally missed my point.

Jim advocated "VARIETY" in scoring.  He wanted architecture that created greater disparity in scoring, higher levels of risk reward, and that direction leads to architectural extremes

Of course, if you don't think many of the modern designs fail to inspire, fail to challenge the primordial brain, than you need not tell me everything I don't know.

I think you underrate modern designs, and overrate the concept of offering the golfer a multitude of options on every shot.  You and others are consumed by "Mircro" architecture in it's most intricate and complex form, when often times, it doesn't exist.

Even Veejay's putt, to tie the backnine record at PB yesterday, (he missed) would've still only given him a 67.

What's that got to do with creating a bigger gap in scores that a golfer can make on a given hole ?

Jim wants architecture that will create a wider variety of scores.  Since noone will be making 1's and 2's on par 4's and 5's, he's obviously weighting his theory on the high side of scoring, and I don't believe that's the direction to go in golf course architecture.

An inherent attraction of the game is its difficulty.  
Each golf holes resistance to scoring.
If it was easy, who would play golf ?
On the other hand, if you want golfers to make 9's and 14's due to the desire to achieve variety in scoring, as manifested through steroidal architecture, can the windmills be far behind ?

Try disagreeing with me on the merits of a credible position rather then just for arguments sake.

A Clayman,

Pat-

Your use of bold text is as mis-guided as trying to figure-out what I want. per your comment here.

I usually use bold text when addressing issues within a "quoted" reply, it clearly seperates the author's comments from my comments

Quote

You and others are consumed by "Mircro" architecture in it's most intricate and complex form, when often times, it doesn't exist.

BTW, What the heck does that mean?

Some of the greatest holes I have golfed, had the extremes in scoring, the thread started was referencing. i.e. #9 cpc. need one say more.

This thread was not started with a mention of # 9 at CPC, it only mentioned Royal Melbourne.  Perhaps you're confusing threads.

All your doing is standing up for mediocrity. Thats how much I mis-understand your words.

It's apparent that you don't understand my words.
How do you make the absurd leap that I'm standing up for mediocrity   As I said, you missed my point, and continue to do so.

Why not educate or clarify, as opposed to yelling?

I'm not yelling.  Apparently, you don't understand my point, and I don't have the inclination or the patience to expound on it, as it was rather simple.

As I've said, before you make the leap into the contrarian arena, think  

A Clayman,

Pat- Nobody mentioned 9's and 14's either.

Sure they did, what do you think variety in scoring means ?
It means greater disparity between high scores and low scores.
Since, as I referenced, golfers aren't going to be making eagles and double eagles on par 4's and par 5's, the weighting, in order to achieve more variety in scoring, has to be on the high side of scoring, and in order to achieve more variety in scoring, higher scores must become more common, thus, 9's and 14's for your average or less then average golfers.

Don't confine your thinking to PGA Tour pros, expand your thinking to the average golfer, and the architecture they would have to encounter in order to widen the gap in scoring, in order to achieve Jim's "Variety" in scoring goal.

"Resistance to scoring" is a category used to establish a course's ranking.  If that category was changed to "Variety in scoring" it would encourage architectural extremes, and I think that's the wrong direction for golf course architecture to head.
 
Oh, except you. Having typed the last response while Aren Oberholst made a double on 8 at Pebble, while VJ made 3, this is the variety in scoring, I assumed, when talking about the likes of Ernie Els and the rest of the boys.

Since you chose to dis-agree with Jim's initial postuale, so who's really being contrarian, here.

There's a difference, I disagreed with Jim because I disagree that an evaluative measure of a golf course should be established on the basis of a hole promoting a wide variation in scoring, which would promote architectural extremes, rather then a hole providing a resistance to scoring, a challenge or test if you will.

I don't think you understand my point and that
you're disagreeing just to disagree with me

Quote

I think you underrate modern designs, and overrate the concept of offering the golfer a multitude of options on every shot.  You and others are consumed by "Mircro" architecture in it's most intricate and complex form, when often times, it doesn't exist.

This response to my comment shows how little YOU appreciate many of the intangables, (is that what you meant by "micro"?). Inspiration comes in more forms than just options.

What intangibles, could you list the many you reference ?And, how would you judge whether or not I appreciate them ?

quassi,

add (b) before the text, and (/b) after the text.  except use [] instead of ().  

A Clayman,

I think we're on different wave lengths on this issue.

Resistance to scoring could be something as rediculous as a 30ft wall infront of the green.  That isn't good architecture.

Dick, I think that is oversimplifying the term "Resistance to Scoring".  GD's definition is "How difficult, while still being fair is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?"

So it isnt just Resistance to Scoring with no account for what is not right and proper.

Perhaps "challenge" or "level of challenge" would be a better term than "resistance to scoring".  At any rate, I don't believe (or hope that) GD's intent is that the tougher/more resistant/more challenging a course is the better it is.

Ideally there'd be some limit where you earn a perfect 10, going beyond that doesn't "help" you any.  Even more ideally, if you go too far beyond it, you start getting deductions to where a course that consisted of 18 long forced carries into the wind would earn a big zero in this category, but I don't expect GD to do that because they'd have to explain why Koo'lau isn't necessarily a 10 in "resistance to scoring".

I understand the caveat about fairness and thank goodness they dont just reward difficulty with no limits, but
...what is the question? It's "how hard is the darned course?" So what if that is tempered a bit by fairness. The focus of the question is just plain wrong. Tiger shot 40 on the front 9 of Augusta in the same tournament that he broke the scoring record and won by a dozen. The most strategic courses will display this sort of quality most often.

Where should a hole defend itself? Where/how does a hole defend itself?

Before the over-abundant use of trees and water hazards the ultimate place the hole defends, is green end.

To that end, why not just ask "Quality" of the greens? Probably because they would confuse it with conditioning quality.