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 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

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

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

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.  

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

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.

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:

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).