[Bronco]

Tom Doak,
Did you know they have a new course record at Sand Hills?
Care to take a guess?
A mini-tour player from Texas (I was told) came in last summer and shot...61!  10 under par from the diamond tee.
Out in 29, three pars and a bogey at 13
followed by birdies on the last five holes!

It doesn't appear they mind either as the card is framed
in the golfshop for everyone to enjoy!  

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,
Not to belabor a point, but maybe you might go over the location of some of the alternate tees out there. I have serious doubts anyone could shoot 61 from those tees - even in a slack wind.  

[Joel_Stewart]

Following up on the Sand Hills record, Rick Hartmann shot 64 at Friars Head with no wind.   Why worry about the top 5% of golfers when the other 95% are enjoying the course.  Lastly, the 5 handicapper who shot 66 had the round of his life.

[David_Lee]

Tom,
I'm an 8 index who played PacDunes for the first time in August, and found it to be very fair for scoring - if you hit good shots along the right lines, you were rewarded, if not . . . Perfect example was #6 where despite having it driven it correctly over the right fairway bunker, I pulled my wedge approach left and over into the deep greenside bunker.  Needless to say, from there my 6 was well-deserved.

One thing that no one has mentioned and I think contributes to people having great rounds is that the caddies there are very good.  Without them, I suspect that people would add 3-7 strokes to their round.  For example, on #4 into the wind, my approach wound up 50 feet short of the green.  My caddy gave me the perfect l-to-r line (not what I would have thought) for my run-up to the back pin location and I had a kick-in for par.  If I hadn't yipped so many putts, I probably would have shot one of my best rounds in large part due to the caddy's help.  The rest of my foursome all got similar help from their caddies.  It'd be interesting to know how many people who shot great rounds at PacDunes regularly play with caddies - I do not, not by choice but by circumstance.

My understanding is that the wind always blows in Bandon, so it seems your approach (ie not making the course impossible when the wind blows) is the right one.  I consider my 41 on the back nine of Bandon in 45 mph winds (when putting, balls were oscillating on the greens!!!) to be one of my best 9s ever as well as the funnest because despite the wind, I was still able to work my way around the course without ever feeling that the round was impossible (ie no options, no control over my score, etc.)  What more could I ask for?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Wow!

If Hartmann can shoot 64 at Friar's Head, I guess Parnevik is good for a 54 and god knows what tiger would shoot there!

[Tom Doak]

All right, I'll admit that I don't have much intention of rebuilding Pacific Dunes to make it harder.  It's windy much of the time in the high season, and holds up its end of the game pretty well against good players.

Partly I made the post to protest GOLF DIGEST's "resistance to scoring" factor.  Essentially, it lowers the rankings for all courses built in windy climes where the architect used a necessary measure of restraint and the panelists play on calm days and forget to allow for the wind.  Pat Mucci listed them:  Seminole, National, Maidstone, Newport:  all of them underrated by the GOLF DIGEST poll.

I like the fact that Pacific Dunes sometimes appears easy, and I love the fact that three friends have posted career-low rounds on the golf course.  Something tells me that on a truly great golf course it should be possible to shoot a career best -- and I'm thinking that it's possible at National, The Old Course, and Cypress Point.

P.S. to John B:  There is a left-hand tee on #2, but it's so short that only the ladies use it.  Short hitters can always lay up to the left of "Shoe" on the second hole and take that angle if they prefer it.  However, I was told when I was in Bandon that the only change Mike K. would like to see is a LONGER tee on #2 ... though I'm not sure where there is a spot for one.

[corey miller]

I guess there must be a design flaw at FH if it is yielding such low scores.  a friend of mine shot a 78 and I do not think he has broken 85 at his fazio designed other course.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Tom I am glad to hear there is method to your madness. The point is well made on the resistance to scoring. We have avery few courses outside those mentioned above and parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas that have more that seasonal winds. I feel the weakness is in the panel at GD and not in the courses. It is a fundamental to good design to understand local weather and prevailing winds. Naturally, a prevailing 5 to 10 MPH impacts a hole differently that a 15 to 25 mph. A links or seaside course that is designed without wind in mind is poor work by the architect. Any evaluater who does not grasp that concept should be off the team.

[TEPaul]

Could this be another good reason I think magazine rankings basically suck?

I think so!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Let's be clear -- you can have ratings of anything in this world. The question comes down to whether the people doing the reviewing really understand what it is they are supposed to be doing? Too many times you have people who are providing brownie points to a facility simply because of the talked about "reputation" and the like. There are quite a few courses in the Northeast, in my humble opinion, that get by because of this. Also, keep in mind, how diligent are the publications in verifying the numbers that come forward?

You also have problems when people who are not scratch players try to understand the criteria put forward by GD only when playing from mid point tees. They don't understand the very nature of the category because it takes a judicious person to apply the definition correctly.

No doubt, as pointed out by Pat Mucci and Tom Doak, you will have courses located in generally windy locations and there might be that odd day when the wind dies down and someone does shoot a low round. So what?

The key in understanding the concept of "resistance to scoring" is applying that standard through a broader range of experiences and time frames when playing. Catching any course on a "one time" basis may inflate / deflate the rating of any course. It's not about how you played or scored that particular day but having the skill to visualize what the challenges and demands can be when the course is played from certain yardages and when pins are placed in some tight corners. Many people, in my opinion, don't possess that skill.

I've played Bandon and Pac Dunes when the wind was coming from the northerly direction. I have never played either course when the blew from the south or winter time direction. Clearly, the wind will dictate shot options when playing and it's important for any reviewer to see how a different wind will effect their overall assessment of the course. Give just one example -- the long par-4 5th hole at Bandon is an absolute bear of a hole -- I've played it a few times and the wind was blowing head-on out of the north. Sure, I'd like to see how the hole plays when the wind comes out of the south, but the hole is not going to just give players birdies left and right because it plays downwind. And, even if it did, the hole still packs plenty of gusto in dead air conditions. The same would apply to a number of the more challenging holes at Pac Dunes.

Course reviews can be done by people who really understand the game and have a broad benchmark of courses in which to compare and contrast. I have serious questions when publications add people under the faulty premise that having more panelists adds course coverage. It does not. The purpose in rating anything squarely falls upon how the process is structured. More importantly, if the people involved take a much more broader perspective of any facility under review -- they must therefore look beyond simply how they scored on just one visit.

There are no modern courses opened within the last ten years that exceed the total qualities put forward by Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, in my humble opinion. Play Pac Dunes on a nasty day along the Oregon coast and one man's round of 70 under calm conditions will mean fighting for one's life to break 80 or 85 the next day.

Tom Doak -- to answer your question -- the category of "resistance to scoring" can be applied, however, you must have reviewers who are competent enough to  do so in a very thorough and consistent manner. The qualities of Pac Dunes and a few other similar type courses are clearly first rate. Like I said before -- do the same people who brag about their low scores also make it a point to highlight when they got their butt kicked-in?

I do believe the intrinsic shotmaking qualities are there at Pac Dunes -- I cannot say the same for other courses already rated in the top 100 located at or near the coasts. As I said some of the courses get by simply because of being in the neighborhood of a well deserved layout and they benefit from a spillover linkage. The reasons for that would take another thread to discuss. Suffice to say -- get an incompetent appraiser and you'll get a half-ass asssessment. Simple as that.  

[JWL>]

According to the GD definition, how can any player that is NOT a scratch player determine how difficult a course is for a scratch player.   They are playing a different game it seems to me, and therefore are incapable of understanding just how difficult any shot might be.  The expectation level is extremely different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

I've often wondered about that issue in a different light.
I believe a scratch player can relate to the game of a higher handicaped player, because at one point in their life, the scratch handicap was a higher handicap, but I've always been puzzled about the difficulty in a high handicaper relating to the game of a scratch handicap.

Rich Goodale,

I've been out of town,
what Major did they recently host at FH ?  

Tom Doak,

I think resistance to scoring places a fautly emphasis on creating HARD holes, without due regard to the architecture of the hole, and raters may fall prey to this mentality, or give it undue weight.

[Joel_Stewart]

Rich:
I don't know him but Rick Hartmann is supposedly a really great player, and has qualified for the US Open.  FH is more than enough for a very good player and probably could be down-right hard if they wanted it to be.

Tom:
GD states, How difficult, while still be fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?  I probably rate in somewhere between a 6 and 7.5 which is very good to excellent.  Its not in the exceptional to perfect area such as Shinnecock or Pine Valley.  

[JWL>]

Joel
Pine Valley is a good example of how distorted the "resistance to scoring" component can be.  PV is a difficult course for most handicappers, but for a true scratch player, PV is actually a quite easy course.  Forced carries are a non-factor for the scratch player at PV.  JMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Your email address is blocked, my email response was returned to me undeliverable due to not accepting......
Unblock and I'll resend my response to you, thanks.
Plus there is no instant message address on your post.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

Thank you for that long post to me (among others) about rating and ranking (I truly mean that).

Yes indeed, let's be clear!

I do fully admit I really have no use for rating and rankings (I'm sure you've suspected that).

I couldn't really care less about things like "resistance to scoring", first of all, because I have no real idea what it means or intends anyway and even if I did I really doubt I'd care or agree with it as a valid evaluation of what I consider should be publicized as really good or great golf architecture (so at this point I really don't need to have it explained to me).

I really do believe that these magazine rating and ranking lists, as well intentioned as they may be, or may have once been, are basically no more than ABOUT selling magazines, period!

As if that's NOT a fundamental enough reason not to agree with the concept of ranking, I also think the process they use to collect their data--the panelists--probably have little real idea or understanding of how to truly evaluate architecture. Too many of them--and there really ARE TOO MANY OF THEM--must or do probably think; "What a neat way to get out and play a whole slew of golf courses with some kind of "entry cache".

But fundamentally, that's not the real reason I don't like rating and rankings! The real reason is I think it's corruptive and destructive to clubs and courses that should preserve their architecture but DON'T basically to keep up with the latest in thinking in rating psychology (ie, what they perceive to be the popular flavor of the month or the perceived CRITERIA to fulfill to keep their courses current in the rating psychology)!

Also, I can see that even some of the very panelists of these magazines don't fully understand their OWN magazine's CRITERIA, or if they do--they don't agree with it! (I will not forget when even you said that on here about 1 1/2 years ago!).

You're a good guy Matt, and I admire your zeal and enthusiasm and even defense of the rating and ranking process!

But fundamentally I think these magazines that rate are not capable of truly analyzing architecture accurately or credibly, the way they do it now.

Maybe one or two guys for any publication should be the way to do it--like in the old days when that was the modus operandi of magazine or periodical architectural analysis.

I would much rather read architectural analysis of a Tillinghast, Behr, Darwin, Wind, or even Doak today etc speaking for a periodical about the specific architectural pros and cons of a specific course or courses than I would seeing a nondefinitive sterile numerical list of courses compiled through the input of 800 panelists ranked in order with almost no real architectural reason why.

I can't say I blame magazines for doing what they do because it may be true that the golfing public is not really interested in detailed architectural analysis of courses and architecture. All the public can consume MAY BE sterile lists of "Who's better" sans reasons why!

But I'm not for it--not the way it's done now and the way it's been done with magazines in the last few decades with the compilations of  "TOP" this and that in numerical order only!

Sorry, Matt! There's no reason to tell me things like "let's be clear" or "Hope this helps" on this subject of rating and ranking! I'm not for it and I won't be unless and until they get serious and change the way they do it totally.

They probably never will do it the way they used to again, because in depth really good architectural analysis probably doesn't sell and it may never sell!

If that's true, magazines should just give up on it--including rankings!

OK, some might say it inspires discussion! Maybe, to an extent, but in my opinion, that isn't worth the overall negatives of the rest of the way it's been done in modern times and continues to be done!

I realize you may run a periodical yourself and in my opinion you should get into specific course architectural analysis, even if in an edcuational vein, just the way Tillinghast, Behr, Wind etc once did!

We need more periodical writers like that and less lists of sterile numerical ratings and rankings----in my opinion!

[TEPaul]

"...but for the true scratch player, PV is a quite easy course. Forced carries are a non factor for the scratch player at PV."
JWL>

That is without question a very limited, myopic and ultimately inaccurate analysis of PV!

Pat:

I see you still don't acknowledge that at PB (US Open 2000)Hartman not only did not lose to Parvenik by ten (10) strokes per round, he beat him in the tournament! Why do you choose to not acknowledge that? Aren't you the guy who's always insisting on FACTS? Why avoid that FACT?

[Paul Albanese]

I am surprised I did not see more ideas regarding tees.........after briefly looking through the responses, it seemed only Gib and Tom D(regarding number 2) talked about it.............golf courses play differently due to wind......that is a fact..........and, if a golf hole is not playing as the design intended, i.e a bunker is not coming into play as expected, or guys are hitting short irons instead of the intended long irons, then the solution I feel is best suited is to look for more teeing areas.....literally almost have a "wind tee" and a "non-wind tee".......and, once these addtional areas are found..............it is IMPERATIVE to have the superintendent set the course up based on the weather of the day!!!.........that will allow the course to best play as you intended............by the way, both times I played PD.........in the wind........it hammered me............

[corey miller]

I may be missing something here but I am not sure I understand "resistence to scoring" as used by GD.  Why have 100+ raters give their interpretation of this measure when there are published course ratings for most courses. why are these not used? arent they based on scratch player?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Albanese,

Changes in the weather have been known to fool more than one superintendent  

TEPaul,

Rick Hartmann recently restated, in front of Ran, that which he had previously stated to me prior to the Ryder Cup at Brookline.  The next time you come up this way, I'll have you meet him, and I'll have him tatoo the statement on either your forehead or your back, you make the call.

Better yet, how about both, then people you meet,
coming and going can get the message  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What in God's name are you talking about? Do you really think that hearing the claim you made on here about Hartman vs Parvenik--(ie, "Hartman could not come within 10 shots of Parvenik in any round in a major") again, even by Hartman himself, is going to make me agree with it?

I don't care if you, anyone else, including Hartman makes that claim in front of me or anyone else BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FACTS TO PROVE THAT IS JUST NOT SO!!!!!!

But clearly that makes no difference to you for some strange reason!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You don't have the facts, you only have what you want to think are the facts.

Hartmann has stated, that it is very different to play in a major and be paired with other exceptional club pros like himself, but that the pressure and ability to perform is entirely different should he be paired with Vijay, Phil, Tiger, etc., etc..
And, that that additional pressure to perform side by side with the big boys results in reduced performance for him and others, that JESPER is used to on a daily basis.

I do wish you would get factual facts and not wishful facts.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Thanks for your response. A couple of retorts. Whether you like ratings or not is your personal opinion and I respect that.

On the flip side please understand I wasn't born with some sort of mental deficiency -- I perfectly understand that one of the key reasons magazines, of all types, put out ratings and the like is to draw attention. I see nothing wrong in that -- provided the process used reflects some sort of key clear understanding on how to apply the apppropriate criteria.

Tom, let me also point out that a ratings process (or flavor of the month as you suggested) does not mean or advocate that certain "classic" courses or others need to change their golf course. If the KEY PEOPLE at those clubs BELIEVE THAT then the issue rests with them -- not the ratings. If those same key people are so spineless that they believe they must conform to whatever the "sentiment" is at that time then the failure rests with them -- not the ratings. If you happen to pay any attention to most of them you will find a good number of courses which are rated that are not going to host major championships either now or in the future and these same clubs have no desire to ever do so.

To cite just a few examples they would include Seminole, Maidstone, National Golf Links, etc. etc.

I have no problem with ratings because all aspects of life are ultimately compared and contrasted. It's the nature of golf when players gather at any 19th hole and discuss the game. Since you feel differently I say that's your prerogative.

Tom, I've point out numerous ways in which the existing system of ratings can change. I echo what Dan Kelly said on this subject a short time ago. I don't know if you were throwing me into the same company, but I didn't need to be a panelist to simply gain access to clubs. Is that true for others? Only they would know the answer to that -- but clearly it does lend itself to some.

Tom, at the publication I produce we do offer critical architectural analysis beyond simply ratings. If you're interested send me a home / business address and I'll forward you our latest issue and you can decide for yourself. My e-mail is mattwardgolf@hotmail.com.

Pat / Corey:

"Resistance to scoring" can be applied by more than just the course rating numbers you mentioned. Sometimes these numbers from my experiences can be somewhat sterile and not reflect how true the course may play. Have you ever played a course with a certain CR and wondered if it was truly accurate? I know I have.

I'll give you one local example -- Great River in Milford, Connecticut. The course lists a 75.5 course rating and 152 slope!!! Yes, the course is demanding but never that high -- not in a million years UNLESS they made additional modifications. The same applies in the reverse because if you take the CR of Pac Dunes 72.9 from the tips I just shake my head because the layout is indeed a bit more than that. When you factor the daily wind conditions I don't see how the course gets that low of a number. One last item the slope is 133 and when compared to Great River it's downright laughable.

Pat, your question about high handicap players being able to comprehend the demands placed on the scratch player are well taken. It is for that reason why GD panelists are usually low handicap players. However, I also believe that if someone really understands golf I believe it's possible for them to see how such a situation can change when different tees and pin placements are being used. Is that possible for all people to provide such a transposition? No, it's not -- but I from my travels and in meeting different raters I believe it can be done. The key rests in having people who see golf in a broader sense than how a specific course relates only to their game alone.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

If you or you're publication do detailed architectural analyses of golf courses you see and play, I'm all for that! That kind of thing explains architecture and educates people to it, something that a list of 100 courses listed by number does none of!

And believe me I've seen some of those courses you already mentioned do things to their courses they wouldn't oridinarily have done, in my opinion, just to try to climb the ratings! It has nothing to do with holding a major tournament, probably more like pride, bragging rights, who knows what. But I never viewed that kind of thing as a benefit to the golf course or its architecture!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I have no doubt what you said in your last post is true! None of us would have a problem agreeing with that!

But that's not what you said on here and defended for weeks and months!!

You said Hartman told you he could NOT come within ten (10) shots of Parvenik in ANY round in a Major Championship!

Don't tried to change the wording of what you said Pat! Everyone on here saw you say it and defend it constantly despite the fact you were proven wrong by US Open stats and facts!

And among other major tournaments, I'm sure, the FACTS are that Hartman actually BEAT Parvenik in the US Open at Pebble in 2002!

But maybe somehow, someway, with either your odd logic or stubbornness you somehow think that Hartman did not or could not come within ten (10) shots of Parvenik in any round in a major!

Months ago when I pointed out this to you, you retorted with; "What do you think, one major tournament makes a career?"

UNBELIEVABLE retort, but just classic Pat Mucci logic--the man who stresses the importance of FACTS for everyone  except apparently himself!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()