Does difficulty equate to higher ratings?

[rhansen]

I am sure you all have talked about this before, but I was in a discussion with someone recently and he thought that the more difficult the course the higher the rating that it would get in the top 100 of the various magazines. What do you all think about that?
Does a course have to have a rating of 74.5 and slope of 136 to be considered a top 100 course?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Why is it important for "a course" to be ranked in the Top 100? Ranked by whom- GD, GW or GM? I think if "a course" is ranked in the top 25 of a particular high density state with quality golf courses or in the Top 100 Modern that should be sufficient. Are you speaking of a particular course? Ratings and slope should be of no importance when a rater rates a course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Actually some of the top rated courses are not all that difficult.  Cypress Point is a great course but is not difficult.  Merion is a great course but technology has made it easier to score on than before.  Some of the highest ranked courses are difficult (Winged Foot) but their design is wonderful.

While some raters might be swayed by difficulty the ones I know are not.  

[JWL]

Some may disagree with me on this, but I think Sand Hills is a marvelous golf course, but I also do not think it is a difficult course at all.  So to answer your question, no I don't think that it is necessary for high rankings.
Honestly, if I thought it had one weakness, it would be in the resistance to scoring category.
But, I must admit, that opinion just comes from playing one round on a beautiful day with probably only 15-20 mph wind, so it probably wasn't playing its toughest, but any course will play harder in tougher conditions.   JMHO

[Steve_ Shaffer]

tommy

"Merion is a great course but technology has made it easier to score on than before. "

Really? What about the results of last years US Am? I don't think so. I don't think 72.4/142 from the tips is a walk in the park.



Steve

[Gene Greco]

Jim L:

    You must have had easy pins. Or you possess near tour pro skills.

I played with an individual at Sand Hills who was a finalist in the club championship at Shinnecock Hills the year before tell me, "Sand Hills is too hard. No one can play this course." We had a 15-20 mph breeze and moderately tough pins those first two days.

Thereafter, pin positions were softened and he came around close to his usual scores at Shinnecock.

The only individual I've seen tame the greens there was Pat Mucci. He was astounding. But again, he played fours days in the rarest of conditions there - wind was virtually non- existent. And wind IS a factor on those speedy greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

I think there's a degree of difficulty component that was/is included in the rating procees.

I believe they refered to it as the "resistance to scoring" category.

That would clearly indicate that difficult does factor into the rankings.

In addition, to some, if not many raters, difficulty or resistance to scoring doesn't go unnoticed or unrecorded.

As to Sand Hills, from the douible diamonds, with typical winds, I don't know of anyone other than yourself who has declare that it's not a difficult golf course.

Tommy Williamson,

It's difficult to create movement in the "Classic" category since no new courses can be added, hence preservation of the status quo seems inherent in the rating process.

What rater, already knowing where Cypress Point stands in the ratings, would dare give it a low score.  To a degree, raters are influenced by those who have trod the fairways before them.  Most are keenly aware of the ranking of the course they're about to play.

To a degree, "Classic" courses are given a pass in the length department.

With respect to modern courses, unless wind or unique features are present, length appears to be a critical factor.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Roger,
I think Hidden Creek is perfect as is! Don't change a thing!

I get the Jones weekly to play this course, I loved it that much!

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Mr. Hansen-

  To answer your question, I would say no.  

  Although I'm not a rater, I understand there are many criteria which go into rating a course, of which, as Pat said, "resistance to scoring" is only one.  I also question the value of ratings, besides the obvious of selling magazines and advertising.  I'm convinced they are not completely objective, for one.  I do see their value in providing apples when we want apples, and oranges when we want oranges, but what I'm getting at is there are many good courses which may not necessarily be ranked in the "Top 100" that are worlds more fun to play, and have better architecture, better designs, than many others in the "Top 100".  

[Jon Wiggett]

Rating courses is always a subjective thing. It depends on the perameters of the judging as well as the judges ability to see what is there objectively. Most rankings are undertaking from a better players point of view but sometimes you see a list done for higher handicaps.
Most of the top 100 are not going to be enjoyable for the higher handicaper although there are some exceptions.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Ahhh.... you guys probably havn't played with JWL, I have.  He may be the best playing gc architect today in the business.  And that includes JN, Enge and Smyers!  I'm not surprised he finds Sand Hills relatively easy.  He hits the ball like a long-drive contestant.

Merion easy??!  Only a touring pro could conjure up such an image.  For 99.9% of us Merion can be a regular grizzly with a hangover.  Forget the distance issues, those green complexes resist scoring with the best of them.

I do agree that a reasonably good player can regularly score well at CPC.

I have been a mid-Atlantic slope/rater volunteer for the USGA for 20 years.  As many of you know there are 8 obstacle stroke categories and 4 distance categories that go into a 9-hole evaluation of slope and rating for a given tee.  The final result is more dependent on the distance factors than the obstable factors.  ie - Make a course long or play long and it is considered hard by the USGA.   Archies know this well and can easily (and are often asked to) design an exact slope and rating for "your" course before the first shovel-ful of dirt is moved.

JC  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Roger,

Hidden Creek would seem to answer your question that Golfweek - no, Golf Digest - yes, Golf Magazine - not sure. I get down probably twice a year to play with The Mingey's and probably bounce between your back and middle tees as a 9 handicap with average "club golf" length. Basically if it is firm we will go back, and if it is soft we will go to the middle.

I can see where you might want to add length if you want to have some sort of amateur of college tournament, but I would tend to agree with Tommy and suggest you leave the place just the way it is. Once you get the greens back to where you want them, they can be challenging yet fun.

In reference to the concept that Sand Hills is easy or hard. That is one course that really ratches up when you go to the back tees. Not saying it is easy from the middle, but the back in the wind is fierce. Always remember playing with the Club Champ of Southampton GC who was long and him asking one morning on the 4th at Sand Hills, "What are we doing back here?"

[JESII]

For my own personal judgements or assesments of golf courses, difficulty definitely gets some consideration. It is one of many considerations that go into my "go-or-no-go" evaluation.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

That tee you are referring to was added after the first season of play, because Bill and Ben were surprised that the course played as short as it did when they were finished with it.

I would agree with Jim about Sand Hills being not as hard as  many top-100 courses.  (I will refrain from using the word "easier" to spare Gene from apoplexy.)  If the wind is blowing hard and you are playing all the way back, no course is easy, but at least Sand Hills gives you wide enough fairways and open green fronts so you can deal with it.  By comparison, Winged Foot or Bethpage are just relentless.  (There aren't any holes at Sand Hills where you CAN'T GET TO the fairway.)

Of course, Ballyneal is probably not as hard as Sand Hills, and that's why some people don't like it as much ... and Dismal River is apparently tougher than Sand Hills, probably because Jim's opinion was not alone in his company, and some people use THAT as the reason to disparage it.

A lot of panelists are low handicappers and they have been brainwashed to believe that difficulty is a prerequisite to greatness.  Cypress Point and Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in the top 100, but they are the exceptions to the rule; they are just so beautiful and so varied that the voters can overlook their relative lack of difficulty.  But if it's not Cypress Point, many panelists will only grudgingly recognize the quality of a course that isn't 7200 yards long ... guys like Matt who have Dismal River above Sand Hills and Sebonack above Pacific Dunes.  75 of the top 100 are really difficult [which goes up to 85 or 90 by GOLF DIGEST's definition], and courses like Fishers Island rank relatively low because they aren't so tough.

I still think it's a macho thing.  No one wants to be seen voting low on a tough course because their friends will think they must have found it too difficult and they're wimps.  All our clients want difficult back tees, even though I've only had one or two clients with any hope of playing the course from all the way back -- in fact, it is the 15-handicap clients who are most insistent about the course being hard.  What does that tell you?

[Greg Tallman]

Some may disagree with me on this, but I think Sand Hills is a marvelous golf course, but I also do not think it is a difficult course at all.  So to answer your question, no I don't think that it is necessary for high rankings.
Honestly, if I thought it had one weakness, it would be in the resistance to scoring category.
But, I must admit, that opinion just comes from playing one round on a beautiful day with probably only 15-20 mph wind, so it probably wasn't playing its toughest, but any course will play harder in tougher conditions.   JMHO

Most courses are easy for you Señor Lipe.

Looking forward to playing May River for the first time this Sunday.  

No mercy on the Irish!

[Geoffrey Childs]

Roger

Nice to have you on here.

Your question is pretty straight forward as written "Does difficulty equate to higher ratings?"

Of course not.

Bethpage Black and Winged Foot, two places mentioned by Tom Doak, are on Top 100 lists for reasons beyond their difficulty.  BB is IMHO Tillinghast's best routing and his best tee to green offering over a marvelous property that was just waiting for his brilliant touch.  Winged Foot has green complexes that are beyond reproach.  One can spend hours on any one of them and marvel at their contours while discovering the places where you can and can not recover from. They are not just difficult.  They are textbooks of good architecture. Now some can argue (Ran) that they lack the variety and charm to rise to the very top and there is merit to the argument but even Ran I believe can not put them off a list of Top 100.

Good golf courses also have flexibility for membership and tournament play.  The 2 times I've been fortunate to play Seminole they were different beasts.  First time in moderate 1 club winds with easier pins and softer conditions I looked like the club champ while the next time near the Coleman tournament the place was really firm and fast, the wind a bit brisker and pins a bit harder and it was literally almost a stroke a hole more difficult.

The fact that courses like Fishers Island, Shoreacres, Cypress Point, Somerset Hills, Pacific Dunes and yes Hidden Creek have done well with some rating panels testifies that good architecture and ENJOYMENT of the game count highly - at least with some raters.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy Williamson,

It's difficult to create movement in the "Classic" category since no new courses can be added, hence preservation of the status quo seems inherent in the rating process.

What rater, already knowing where Cypress Point stands in the ratings, would dare give it a low score.  To a degree, raters are influenced by those who have trod the fairways before them.  Most are keenly aware of the ranking of the course they're about to play.

To a degree, "Classic" courses are given a pass in the length department.

With respect to modern courses, unless wind or unique features are present, length appears to be a critical factor.

Pat you make a good point about raters being influenced by where a course is ranked having influence.  My only point was Cypress is in GD's top 10 and is not very difficult.

Steve, I didn't say that Merion was easy only easier than it was 20 years ago because of technology.  I score about the same therre at 60 as I did at 40.  

[JWL]

Greg

I hope you have a great day to play on Sunday at MR.

I will be interested to hear of your results and I know KB will be also.

BTW, you and others have grossly exaggerated my playing ability.   I must have just gotten lucky on my round at SH, and maybe I caught it on a day of easy pins.  I have no way of knowing that.  I did putt the ball 2 more times than I hit it that day.  LOL

I am with you on the Crush the Irish comment.   That would start the year out quite nicely.

Happy New Year To Everyone!
I did enjoy the golf course very much.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoff:

I did not mean to imply that Winged Foot or Bethpage did not have other merits.  You pretty much have to have some other merits to make a top 100 list.  I just didn't want to go back to the same old whipping boys (Firestone and Butler National and Medinah) to make my point that the vast majority of top 100 courses today are long and difficult, and that the most indifferent courses you can find in any top 100 list are usually included on the grounds of toughness.  A shorter course really has to be EXCEPTIONAL to overcome the bias toward difficult = good.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg

I hope you have a great day to play on Sunday at MR.

I will be interested to hear of your results and I know KB will be also.

BTW, you and others have grossly exaggerated my playing ability.   I must have just gotten lucky on my round at SH, and maybe I caught it on a day of easy pins.  I have no way of knowing that.  I did putt the ball 2 more times than I hit it that day.  LOL

I am with you on the Crush the Irish comment.   That would start the year out quite nicely.

Happy New Year To Everyone!
I did enjoy the golf course very much.

I doubt I have exaggerated your ball striking abilities... now if I could just pinch putt for you we might have something rather special.

Hope to be outlining timetables for the changes here soon.

I will certainly give you some feedback on MR... I'll give you the true version and KB the "what was that?" version.

Tigers 38
Irish 17

VC's Scarlet Knights finished off well last night.

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought all the stuff you guys that don't keep score like usually makes a course more difficult and thus lead to higher rankings.  Blind shots, uneven lies, firm greens, tricky putts, knarly deep bunkers, centerline hazards...Sure, at least in this crowd, difficulty equates to higher rankings.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoff:
 I just didn't want to go back to the same old whipping boys (Firestone and Butler National and Medinah) to make my point that the vast majority of top 100 courses today are long and difficult, and that the most indifferent courses you can find in any top 100 list are usually included on the grounds of toughness.  A shorter course really has to be EXCEPTIONAL to overcome the bias toward difficult = good.

Tom- On that point I will agree with you totally.

[Jerry Kluger]

Wouldn't it seem that a course should be rated higher if it can be played and enjoyed when difficult, although common, weather conditions occur?  Perhaps that is what makes the modern minimalist courses so great.  Sand Hills, Friars Head, Ballyneal, etc., vary greatly in difficulty depending on how hard the wind is blowing, but still, they are enjoyable and the conditions do not destroy that enjoyment.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always felt a course had to be exceptionally beautiful, difficult or interesting and have components of the other two to be great.  The problem is, difficult is probably the easiest to quantify, with exceptional beauty the next (intuitively quantified, I suppose). Interest is the hardest thing to put a number to, because it varies day to day and with how a rater plays.

There has been a trend away from pure difficulty (GD's hundred toughest in '67 is now the 100 best) in the rankings of all the magazines, has there not?  Interesting courses like NGLA weren't (from memory) in the tough 100 lists.  Now they are.

[Tim Gavrich]

What is the lowest course rating and slope (from the tips) of any course on any of the top-100 lists?

I thought I read somewhere that the average course rating for regulation golf courses in the US is something like 69.0 and that the average slope is somewhere in the neighborhood of 118.  I doubt those are figures from the tips at all of America's courses, so let's bump up the tip-average to course rating of 70.4 and the slope to 124 (I apologize if this ballpark estimate somewhat trivializes the actual course-rating and slope-rating calculation process).  I doubt that many "top-100" courses have figures that low.

Being blessed with a decent amount of golfing ability, I'd have to say that almost all my favorite golf courses could be dubbed "hard" or "very hard."  My three favorite golf courses are (in no definitive order) Pinehurst No. 2, Yale, and Newport.  They happen to be three of the most difficult golf courses I've ever played.  But that's just one take on the idea.