Does difficulty equate to higher ratings?

[Ian Dalzell]

Tim
In an attempt to answer your question, a review of the top-100 courses as listed in golf Magazine's 2005 Rankings gives an average of all courses from the tips of 74.11 and 138.94.  If your numbers are close, this means that by and large, to be considered a great course in this country you need to provide a level of difficulty over and above the average course.  Let us remember the other, more important factors that allowed these courses to be included on that list - architecture, probably conditioning and finally the "experience", that is to say the service, ambiance and location (setting).

[George Pazin]

I always think of a friend of mine, who's a pretty fair golfer, about a 4-5 index. We were talking about courses in Monterey one time and he said Spyglass was the best course out there. When queried as to why, he said, they have this stuff called iceplant.

Horses for courses. It's hard not to conclude difficulty is a major component of most rankings, explicit or not, when you peruse the lists.

As an aside, how cool would it be if TGC had an event with 20 or so prominent architects? That'd be a lot more enjoyable to watch than most of the silly season events.

Of course, it wouldn't be nearly as good as if the SWWOG would include the architect playing with a couple name players.

JN + TD + JWL + Tiger @ Sebonack = best SWWOG since the good 'ole days of Hogan and Snead.

or

BC + BC + Seve + JMO @ Sand Hills!

 

[Kalen Braley]

Lets not forget about PV.  That course is consitently in the top 3 of pretty much anyones list and from the course rating and slope its a real brute.  I've never played it, but would be interested to hear opinions from those who have.

[JESII]

When you start with the very basic notion (idea!) of hitting a ball from one point to another in an open field...to add interest to the game you might place a feature of some sort out in the field...of all the features placed on all the golf courses in all the world, how many are placed to make that course easy(ier)?


There is certainly a point of diminishing returns...filling the Valley of Sin with water might not improve the course as much as you all think...

[wsmorrison]

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.  

Tommy,

Technology has made all courses easier to score on than before, though proper maintenance practices negate that effect somewhat.  If you are saying that Merion more than most great courses, because of its length, is easier to score on, then I have to disagree with you.  With very easy pin positions (much easier than typical daily setups) during the Amateur qualifying (to make sure everyone got around) only 6 out of more than 300 scores were under par and then only by a single shot.  Of course lengthening the course by some 400 yards or so had much to do with this.  With the changes implemented recently, including the deepening of many bunkers, Merion is as great a challenge as it always was.

"I don't think 72.4/142 from the tips is a walk in the park."

Steve,

The course rating and slope you cited are not from the tips any longer but rather the orange tees used on a daily basis.  If I were to guess the rating and slope from the very tips, I would say it is more like 74/150 or more.

[JESII]

Merion's difficulty today has alot to do with the course preparation...height and thickness of rough, speed of fairways and greens etc...(in my world, speed means firmness as much as it means fast)

Sure, every course varies to some degree, but I think Merion is the greatest example in my experience.

This does not effect the greatness that is Merion, but rather the pure difficulty of finishing a round with a respectable score.

[Larry_Keltto]

I once went on a group trip to SW Ireland (Ballybunion, Lahinch, Waterville, Tralee, Killarney). One of the guys was a GD rater. At the trip's conclusion, he said Killarney definitely was the best architecturally of the bunch, chiefly because he thought it was the most challenging for "good drivers of the ball." I'm still in shock.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne - Merion at 72.4/142 is one of the great walks in the park in all of golf.  You know that better then most!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Wayne

I thought those numbers were low but I got them from the GAP website. Whatever the numbers, Merion is a great walk in the park. I guess I should have said " no pushover at 142" instead. I would never attempt to play a course with a slope of 150 or higher. 142 is my limit.

Steve

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Steve,

  Wasn't your old club very difficult, based on course rating and slope?  (Talamore)

  That course isn't a Top 100, right?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney, Ian & Roger,

I don't think you can ignore the concept of elasticity, the lengthening of a golf course to keep up with technological developments and advances.

When most courses are lengthened, few lengthen the ladies, forward or middle tees.  Most lengthen the back tees or the championship tees in order to retain the challenge for the superior golfer.

With the increased distances off the tee, one has to ask, should a feature designed to integrate with the better golfer's game be allowed to become obsolete ?

Should the better golfer, with the aid of high tech, be permitted to avoid and ignore those features specifically designed to test his game ?

I think, not.

Enter "championship" or extended back tees.

Where the land is available, utilizing elasticity to preserve the architectural integrity of a golf couirse, especially a NEW golf course, which is absent history, tradition or a pedigree, makes sense in the context of rankings or image.

I may not like that, but, that's what I perceive the reality to be.

Lengthening selective tees can be inexpensive and doesn't intrude on 95 % of the membership.

This dilema has been accelerated due to the lack of action on the part of the governing bodies of golf, but, until they gain control of the issue, in the real world of golf today, and not the fantasy world that GCA.com tends to lean toward, lengthening can make sense and improve ratings/rankings.

I love Hidden Creek as it is.

But, that doesn't mean that the introduction of elasticity wouldn't enhance the playing experience for a broader spectrum of golfer.

Today, be it the media, raters or macho types, size matters.
That's the reality of the era or trend we're in.

It also seems to be a dilema that the governing bodies of golf keep failing to understand.  They don't seem to get how it creates stress on local golf clubs.  But, that's another thread.

[wsmorrison]

Geoff and Steve,

Right you are, a great walk in the park.  And often a lesson in humility at the same time  

Looking forward to seeing youse guys in the Spring!  Although it feels nearly Spring-like these days.  I had 5 birdies and shot my low round of the year yesterday.  I'm sure I'll be back to my old self tomorrow  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I think Garden City has held up pretty good all things considered! (with some tee movement)

[size=20]KILL THE TIGERS! ! ! ![/size]

[/color]

Happy New Year to y'all, especially dose down in dat Big Easy!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

That's true, however, some holes that could have used some additional length to preserve the challenge for the better player are land locked.

# 16 and # 10 come to mind immediately.

The cross bunker in the front of # 17 is now out of play most of the time as are the cross bunkers on # 11.

There's pressure building to lengthen the course.
I'm in favor of lengthening as long as it's not counter to the architectural integrity and flavor of the golf course.

ND is a 9 point underdog so they've got their work cut out for them.

If the BCS is going to be successful, they've got to hold all games on neutral fields.

USC vs Michigan is a home game for USC as is LSU"s game
Teams shouldn't gain a homefield advantage when engaged in a playoff system.

Back to golf.

The deception at GCGC is the partial blindness created by the fallaway greens on # 10 and # 13, and the ground level greens partially obscured by the fronting terrain.

# 1, # 2, # 3, # 9, # 11 and # 15 can present less than a clearly defined target for the golfer.

In addition, tee shots on # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 7, # 10, # 14 and # 17 present elements of blindness as well.

And while the fairways are generous, doubt and the wind can affect the golfers ability to judge and execute the required shot.  Hence, the deception continues despite the familiarity.

For a course as relatively flat as GCGC is, it's surprising how uncomfortable it can make a golfer feel.

Hidden Creek has some of the same elements.

Holes # 1, # 2, # 3, # 8, # 9, # 10, # 11, # 12 come to mind.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You wrote, "I don't think you can ignore the concept of elasticity, the lengthening of a golf course to keep up with technological developments and advances."

And also, "That's true, however, some holes that could have used some additional length to preserve the challenge for the better player are land locked."

So is it safe to say that you equate distance with challenge? Also, that you believe that added length preserves the challenge?

I think those concepts are misleading and incorrect (not picking on you; your statements are echoed by others). Consider the 15th hole at Bethpage Black.

This hole is considered by many to be about as tough a golf hole as ever created. It was lengthened for the 2002 Open, yet the new far back tees weren't even given consideration for use because the USGA felt that it would make the hole far too difficult.

So, playing the hole from the tee box in front of that, this still being a lengthened hole, was the original design challenge preserved?

I say no, and not even from the tees not used is it.

When Tilly designed it, the approach shot that he envisioned and that were played to it would come in at a very low angle to the green. This made holding it difficult and getting close to a particular pin location near impossible. Fairway woods and long irons were what he expected even the accomplished player to be hitting into it.

At the 2002 Open, the players were hitting mid to short irons even from the longer tee and the shots were coming in high and soft. That it played as the most difficult of all the holes for the Open, as well as the one generating the most foul language among the players , is testimony to the hole's ability to stand the test of time.

One thing it no longer does is play as it was originally designed to.

I bring this up because, whereas difficulty certainly is an aspect of design, I believe that CHALLENGE as a design element is becoming a thing of the past.

Challenge is more than choice; it is also a singularly specific task set before the player. A great example of this is the 12th hole at AGNC. A less accomplished player might even be so afraid of hitting their shot that they lay the ball up just short of Rae's Creek. Yet in doing so, the challenge of the hole still exists on the next shot. The green complex is so brilliant that it demands near-perfection to the shot played into it to have any chance of it being reasonably close to the hole. It presents a challenge of a singular nature.

There are other holes where the challenge is actually a series of shots; that is proper fairway placement of drive followed by proper placement of second to give the player a chance at a good approach shot. Many times, the lengthening of a hole takes these variables, and the challenge of strategic choices, out.

There are many a grand course of the past that has lost it's greatness because a lengthening ended up destroying the challenges that made it great rather than preserving them for today's player, equipment and game.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You wrote, "I don't think you can ignore the concept of elasticity, the lengthening of a golf course to keep up with technological developments and advances."

And also, "That's true, however, some holes that could have used some additional length to preserve the challenge for the better player are land locked."

So is it safe to say that you equate distance with challenge? Also, that you believe that added length preserves the challenge?

YES, when the added distance returns the architectural features meant to integrate with the golfers game, back into play.   It's a fairly simple concept.[/color]

I think those concepts are misleading and incorrect (not picking on you; your statements are echoed by others). Consider the 15th hole at Bethpage Black.

This hole is considered by many to be about as tough a golf hole as ever created. It was lengthened for the 2002 Open, yet the new far back tees weren't even given consideration for use because the USGA felt that it would make the hole far too difficult.

You're confused.
That was lengthening the hole for pure length, to make the approach longer, more difficult, and not to return features in the DZ back into play.[/color]

So, playing the hole from the tee box in front of that, this still being a lengthened hole, was the original design challenge preserved?

I say no, and not even from the tees not used is it.

When Tilly designed it, the approach shot that he envisioned and that were played to it would come in at a very low angle to the green. This made holding it difficult and getting close to a particular pin location near impossible. Fairway woods and long irons were what he expected even the accomplished player to be hitting into it.

This is an apples and oranges discussion.
I"m referencing the DZ and the architectural features that the golfer is meant to interface with and you're referencing duplicating the intent of the original approach shot.

While there's a relationship between the two, it's impossible to accomodate both given the influence of hi-tech on distance.[/color]

At the 2002 Open, the players were hitting mid to short irons even from the longer tee and the shots were coming in high and soft. That it played as the most difficult of all the holes for the Open, as well as the one generating the most foul language among the players , is testimony to the hole's ability to stand the test of time.

The fairways were also narrowed significantly and the rough was allowed to grow to brutal heights and thickness.[/color]

One thing it no longer does is play as it was originally designed to.

I bring this up because, whereas difficulty certainly is an aspect of design, I believe that CHALLENGE as a design element is becoming a thing of the past.

I would agree with that with respect to the better players, the challenge has been diminished by hi-tech.[/color]

Challenge is more than choice; it is also a singularly specific task set before the player. A great example of this is the 12th hole at AGNC.

A less accomplished player might even be so afraid of hitting their shot that they lay the ball up just short of Rae's Creek.

I don't see that as a viable option.
The hole plays 155 from the Masters tees and 145 from the Members tees, and laying up can present a dicier shot than that from the tee.[/color]

Yet in doing so, the challenge of the hole still exists on the next shot. The green complex is so brilliant that it demands near-perfection to the shot played into it to have any chance of it being reasonably close to the hole. It presents a challenge of a singular nature.

Almost all par 3's present a challenge of a singular nature.
They inherently present "target" golf.[/color]

There are other holes where the challenge is actually a series of shots; that is proper fairway placement of drive followed by proper placement of second to give the player a chance at a good approach shot. Many times, the lengthening of a hole takes these variables, and the challenge of strategic choices, out.

That may be, but, that's not what I"m referencing.

I"m referencing the return of the architectural features to the DZ, and the only way to do that is to extend the tee such that drives from that tee encounter the architectural features that the designer meant for their games to integrate with.[/color]

There are many a grand course of the past that has lost it's greatness because a lengthening ended up destroying the challenges that made it great rather than preserving them for today's player, equipment and game.

Again, that may be, but, that's not what I'm referencing.
I'm referencing the RETURN of those challenges back into play for the better golfer, and absent a dial back on the ball and equipment, the only way to accomplish that is by extending the tees.[/color]

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I understand completely what you were refering to. I don't believe you understood some of what I said (I take the fault as I might not have been clear enough), but I also contend that your supposition, "I don't think you can ignore the concept of elasticity, the lengthening of a golf course to keep up with technological developments and advances..." is one that is flawed.

You yourself admit as much when you stated, "This is an apples and oranges discussion... I"m referencing the DZ and the architectural features that the golfer is meant to interface with and you're referencing duplicating the intent of the original approach shot... While there's a relationship between the two, it's impossible to accomodate both given the influence of hi-tech on distance..."

This was in reference to my example of the 15th on BB and how lengthening the hole did not bring "the challenge for the better player..." back. This is the original challenge of how the green complex was designed to interface with the approach shots played into it.

Yes, lengthening a hole may bring bunkers and other architectural features back into play from the tee, but thefact is that lengthening a hole alone does not bring ALL of the features back into play as they were meant to challenge the player. Today's 7-iron allows today's golf ball to fly higher and further and land softer than yesterday's 4-iron.

If a green was designed with bunkers that would come into play because a slightly off-line shot would make this happen whereas a higher-played shorter-iron shot allows for far less ball movement on the green. In other words, a low 4-iron a bit hot will always go over or to the side and into trouble whereas a high soft 7-iron will only stray a bit right or left yet stay on the green.

My point is that more than length is needed to return a hole to its original challenge when technology has taken it away. Fairway narrowing and imaginative shaping of it to create more difficult landing areas and to bring shot angles back to what the architect envisioned. Bunker movement done with this in mind can also help when done properly.

You seemed to miss my point about #12 at ANGC when you commented that "I don't see that as a viable option.
The hole plays 155 from the Masters tees and 145 from the Members tees, and laying up can present a dicier shot than that from the tee..."

That was EXACTLY my point, that is that length doesn't necessarily create the challenge on ahole even when it is singular in nature.

Again, when you state, "I'm referencing the RETURN of those challenges back into play for the better golfer, and absent a dial back on the ball and equipment, the only way to accomplish that is by extending the tees..." you are missing what I meant.

I believe that lengthening a course is a good start but is not the only or even the best way to aid a course in "RETURN of those challenges back into play for the better golfer." It is a combination of things that best brings this about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

If the tee at # 12 was moved back, the challenge would be enhanced or could be enhanced to the point of impossible.

It's no different than the 17th at Sand Hills.
From the lower tee it's a challenging hole.
From the upper, abandoned tee, it's nearly impossible.

As to par 4's, hi-tech has forced tees to be moved back to bring the features in the DZ back into play, however, since the greens can't be moved, it's impossible to replicate the approach even from the intended or original DZ.

The only way to do that would be to move the green and in the great majority of cases, that's impossible.

[JSlonis]

Pat brings up a good point regarding elasticity, especially as it relates to Hidden Creek.  There are endless possibilities to lengthen that course if that is what the club wished.

I love the golf course and had a chance to play it quite a few times this fall with our course being closed.  Ian is a good friend of mine and we've had a few discussions about the difficulty and ratings of Hidden Creek.  The course is very deserving of it's high praise, and I think it could be even better with some more "teeth" to it.

To me, the course is an outstanding members course.  While the greens provide a tremendous challenge to all levels of player, I think the lack of length and the wider width of the holes without significantly penal fairway bunkers make the course easier than it could be for the better player.  I believe the back tee yardage is 6872.  For a course that is relatively flat and is supposed to play on the firm side, that is short in this day of technology.  While I'm a big fan of the width in the design, outside of a few holes, there isn't much to worry about off the tee.

I certainly wouldn't make changes just for the sake of it.  Ultimately a club has to decide on what they want to be.  Roger definitely has created and cultivated the club to be a very special place.  Given the scale of the design, the golf course definitely has the room to add yardage and it also has the ability to create a greater challenge off the tee.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Phil

The extra length on BB #15 would have been fine and even more length could have been added IF the USGA did not stupidly narrow the fairway such that the optimal angle (on the left) is in deep rough.  They did the same thing on numerous holes 5,6,12,13,15 at a minimum and those rough lines are still in play.

On 15 specifically, the left side of the Tillinghast fairway alloed a lower shot short of the green to bypass the deep front bunker and run up the green. Anywhere in the current USGA fairway requires a carry over the bunker.  Its a bad setup IMHO.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Hidden Creek has grown on me with each play (a total of four rounds now).  It is certainly a wonderful golf course and worthy of its position in GW Top 100.

I had two comments on the course which originally subjected my to some degree of criticism from this crowd.

As directly related to the golf course I agree with Jaimie and specifically I commented that the hazards (bunkers) did not create enough of a penalty where they were avoided at all costs.  They seemed relatively easy to play from - even the pit short center on #8 was an easy pitch to the green.  The great heathland courses that I loved best were Ganton and Woodhall Spa and no one in their right minds got near those bunkers.  HC as good as it is could use a bit more of that.

My only other comment was that Ron Whitten wrote an article on Hidden Creek and Friars Head at the same time.  I thought that is disservice to Friars Head which IMHO is a course for the ages and among the best in the world.  HC for all its great merits and its deserved ranking in the Top 100 Modern (top 50 perhaps) is no Friars Head.

FH has been tweeked every year since it opened and to its benefit.  I have not heard of modification to HC but I hope they do what is necessary to make it the best course for their membership whatever those modification might be.

[Phil_the_Author]

Geoffrey,

You know that I am in complete agreement with everything you said about BB & #15. I made an all-world birdie one time from the edge of the left rough by bouncing a 4-iron off the upper left hillside taking a 90 degree bounce to about 3 inches from the pin.

My disagreement with Pat's assessment is hisasis on lengthening as the means to restore challenge whereas I believe that is only a single aspect and though important, not always the most when it comes to renovating a hole or a course to bring back challenge and playability.

That is why what rees did with the 4th hole on the Black stands out for me. Yes, the tee was moved a bit further back, but it was the moving forward of the left corner bunker that recreated the thought process to the hole. Many of the player's, if not most, were unable to carry the edge and take advantage of the left kick down the hill and so had to play right of it, thus creating a longer second shot. As a result, most were placed to the right of the green and just short of paralell to it. We both know that the further back  one can get the ball there the easier the pitch is into whatever pin location there is.

This aspect of the hole was recreated them for the players, not by the lengthening of the hole, but because of the movement of the bunker complex. It was these choices that Tilly built into the hole.

Still, on Sunday, Tiger whumped a drive that carried the bunker and took the kick left, rolling out to a yard short of the fairway end at the base of the bunker. One of the greatest drives I've ever seen on the hole, and I've seen more than a few. He made par despite his advantage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

A good parallel might be ANGC.

The members tees have moved little in 72 years, but, the Masters tees have been lengthened considerably to preserve the challenge for the better player.

I think HC has the luxury of being able to extend certain tees.

One of the things I really like about HC is the fairway width.
Like GCGC and ANGC it's generous.

With balls that go straighter and farther, extending tees to return architectural features, back into play, for the better golfer, especially considering the width of the fairways, would seem to be a prudent undertaking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My disagreement with Pat's assessment is his basis on lengthening as the means to restore challenge whereas I believe that is only a single aspect and though important, not always the most when it comes to renovating a hole or a course to bring back challenge and playability.

So what, it's the simplest way to address part of the problem, without reconfiguring the entire hole, so why not embark upon it ?

You seem to suggest radical redesign as the "complete" method for restoring the architectural and shot "integrity" of the golf course.

If every local golf course embarked upon that journey, NO Architect's work would survive.

Your methodology is far more dangerous.

And, what would happen to your redesigned golf course if the ball and equipment were dialed back ?  Disaster

Your suggestion is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous and largely dependent upon having the necessary real estate at both ends of the hole.

That is why what rees did with the 4th hole on the Black stands out for me. Yes, the tee was moved a bit further back, but it was the moving forward of the left corner bunker that recreated the thought process to the hole.

If every course began to redesign each hole, you'd have nothing left of the architects original work, save for maybe a few greens.

You would seek the wholesale destruction of golf coiurses as we know them.  That's an alternative that may come to pass if the USGA and R&A don't do something about the ball and equipment in the next year or two.

Many of the player's, if not most, were unable to carry the edge and take advantage of the left kick down the hill and so had to play right of it, thus creating a longer second shot. As a result, most were placed to the right of the green and just short of paralell to it. We both know that the further back  one can get the ball there the easier the pitch is into whatever pin location there is.

Making internal design changes for four days out of 3,652-3 days doesn't seem to make much sense to me, and it makes even less sense for zero days out of 3,652-3 days for clubs that don't host Major Tournaments

This aspect of the hole was recreated them for the players, not by the lengthening of the hole, but because of the movement of the bunker complex. It was these choices that Tilly built into the hole.

Are you saying that you advocate the wholesale redesigning of AWT's work in order to factor in "today's play, as opposed to lengthening the holes as the initial step, and then waiting to see what happens in the next 1-2 years ?

Still, on Sunday, Tiger whumped a drive that carried the bunker and took the kick left, rolling out to a yard short of the fairway end at the base of the bunker. One of the greatest drives I've ever seen on the hole, and I've seen more than a few. He made par despite his advantage.

One guy, out of the hundreds of thousands who will have played the golf course over the next ten years ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat, you are still missing what I am trying to state. You stated, "You seem to suggest radical redesign as the "complete" method for restoring the architectural and shot "integrity" of the golf course."

That is exactly what I am NOT STATING.

I used the example of the 4th hole on the Black as an example of where added distance alone was not enough to restore the hole's challenge, but rather a slight movement of a bunker IN ADDITION to the length did.

All along I've simply been trying to state that distance for distance sake does not necessarily restore the challenge to a hole. Where the tee is placed in relation to the lengthening can make a great difference.

Yes, I am all for adding length, just doing it intelligently rather than blindly and calling it an improvement.

Does that make more sense?  

You asked, "And, what would happen to your redesigned golf course if the ball and equipment were dialed back ?  Disaster"

It would be the same disaster as you would create by moving tees further back - a reworking of the work done would be required if what you suppose actually occurs regardless of whether it was just distance or a combination of things. Also, you can't in any way believe that there will be a ball and equipment dialing back? Stoppage yes; reversal, never.

You asked, "Are you saying that you advocate the wholesale redesigning of AWT's work in order to factor in "today's play, as opposed to lengthening the holes as the initial step, and then waiting to see what happens in the next 1-2 years ?"

NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!! Where would you get that idea from ANYTHING that I wrote? All I have said is that lengthening a hole doesn't necessarily bring back the original challenge to it.
 
You stated, "If every course began to redesign each hole, you'd have nothing left of the architects original work, save for maybe a few greens... You would seek the wholesale destruction of golf coiurses as we know them.  That's an alternative that may come to pass if the USGA and R&A don't do something about the ball and equipment in the next year or two."

Again; I NEVER SUGGESTED ANY SUCH THING!!!!!!! You are reading FAR TOO MUCH into what I stated.

You finished with, "One guy, out of the hundreds of thousands who will have played the golf course over the next ten years ?"

You are wrong about this as well, as I have hit a drive down to that same spot. So that makes at least two of us. Of course my ego got the better of me and I laced a long iron over the green and down to the roadside in the gully beyond!

Pat, there are a good number of players who can reach that spot with a perfect drive and that is how Tilly designed the hole to play.