[Patrick_Mucci]

If so, can the golf course be deemed to be a course whose primary purpose is NOT for the members enjoyment ?

[John Moore II]

Has resistance to scoring not ALWAYS been a major facet in course design??

-Are Oakmont and Pine Valley really enjoyable (from a scoring standpoint) places for the members to play? For that matter, is Pinehurst #2 enjoyable on a daily basis?

-I feel that the term resistance to scoring can be taken so many ways that it becomes hard to determine an exact meaning for it. I think that all courses were designed, at least in part, to cause the player to hit exacting shots if he wanted to make par's. I think that courses can be very difficult and still quite enjoyable to play, otherwise, PV, Oakmont, Shinnecock, and others would have been bull dozed over years ago.

--Pat--Perhaps additional definition about what you mean exactly is in order, since at this point, as I have said, I think that resistance to scoring has always been a major thought in course design, it not the most major, behind the most basic functionality (drainage, air movement, etc).

[John Mayhugh]

Based on a single experience, I think Oakmont would be fun to play every day.  As long as the rough isn't too bad.

I played last week at a course in KY that's typically considered one of the better public access courses in the state.  They had hosted some Hooters event (I think) and sported rough that was about 5 inches tall just off the fairway.  You can make pretty much any course un-fun with setup.

[Tony Ristola]

Major facet? No. Its apex was when architects were trying to out do Pete Dye. I think the pendulum has swung back a bit from that point.

A course can be tough (for the experts) and serve the members (less tough for them), so tough courses can serve multiple masters. It wouldn't be a course you could zip around and meister the first go, thereby keeping it interesting as conditions and hole & tee locations are bounced around.

On the whole I think a lot of courses are too close to the boredom factor. Play it once and you've seen it all. Just look at how limited the scope of discussion is here.

JKM hit a couple salient points.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Unfortunately, I believe "Resistance to Scoring" became a major facet in the design of MOST modern courses back in the 1980's when GOLF DIGEST started to hammer it home as a central feature of their rankings.

I have no objection to clubs like Oakmont or Pine Valley being founded on the idea of presenting an exceptionally hard course for a membership which wanted just that.  But GOLF DIGEST's criteria put clubs and developers and architects on notice that they couldn't be ranked as a great course if they didn't have a big number for Resistance to Scoring.  That's why Mr. Brauer puts in tees at 7200 yards even though he knows how few people are going to play them.  That's why my clients keep asking me to make the course a little bit longer or a little bit harder, no matter how long or how hard it's already going to be.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"That's why Mr. Brauer puts in tees at 7200 yards even though he knows how few people are going to play them. "

Tom,

You can call me Jeff!   Its also why I make them about 15 x 15 or at most 20 x 20 - to minimize maintenance.

That said, my last three projects - all with tips over 7200 were twice because the developer wanted to stretch the golf course over big property and once because the Texas-Oklahoma Jr. tourney does have some kids playing it every year who need something close to7200. A few years ago, we did work hard on getting three courses longer - the Quarry and the two Wildernesses.  I somehow have a hard time believing, though, that each came out exactly to 7201 yards without some finagaling.

And, while Colbert Hills and the Quarry have the highest slope ratings in their state (which oddly, probably doesn't relate to resistance to scoring in the GD scheme of things) I agree with Tony R that the tide has turned and like to think I design my courses for fun, with lots of kick in banks and other golfer friendly features.

As always, I could be wrong!

[BCrosby]

The concept of resistance to scoring has very deep roots in the history of golf.

Take, for example, the '27 Open. Bobby Jones' subpar winning score sent shock waves through the world of golf.  It was a huge deal, causing all sorts of people to rethink all sorts of golf design issues based on resistance to scoring concerns.

You could argue that RTJ made his reputation by telling golfers they needed to buck up, be men and learn to deal with hard ass courses. And so forth.

My guess is that the early magazine rating systems in the 80's were only reflective of these long standing concerns with scoring.

Bob





 

[Andy Troeger]

I played a course last week at high elevation that was 8100 yards long from the tips with a rating and slope of 78.7/151.

The "regular" tees were 7300 yards! They currently have their third set at 7000 (!!!) but they are in the process of re-setting them at around 6500.

This course was a tad challenging!

[John Moore II]

Andy--what course was that? Sounds like a place I would like to play. 
--I think generally courses like that are excessive, but I still think difficulty/resistance to scoring always has been a major thought in course design. How much fun would a course be (on a daily basis for a membership) if it was short with few hazards and very little to provide any type of challenge?

[BCrosby]

The concept of "resistance to scoring" is a blunt instrument used too often to address some fairly subtle issues. It is used as a substitute for thinking about the tough questions you find at the intersection of design and scoring. (See e.g. MacK, Jones, Simpson and others.)

I am starting to think that the most interesting thing about resistance to scoring and related ideas is their dogged persistence in popular views of what gca ought to be about. After all the courses that have been built, after all the things that have been said and written.... the concept keeps turning up.

Bob 

 

[Andy Troeger]

This was the new course at Promontory in Park City, UT designed by Jack Nicklaus. It is a good course with amazing scenery and very difficult. Personally, my question was whether it would really be fun to play on a regular basis because of the difficulty.

[John Moore II]

Andy--is that course public, or in any way accessible to the public? I will be in Salt Lake in late July and that might be worth a play. I certainly would enjoy playing it all the way back, even if I shoot 100. (go ahead, someone tear into me for saying that after I have complained loudly about pace of play. I bet even shooting 100, I can play in 4 hours.)

[Steve Kline]

JKM - keep in mind he said it is at high altitude. That means the 8,100 is really about 7,300 or less. It's not going to be anything you haven't seen before lengthwise.

[John Moore II]

JKM - keep in mind he said it is at high altitude. That means the 8,100 is really about 7,300 or less. It's not going to be anything you haven't seen before lengthwise.

Yeah, I know, but 8100 just sounds cool.

[Andy Troeger]

Fair point regarding the 8100 yards being at elevation. With the wind and downhill, some of the holes play relatively short compared to the yardage. However, some of the holes (generally #6-13) play both uphill and into the prevailing wind. That stretch plays very long (especially #10 at 536 yards, par 4!)

If you want to see long for the sake of long though there are likely better examples. The course is private, but if you asked nicely might let you play if the timing was right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The concept of resistance to scoring has very deep roots in the history of golf.

Take, for example, the '27 Open. Bobby Jones' subpar winning score sent shock waves through the world of golf.  It was a huge deal, causing all sorts of people to rethink all sorts of golf design issues based on resistance to scoring concerns.

You could argue that RTJ made his reputation by telling golfers they needed to buck up, be men and learn to deal with hard ass courses. And so forth.

My guess is that the early magazine rating systems in the 80's were only reflective of these long standing concerns with scoring.

Bob,

You raise an interesting point.
However, why context resistance to scoring in a U.S. Open to resistance to scoring at the local club level ?

At a club I'm familiar with, a ground swell began to occur to "toughen" up the golf course, to add more length and make the course harder.

I asked, "for whom ?"

They said, "for the members"

I said, "Why, during qualifying for the club championship, out of a field of the 24 best golfers at the club, on a perfect day weather wise, only ONE player broke 80.  So, which members are you talking about ?"

Why is there a tendency to context the play of the greatest golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pro, with the preparation of the playing field at the local level, the "member's course ?   

[Chris Cupit]

Unfortunately, I think so.

Anecdotedly, when re-doing my course almost every single digit handicapper to a man wanted to know "how long" and "how tough" the new course was going to be.

I have always felt an enjoyable course is just that--a course, a journey, with us and downs, hard holes, easy holes, scary shots, fun shots etc.,  The focus on looking at each hole in isolation and attempting to "fix or toughen" it in isolation to the other 17 is unfortunate I think.

My course starts out with a very difficult par 4, easy 5, hard holes #3-#8
Easy/birdie holes #9-#14
Tough finish #15-#18

It has a nice flow and I like having an easy stretch for two reasons:  1.  I really don't enjoy a course that has 18 hard damn holes--they are too much work!  2.  I think by having "easy" holes, you put pressure on the "good" player to make up some ground after a tough start and prior to facing a strong finish.  Failure to make hay on the easy holes frustrates and puts even more pressure on the better player and that's the guy I'm really trying to screw with anyway

[BCrosby]

Pat -

A couple of thoughts.

TOC is a "members'" course. Likewise most of the other courses on the Open rota. Relatively few changes are made to them by way of setup for the Opens.

Likewise, RTJ was building courses for the everyday golfer. His mantra was - to unfairly summarize - hard is good and you'd better learn to love it.

Heck, 6800 to 7000 yard courses were not unusual in the US in the 20's. If you extrapolate for modern driving distances, those courses would have played longer than 8000 yard courses do today. At sea level. I don't know what else they were trying to do if it wasn't to cap scoring.

Or take P'tree ('48) or a number of courses built in the 50's (Firestone, Butler and others). They were all extremely long and very brutal even for everyday member play. Those courses set the tone for a bunch of courses in the Dark Ages.

Resistance to scoring has always played a big part in the mentality of the US golfer. (I'd guess less so for the British/Irish golfer. Why that is, I don't know.)

The concept has not only been around for a very long time.  It has also been one that has influenced (usually for the worse) a lot of golf architecture. I don't think there is very much new about it or that it has a lot more sway now than it used to.

In fact I would argue that r-t-s actually has less influence than it once did. Primarily because of the influence of younger architects like Doak, C&C and others in recent years.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting thoughts, thanks. Some gut reactions:

In the context of Golf Digest's criteria, it all starts sounding very "1984-ish" to me, i.e. every word/phrase means its opposite.

Were the discussions about architecture after Bobby Jones' 1927 win anything like those at Golf Digest headquarters in the 1980s?

It seems to me that resistance to scoring can be quite a sophisticated concept and could play itself out on the ground in interesting ways. The shame is that it's become so one dimensional...

Peter   

[W.H. Cosgrove]

And GD has harmed the growth of the game in its pursuit of resistance to scoring.  The game is difficult enough without emphacizing the difficulty.  How does a new player learn to enjoy the game while losing eight balls, playing in 10 hours and never making a par. 

And we wonder why new players don't stick with the game! 

Going to play White Horse Golf Course in Kingston WA today, slopes of 141, 138, 133 and this is going to be one long round at a pro am! 

[tlavin]

And GD has harmed the growth of the game in its pursuit of resistance to scoring.  The game is difficult enough without emphacizing the difficulty.  How does a new player learn to enjoy the game while losing eight balls, playing in 10 hours and never making a par. 

I think this is a bit of hyperbole.  There are plenty of courses built that don't focus much on resistance to scoring.  They may never make the Top 100, but not that many courses aspire to the lofty perch.  Personally, I think resistance to scoring is a good thing to think about when thinking about the design of a golf course, as long as that isn't the paramount consideration on all holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

I don't think you can view RTS in the sole context of distance.

It's certainly can be a component, but, it's not necessarily the entirety of the issue.

Chris Cupit,

I think you've hit on one of the primary problems associated with clubs that alter holes, namely, isolating one hole from the others.

Viewing the changes on one hole without any consideration or impact on the others.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge to the broad spectrum of golfers at a club.

All to often, a special interest group wants to amend/alter a hole to suit their particular needs with identifying or considering the needs of the other levels of golers in the club.

Thus, as each special interest group ascends to power, or to the point of influencing the power, holes/features get altered in an isolated manner, depending upon the whims of those in power.

Eventually quiltwork rather than continuity becomes the personality of the golf course.

Rarely do you see clubs attempt to systemically analyze the golf course.

Scrutiny and analysis usually rear their heads with specific features and holes.  Sometimes that process expands to incorporate the entire golf course, but, more often than not, the process gets focused on an isolated feature/hole.

Great point. 

# 12 at GCGC might be the poster hole for that process.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

And GD has harmed the growth of the game in its pursuit of resistance to scoring.  The game is difficult enough without emphacizing the difficulty.  How does a new player learn to enjoy the game while losing eight balls, playing in 10 hours and never making a par. 

I think this is a bit of hyperbole.  There are plenty of courses built that don't focus much on resistance to scoring.  They may never make the Top 100, but not that many courses aspire to the lofty perch.  Personally, I think resistance to scoring is a good thing to think about when thinking about the design of a golf course, as long as that isn't the paramount consideration on all holes.

Hyperbole?  Really? 

How may times has a group attempted to change something on your home course and the refrain is, "Oh it will make it too easy."  This is a hard game already.  The whole discussion makes me think that the PGA tour should only play on their tournament courses(arenas) and leave the rest of us to struggle along without the direct comparison.

[Doug Siebert]

BCrosby,

Is that really true?  Yes 6800 to 7000 yards sure seems long with 20s equipment, but don't forget that they were not irrigated so they played a lot shorter when it was dry.  If it had just rained two inches the night before did they really play championships at 7000 yards or did they move up most of the tees to compensate for the fact that you'd lose 60 yards off the tee?  I'll bet they did, but the fact is probably not well documented so it'd be hard to prove today.

[BCrosby]

Doug -

I don't know how you control for lack of irrigation, etc. I can't give you any scientific answers. 

But we do the clubs they approached greens with and they were fw woods or long irons on most par 4's. How long do you have to stretch modern courses to make that happen for good players?

We know from recent tournaments that 7400 plus isn't long enough. I'm not sure what the number is, but I'd guess it begins with an "8".

The larger point is that courses today - even stretched to what we think of as crazy lengths of 7400 yards plus - still don't play as hard as courses of 6800 yards in the '20's. In fact, they play like 6400 yard, middling length courses would have back in the Golden Age.

The point being that there are plenty of historical precedents for concerns about resistance to scoring. It's always been a part of golf culture. And if you do apples to apples course comparisons, our courses (even our recently stretched courses) are marshmellows compared to "long" courses from 80 or 90 years ago.

Bob 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()