I really don't believe that

[Patrick_Mucci]

resistance to scoring isn't primarily a function of distance.

In reading the other threads on conditioning and the "Golf Digest" thread, I was trying to determine exactly how one would assess "resistance to scoring" in a context other than length.

My initial reaction was that unusual putting surfaces and/or quirk might be contributors, but then again, how many holes contain either ?

So discarding the nuances of quirk and unusual putting surfaces, is resistance to scoring all about length.

Is it 50 % ?       75 % ?    90 % ?

What short holes (under 350) provide a significant resistance to scoring ?

[Tom_Doak]

The USGA did the research on this when they came up with the slope system years ago.

Length is overwhelmingly the most important factor in setting a course rating and slope.  It is the baseline for a course rating and all the other factors put together rarely move the needle by more than a stroke or two.

[Mark Bourgeois]

In my premiere foray into course rating, Yale, I concluded that technology had altered the course's defenses from tee to green to the greens themselves. The greens didn't get more difficult, the first and second shots got easier. Much easier. Between 1999 and 2012 I was surprised to the point of amazement at how much shorter my second shots were.

Also as a result of technology, I dinged the score for Design Variety and Shot Values. Technology seems to have compressed the relative distances across holes; a difference in par 4 lengths between 365 and 440 seemed to mean a lot more back in the day. I wonder why that is? Could it be driver technology has "advanced" whereas we hit our irons the same distances (hybrids notwithstanding)?

For my own game, I did not find myself scoring any better, 1999 v 2012. Instead of playing the whites as I did when I was younger I just moved back to the blues. Status quo (but longer rounds).

[Phil McDade]

Patrick:

I largely agree with you, although I'd note this caveat. The longer the hole, the more one-dimensional it becomes. If you want to par a par 4 of 450+ yards, there's really only one way to play it.

Shorter holes yield more variety in the way they can be attacked. And a well-designed short hole (leaving par 3s out of the argument for now) can "resist" scoring if the temptation to try for a birdie/eagles yields trouble if the play is poorly executed. I can think of a number of par 4s that are like this: the 17th at Oakmont comes to mind; isn't the 6th at PacDunes one of these? Doesn't Pine Valley have some very short par 4s that are like this?

I did an in-depth look at the short par 4 9th hole at Milwaukee CC during the USGA Mid-Am a few years ago that, under GD criteria, probably would not have rated as being very resistance to scoring -- it averaged just about par for the championship. Yet it yielded a neat array of both under- and over-par scores -- a bunch of birdies and even a few eagles, but also lots of bogeys and others. Those who approached the hole in a less-than-thoughtful way probably viewed its resistance to scoring as pretty high:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37107.0.html

[Bill McKinley]

I really don't believe that resistance to scoring should be significant factor when deciding whether or not a golf course is great. But to answer your question, I do believe length is by far and away the biggest factor in that category.

I would site the 10th hole at Canterbury as a sub 350 yard par 4 that is quite difficult and doesn't get rated as such. Many players will assume its simple for a scratch golfer because its just a utility off the tee and a wedge into the green. But our data has shown that plenty of low handicaps have issues with that hole.

[Josh Tarble]

Patrick,
I must disagree with you for the most part.  Length is definitely the biggest factor.

Think of any one green...would you rather approach it with a 9 iron or a 4 iron.

That being said, a funky green is a great way of infusing a hole with strategy and defending the hole.  The #1 handicap hole at my home course (and my favorite hole) is less than 360 yards, but the slope and contours of the green are such that it must be approached from the proper angle.  In fact, some hole locations are better accessed with longer clubs.  

[Stephen Davis]

Patrick,

I think you are correct in your estimation that in todays world RS is a direct relationship of length. Tom brought up the point about the Slope and Rating being largely based upon length. Unfortunately this is where the game has gone.

[Jud_T]

Patrick,

Meet me on the second tee at Kingsley with a bucket of balls, a 7 iron, lob wedge, putter and and a couple of Xanax and we'll see...

[Mark Saltzman]

I bet the first at National and 9th at Kingsley resist scoring just fine with limited yardage.

How about 7 or 11 at Shinnecock?

[Sean_A]

If resistance to scoring includes greens around surrounds, then I don't think length is the biggest factor.  Its important, but even for a scratch player (assuming we are still on about GD definition), he will often miss between 4-10 greens in a round.  Take in par 3s, short iron approaches, chipping and of course putting and it seems obvious that length is not the most important factor. Additionally, I think the higher one's handicap, the less important length is.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Sean,

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that the majority of golfers can't hit the ball 200 yards with any consistency, if at all.  So by definition a hole over 400 yards becomes difficult.

[Stephen Davis]

We can all think of great short holes that resist scoring. However, I think that when looked at as a whole it is hard to make the argument that RS is not a function of length. Even the pros find it more difficult to get close with a 5 iron than they do a 9 iron. I don't think it is the correct way to look at it, but I am sure the overall length of the course has a direct impact on the RS score.

[Jason Thurman]

Sure there are still tough short holes. But I don't see any argument that distance isn't the PRIMARY factor determining a course's difficulty, with other factors involved as well. Just take a look at what happens when Tour players get on a course that's under 7100 yards or so.

[Jason Topp]

This type of question is better answered by data than opinion.  My understanding of the data is that length strongly correleates with average score and is by far the best predictor of the difficulty of a hole.

[Sven Nilsen]

Add in elevation, and you're on to something.

[Paul Gray]

The USGA did the research on this when they came up with the slope system years ago.

Length is overwhelmingly the most important factor in setting a course rating and slope.  It is the baseline for a course rating and all the other factors put together rarely move the needle by more than a stroke or two.

And the EGU do much the same in England when calculating a course's SSS.

[Dan Boerger]

How can it not be? Sure there will be some "outlier" examples, but it's simple math. If you are x% off your target, the longer your shot (or putt) the greater the net "miss".

[Paul Gray]

I don't for the life of me have any idea why I'm having trouble creating a link but if anyone wants a read:

archive.englishgolfunion.org.uk/documents/Guide_to_SSS.pdf

[Alex Lagowitz]

Pat,

Some of the best short holes are still resistant to scoring.  Think the 10th at Riviera.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here you go Paul-

http://archive.englishgolfunion.org.uk/documents/Guide_to_SSS.pdf

[Paul Gray]

Thanks Jim.

I fear my brain is very much a simple tape recorder. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

A selection of remarks about resistance to scoring on the top 20 toughest courses, those with the highest numbers in that category.
Golf Digest  mag.

"When the wind is blowing, par on many of the holes is an excellent score."
"If your idea of a good time is a fistfight, this is the place for you."

"Is there a better test mentally? Time after time, you have to trust your swing."
"The target areas are wide and forgiving. But when you miss the target, the bunkers will eat you alive

"Every approach shot had a different challenge and a different objective. I've never been more punished by a golf course."
"A course that demands excellent putting, pitching, and bunker play plus driving and approaches. There is a fine line between these greens being very demanding and unfair."
"A strong test of golf with great ocean views and tight, tree-lined holes with difficult greens."
"The most challenging course in Pebble Beach. Its green complexes are the toughest in the area."

"Where is the finesse on the Black? The shortest par 4 is the 2nd hole at 392 yards and uphill, playing closer to 410 yards. It's a big, brawny test."
"Without a doubt the very hardest course I've ever played. It was not fun and I have no desire to play it again."

"The most visually challenging course I have played."
"Playing in a strong wind with the beauty of Lake Michigan is golf at its best. The vistas were amazing but so was the course: challenging but fair, demanding all shots in the bag and penalized bad shots. It's a great test of golf."

"A beast of a course that tests every part of one's game, especially the part between your ears. "
It's even harder in person than it looks on TV. The greens were FAST."

"Well, the intent of this course is to drive good players batty and it succeeds mightily in that. Go in with the proper attitude and a fun time can be had. BUT ... it is as severe as any golf course one will ever play."


"I don't believe the course is fair. Great shots are not always rewarded, sometimes not even playable. If this course were set up with thick rough and slick greens it could be almost unplayable."

"Hard, hard, hard. Tough rough, new longer tees, great Tillinghast green complexes. Certainly one of the best championship courses in the U.S."
"Truly great test of golf with wonderful green sites. I've always viewed it as one of if not the toughest up and down course in the world."

"Wide open fairways still require drives in the correct spot to open up the greens."
"Possibly the most difficult course from 50 yards to the hole The greens are upside-down saucers: You shoot at a 6,000-square foot green, but actually your target is 4,000 square feet."

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2012-01/photos-americas-20-toughest-courses#ixzz2HyB6wTVQ

[Jason Thurman]

Pat,

Some of the best short holes are still resistant to scoring.  Think the 10th at Riviera.

The 10th at Riviera was one of three par 4s at less than 350 yards to play at an over-par scoring average in 2011 (4.025). This fact proves two things:

1. It is POSSIBLE to have a fairly short hole play slightly over par.
2. It is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL for short holes to be resistant to scoring.

In other words, length is still the best predictor of a hole's difficulty.

[Phil McDade]

Pat,

Some of the best short holes are still resistant to scoring.  Think the 10th at Riviera.

The 10th at Riviera was one of three par 4s at less than 350 yards to play at an over-par scoring average in 2011 (4.025). This fact proves two things:

1. It is POSSIBLE to have a fairly short hole play slightly over par.
2. It is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL for short holes to be resistant to scoring.

In other words, length is still the best predictor of a hole's difficulty.

I suppose it would help if we agreed on a definition of "resistant" to scoring.

Riveria's 10th (Jason -- I assume these are from last year's Tour stop) is not resistant to scoring, at least in my book. It plays to what the designer intended -- a par of 4. That doesn't mean it isn't a great hole, or that it's not unusual in terms of resistance to scoring for a hole of its length. But nearly everyone who played it last year -- good week or bad -- parred it (on average).

Resistant to scoring -- to me -- is a half-par hole on the hard side. 4.5 strokes for a par 4.

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, I agree. 10 at Riviera is a great example of a hole that can produce big swings of fortune between different players, but it's not a particularly difficult hole relative to par by any measurement.