[johnk]

Most times when I opine out loud that Pasatiempo is a harder course than Spyglass, no one believes me.  Having played both
fairly regularly for the last 6mos, here's my breakdown, in terms of the difficulty of making a par on a given hole.  
 
          Pasa                 Glass
 1          8                      3
 2          7                      3
 3          9*                    3
 4          4                      4
 5          5                      5
 6          3*                    7
 7          4                      3                    
 8          5                      4
 9          4                      7
10          9*                    4
11          7*                    3
12          5                      4*  
13          3                      6
14          6                      6*
15          2                      2
16          7*                    7
17          3                      2
18          5                      3

Holes with a * are the most likely to create doubles or worse

I usually play Glass from the Golds and Pasa from the blues.  Glass from the blues makes a one or two point difference mainly on 5, 6, 13, 16, 18.

I think Pasa is harder, and I certainly score worse there (mid to high 80s) than at Spyglass (mid to low 80s).  I think its because there are about 7 holes at Spyglass that give you a good chance to make par, and outta the other 12, you're gonna have a chance at least on 6.  At Pasa, you have about 4 holes where you should make par, and there are about 7 where you feel like a par is a birdie.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I haven't had my coffee yet, so that is my excuse, but could you explain what the various numbers mean?  Is it a scale from 1-10 with 10 being most difficult?

[THuckaby2]

JK:

Who's ever disagreed with you on this?  No one with any sense, logic, or brain anyway.  

The course ratings alone say enough.  Those are:

Pasa:
Blue     70        72.5     136      6444
White   70        71.0     132      6125

Spyglass
Blue     72        75.5     147      6938
Gold     72        73.2     144      6522
White   72        71.4     137      6123


Just relate the course rating to the par.  You'll see that only from the tips is Spyglass a tougher course for the better golfer.  And that's because that added distance makes the hazards and relatively difficult greens just that much more problematic.

More telling is the white tees at each course... Pasa is obviously WAY more difficult, at absolutely the same yardage.

Now slope is a different story... the bogey golfer will have a tougher time at Spyglass than at Pasa, because of the greater presence of hazards, not to mention huge length difference if he is silly enough to play the tips at the Glass.

In any case, course rating says enough, for most people in here anyway..  

If I were a betting man, I'd make my bets this way:

12 handicaps and below, Pasa is a way tougher course, you will score far closer to your handicap at Spyglass;

13-18 handicaps:  it's gonna be about equal;

18 and above:  you'll do better at Pasa.

TH

[johnk]

Kevin,

Yes, it's a 1 - 10 with 10 being most difficult. Meaning that it would take a miracle for a non-pro to make a par on that hole...

And thank TH for relating this to CR... See, the CR system works pretty darned well!  I also agree on your breakdown of hcp's and relative difficulty.  Also a win for slope!

Even though I just agreed with your eminent logic, I somehow feel that the CR difference from the white and the blue at Pasa is too high.  I feel the Pasa CR could easily be something like:

Blue   70   73.5
White 70   72.3

Cause if spy plays 3.5 shots harder than par for the scratch golfer from the blues, I think Pasa does too... and the whites aren't really much different.

johnk

[Joel_Stewart]

Pasatiempo like most Mackenzie courses is very difficult course to putt.  

Spyglass tee to green will kill most people.

[THuckaby2]

JK:  well then you are just going to have to become a course rater (in the far more honorable definition of those words) and do something about it!

Of course you do know there is so little subjectivity in that process, if the numbers come out somehow not to your liking, well, blame the USGA.  

To me it all seems right on, at both courses.  

TH

[Mike Benham]

Pasatiempo like most Mackenzie courses is very difficult course to putt.  

Spyglass tee to green will kill most people tee to green.

Joel - ditto the putting on Pasa's greens but add to that the difficulty in chipping close and recovery shots from missing the green.

I have never played a round at Pasa with less than 30 putts ...  

[THuckaby2]

I doubt Tiger freakin' Woods or Ben Crenshaw or whoever else you want to name who putts well and has a great short game often gets less than 30 putts at Pasa... and the greens are generally small!

A wise man just brought up a great point on the telephone though, thinking this through better... Now of course Phil's recent 62 at Spyglass goes against this, but generally, one would have to guess at the VERY top levels, Pasa can be overpowered far easier than Spyglass, just due to incredible distance.  That is, Pasa really doesn't have a par 5... and will allow a LOT of wedges in... So I can see - and do see, at the Western Intercollegiate - far more really low scores at Pasa than at Spyglass.

It's a great comparison - great topic, John.  Two very different courses, both bitches, in different ways, making for very interesting comparisons.

TH

[johnk]

Yeah at the collegiate levels, I think Pasatiempo can be overpowered.  Of course at the the very top level, so can Spy or any other course on the face of the earth.

In fact, Pasa is exactly the course that succumbs to power.  Note that the skilled women's senior ams did not score well at all, even though they are scratch, probably because they do not have the power.

If you can easily fly it 300 yds, the following par 4 holes get a lot easier at Ptemp: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17.  The par 5s are all easily reachable.  Still it is just a par 70, so a 64 is not outrageously low.

So yeah, young college bucks can overpower Pasa, and probably not Spyglass.  However, that's a rarefied world, since you have to have a lot more distance than average single digit players have to score well at Pasa..

[Sean Leary]

I can't tell which one is harder, but I do know that they both seem to play much longer than their distances, particularly Pasa.  The uphill holes seem to add more distance than the downhill holes take off.

[THuckaby2]

Yeah at the collegiate levels, I think Pasatiempo can be overpowered.  Of course at the the very top level, so can Spy or any other course on the face of the earth.

In fact, Pasa is exactly the course that succumbs to power.  Note that the skilled women's senior ams did not score well at all, even though they are scratch, probably because they do not have the power.

If you can easily fly it 300 yds, the following par 4 holes get a lot easier at Ptemp: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17.  The par 5s are all easily reachable.  Still it is just a par 70, so a 64 is not outrageously low.

So yeah, young college bucks can overpower Pasa, and probably not Spyglass.  However, that's a rarefied world, since you have to have a lot more distance than average single digit players have to score well at Pasa..

JK - absolutely agreed, every word of that, well said.  This all does apply just to the very, very best players.

Re everyone else, my estimates in my first post still stand.

But this does continue to be very interesting for sure.

TH

[Evan_Green]

 
          Pasa                 Glass
 1          8                      3
 2          7                      3
 3          9*                    3
 4          4                      4
 5          5                      5
 6          3*                    7
 7          4                      3                    
 8          5                      4
 9          4                      7
10          9*                    4
11          7*                    3
12          5                      4*  
13          3                      6
14          6                      6*
15          2                      2
16          7*                    7
17          3                      2
18          5                      3

Holes with a * are the most likely to create doubles or worse

John-

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your ratings of some of the holes at Spyglass.

#6 and #8 have been rated some of the toughest holes on the PGA tour. #6 being a 7 may be low IMO given the difficulty of the green.

And #8 only being a 4? I think its the hardest hole at Spyglass.


Also on a side note, I think #1 at Pasa at 465 yds should be a "10" and certainly star worthy because if you miss the fairway your either out of bounds or chipping back into the fairway and 6 can be very easily had. Has to be one of the most brutal opening holes in golf (Was originally a par 5 with no driving range!)

Great courses both of them and very testing.

[johnk]

Evan,

you could be right, but the PGA Tour hole rankings don't always make sense to me.  Would you believe that #6 at Poppy Hills, played from 180 yds was one of the top 3 toughest par-3s in 2003?  #11 at Poppy was in the top 10 - and they always play the red pin during the tourney.  Odd.

I thought a lot about #8, and it just came down to the fact that I have made par there regularly.  If you can hit it up to 160yds out, sticking to the left side, it's not brutally long... but it does have one of the trickiest surfaces at SH, so maybe it's a 5 or 6.  #6 from the back, now that may be harder than a 7, but a good drive does a lot for you there.  #6 is definitely tougher than #8 from what I've observed.

And #1 at Pasa, I also agree, except that I've seen Mike Benham make par there 2 outta 2 times, so I couldn't make that a 10, now could I

[A_Clay_Man]

John K, First, I will confess to not having golfed Pasa since any renovation work, or, the changing of par on #1. But I too have to question some of your numbers regarding Spy. But I am biased.

What really bothers me, is the premise. You seem to build your argument on difficulty. Not just anybodies difficulty, but yours.

Is this the way best to evaluate GCA?

re Poppy's par 3's. Those two greens 6 and 11 are extremely tricky to read, let alone hit, as any I know of. They are on  somewhat of a similar scale with the 2 or 20 holes out there, like Bad Baby.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

Just where did John ever say he was even trying to evaluate architecture?

That's obviously not the question here at all.  The question is which course plays tougher in reality, and John's right that most would just assume it's Spyglass.

The evaluation of architecture is COMPLETELY different from this question.

But does that make John's question somehow unworthy?

I find the comparisons fascinating, myself.

TH

[Carlyle Rood]

JK:

Who's ever disagreed with you on this?  No one with any sense, logic, or brain anyway.  

The course ratings alone say enough.  Those are:

Pasa:
Blue     70        72.5     136      6444
White   70        71.0     132      6125

Spyglass
Blue     72        75.5     147      6938
Gold     72        73.2     144      6522
White   72        71.4     137      6123

Just relate the course rating to the par....

According to the USGA:

"Course rating is a gauge of difficulty for the scratch player."

"Slope ratings are mathematical derivations of the course and bogey ratings and indicate the measurement of the relative difficulty for those who are not scratch players."

They go on to explain that the par for the course has already been factored into both calculations (particularly since the course rating is part of the slope rating, as well).  Comparing the par to either rating is irrelevant (and incorrect) because it's already been included in both ratings.

Therefore, BOTH ratings suggest that Spyglass is more difficult than Pasatiempo.

C

[Mike Nuzzo]

Therefore, BOTH ratings suggest that Spyglass is more difficult than Pasatiempo.

The rating is the score a scratch player most likely will shoot regardless of par - agreed.
Tom is stating that the difficulty of shooting par or better at Pasa is more difficult - which is correct - the par is below the rating.
not which course yields lower scores = pasa
cheers

[THuckaby2]

C:

You are preaching to the choir there, my friend.  Remember I have been deeply involved in that process for a few years now.

Your have a key fact misinterpreted, which makes me disagree with your conclusion.

The only way in which par is "factored in" to course rating and slope is that we use standard distances for tee shots and fairway shots for each of the scratch and the bogey, and thus some holes are expected to be reached in 1, 2, or 3 shots for each (or not).  That's it.  Par has no other relevance whatsoever.  It is certainly not "already included in the ratings"... not how I think you are thinking, anyway.

Putting it VERY simply, course rating is derived from the severity of obstacles or lack thereof creating effective changes to the distance involved in the course.  Slope is indeed the mathematical difference between this and the bogey rating (the equivalent of course rating for the bogey golfer).

SO... my conclusion is that the difference between a course's stated par and its course rating is a very good indicator of its difficulty for the scratch; and a course's bogey rating (and how much over stated par that is) is a good indicator of its difficulty for the bogey.  To me this seems fair;  par does have a relevance in this regard... A course with a rating signifcantly over it's stated par is going to be quite difficult, because all things being otherwise equal and with no adjustments at all, the rating ought to come out right at par.  Thus Pasa SHOULD BE a 70.0, Spyglass should be a 72.0, and therefore they start from two different reference points before they get the final number.

You might disagree and base it purely on the course rating number, but that discounts a relatitivity that to me seems important.

And taking it this way, well, I've already given my conclusions.  I used slope as an approximation for evaluation of how it goes for the bogey because bogey rating was unvailable and I sure as hell was too lazy to reverse the math to determine it.  

[Carlyle Rood]

Tom is stating that the difficulty of shooting par or better at Pasa is more difficult - which is correct - the par is below the rating.  Not which course yields lower scores - in which cast it would be pasa
cheers

Ah, but par is the only number that isn't affected by the difficulty of the course.  It's only relevant as it applies to the adjustments made in the course, bogey, and slope ratings.  And because par has already been calculated within those ratings, comparing the outcome of those ratings to par is both misleading and irrelevant.

[THuckaby2]

BTW, Mike sums this up correctly also.  And way way way way better than I just did.

 

[THuckaby2]

C:  I'll help you overcome this.  Here are the definitions, from the Course Rating Primer on the USGA web site:


Course Rating: The evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers assuming normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal point (72.5), and is based on yardage, effective playing length corrections and other obstacles that affect play for the scratch golfer.  

Bogey Rating: The evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for bogey golfers assuming normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal point (92.1), and is based on yardage, effective playing length corrections and other obstacles that affect play for the bogey golfer.

Slope Rating: The USGA’s mark that indicates the measurement of the relative playing difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers.  It is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the Course Rating for the same set of tees on the same course and is expressed as a whole number from 55 to 155."

Now just where is par ever mentioned?  I don't see where you get the notion that par is "factored into" course rating, other than maybe how I described before.

The role it plays is what I stated in the previous post.  Maybe that's what you meant?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's take it how Mike stated it.  If you base it on raw number, that two stroke increase in par will mean that damn near all the time most players will end up with a higher number at Spyglass.

But most will be more over par at Pasa.

Normally I am no fan of par and think it has too much relevance.  But in this discussion, it is a good barometer.

TH

[Mike Nuzzo]

And because par has already been calculated within those ratings, comparing the outcome of those ratings to par is both misleading and irrelevant.

I hear you.  
I just try and break 80.  These days 85.

[Carlyle Rood]

Now just where is par ever mentioned?  I don't see where you get the notion that par is "factored into" course rating, other than maybe how I described before.

An article I read on the USGA website inferred that par was used to adjust the course rating (and, therefore, slope rating since course rating affects the slope).  However, I just reviewed the article again, and I think the inference belongs to me and not the USGA.

That being said, what difference does it make what the par on the course is when considering its difficulty?  I just don't comprehend why the likelihood of shooting par affects the difficulty when comparing Pasatiempo to Spyglass (or anywhere else).

Let's compare a more practical pair of courses: Pebble Beach and...Pebble Beach.  The USGA walks in for the U.S. Open.  Par of 72?  Nah.  This week, par is 71.  Holy cow!  This course is WAY more difficult than it was yesterday!  Look how much harder it will be to shoot par.  

It may very well be more difficult to shoot 70 at Pasatiempo than it is to shoot 72 at Spyglass.  But why select par as your barometer.  Why not compare shooting 4 or 5 under par at each course?  Why not compare shooting 18 over on each course?

Does that mean that Par 3s are inherently more difficult than Par 4s?  Would the difficulty of a Par 3 be affected if you backed the tees up thirty yards?  Sure it would.  It's much more difficult to hit the ball accurately over longer distances.

What if you backed the tees up another seventy yards?  It's getting more and more difficult; but, wait!  This par 3 is almost three hundred yards now.  My mistake, this is just a harmless little par 4 now!    Suddenly this menacing hole has become far less difficult because you're required to traverse more real estate, hit the ball significantly further, and utilize greater accuracy and precision.

Alright.  So par may not be the best gauge.  Instead, what if we had a weighted formula that accounted the difficulty of the course relative to the distances you are required to hit ball, as affected by the obstacles you encounter, played under normal conditions in customary weater?  You could have formulas for both scratch golfers and bogey golfers.  Now THAT would be a more realistic way to gauge the difficulty of a golf course!

[THuckaby2]

Carlyle:

That is all well said and I don't disagree with a word of it.

You just have two golf courses here where the course ratings - which damn right are a FANTASTIC gauge of diificulty for the better player - are pretty darn similar.  Yes SG from the tips is a couple strokes harder than any tee at Pasa - but one could just say that the distance alone does that... and in any case, those tees are very rarely played... So we then look for other ways to compare the two courses, and well...

We're back to square one.

Believe me - as I say, I am no huge fan of par as any measuring tool.  But if you have two ratings that are each 72.5, well... it's just BORING to say they are equal and leave it at that, especially in a case like this where one course might somehow seem or feel like it's more difficult than the other.  Thus we search for other means of comparison.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()