[THuckaby2]

But the perception of slope rating is interesting. At least half or more American golfers think a high slope rating indicates the difficutly of a golf course for all golfers and that's not necessarily so. There are probably a good number of clients out there who ask an architect to build them a course with a high slope rating so it can be considered difficult by everyone.

Boy do you have all of this right on, but particularly this paragraph, Tom.  I just wrote a shortish article trying to correct this very misconception.  I can't begin to count the number of times I hear "it slopes at x" and "the slope is y" when people are discussing the difficulty of courses.  If anything I'd say putting it the number at "at least half or more" is underestimating things - among the rank and file public course players anyway, I'd guess it's easily 80% who have this wrong.

Having just been appointed as a course rater this year, this is all very "fresh" to me...

BTW, wouldn't the perfect golf course - ie giving the maximum amount of enjoyment to the maximum number of golfers - have a low slope and high rating?  There are so very few courses like this... We have one out here where if they'd keep the conditions up to snuff, they'd really have something.  Gib and others have commented on it - Monarch Bay in San Leandro, CA - 73.2/121 from the back-most tees they ever set out, 71.1/117 from the most-played tees - all on par 71.

TH

[Doug Wright]

TH,

Funny you should mention that--as I just mentioned on the Apache/Talking Stick thread, Talking Stick North's rating and slope from the back tees (par 70) are 73.8/125, which I thought was pretty unique.

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

I read that - we are indeed on the same wavelength, Doug.  That is indeed pretty good, and maybe that's why so many people like TS-North.  

Thanks for doing that post, btw.  I'm contemplating going to both those places for a trip I do with my college friends later this year... your post will be very helpful as we discuss the courses.

Further to my question, wouldn't the worst courses have low rating and high slope?  Pamper the scratch and punish the bogey?  Yuck.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

As to a course with a high course rating and a low slope being ideal for everyone, I'd have to think about some other ways to make that happen other than the one I know of.

Aronomink is an example of such a course. Aronomink is obviously a good course but the knock on it generally has always been it's just a slugger's course that is very low on variety. It basically has no short par 4s, the shortest par 3 being medium range and so all but the longest hitters have to just slug it all day!

It's not penal though, generally speaking, and the relatively low slope indicates that. It just went through a very good Ron Prichard restoration and needs to be rerated. So I really can't estimate if it will become a bit more penal for some reason but I can easily estimate that you're still going to have to slug it all day--because no hole was shortened--that's for sure!

[THuckaby2]

TEP - well said.  Obviously one can overgeneralize here and it's not a panacea by any means.  And with a little knowledge of how courses are rated, any architect could FORCE this to happen, if he so desired... Just off the top of my head, to achieve high rating, make it long.  To achieve lowish slope, don't put in many hazards, allow no forced carries at all, and make the green targets huge.  Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?  

So damn, just when I thought I was on to something, upon further review it makes no sense.  Oh well, that happens a lot to me!

I still think the general idea of "tough for scratch/fun for bogey" is a good one.  How to achieve it creatively is where guys like Doak et al make their living.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike, et. al.,

If a bland, back and forth course in Florida, with water on both sides of the fairway is your definition of penal, it differs from mine.

Mine has more to do with the internal architectual features such as bunkers, greens and the like.

[THuckaby2]

PM - from everything I hear, you are a scratch player or very close to it.  Of course said course in Florida, which will be murder for the bogey player, is not "penal" for you.  Tough greens will make you work way harder than any hazards.

But putting this into context for the majority of golfers, doesn't high slope indeed equal penal?

It's pretty clear in how we do ratings that this is exactly what's going on....

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I listed over 40 courses, and not a one of them were "bland, back and forth Florida courses with water on each side."


Et. al.

Incidentally, the original point of my post was that the vast majority of the "for profit" courses I've seen lately are being made more difficult, and certainly not easier to accommodate speed of play and return play as Patrick contended.

Instead, similar to "stimp" on greens, "Slope" has become the latest "mine is bigger than yours" macho selling point bandied about by the marketeers.  

It may be counter intuitive to the "for profit" model, which would seem to seek efficiencies, but ironically, I'm right and Patrick is wrong on this one.  

Even from any of Sean's 5 or more sets of tees, which usually just make bad golfers take bigger and dumber chances and slow play even more when they stand there with their latest Callaway model waiting to attempt to drive the lagoon-infested 310 yard par four, or stand in the fairway 270 yards from the green on all the par fives (now playing at 450) waiting for the green to clear to attempt the carry over Lake Champlain, and then smashes it 120 yards sideways into the woods and drops another ball to attempt it again.  

What's happening in your neck of the woods?  Do you see a lot of courses that are easily navigable for the average golfer being built?  

[Ken Bakst]

Patrick

There is not a single hole at NGLA that I would characterize as representative of the "penal school."  Are there penal hazards?  Absolutely.  But a penal hazard on a strategic golf hole doesn't make the hole a "penal school" hole.  In fact, it is often necessary to have penal features (bunkers, green contours, etc.) to make a "strategic school" hole great.  So I would suggest that you don't confuse the two thoughts (penal hazards v. penal holes).

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't think Patrick knows the difference between penal and strategic. Either that or he does and simply changes his defintion to suit whatever arguement he might be engaged in.

[JakaB]

Tom,

Patrick has only stated facts and asked indepth questions...shame on you for taking it to a personal level.  I for one am greatful for Mr. Mucci asking us to play a course and decide for ourselves what we like rather than telling us to conform to the herd mentality so common on this site.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ken Bakst;

I believe you've summed up the difference very nicely, thank you.  

Ironically, most of the greatest courses are not penal golf courses, but are instead strategic courses with penal hazards.  I would count NGLA and Garden City in their midst.  There are so many choices at each, and "choice" to me is the opposite of a penal hole.

Yet the penalty for a misplayed high risk shot needs to carry some bite.  If there is little in the way of risk (i.e. non-penal hazards like flat, shallow bunkers), whither goest the strategy?  

To sum up my definition of a penal hole, I believe the architect imposes the shot requirements on the player (re: "non-choice"), and says basically "hit it here or you're screwed (i.e. penalized)".  I think of William Fownes classic dictate as he continually added more bunkers to Oakmont, "a shot carelessly played is a shot irretrievably lost".  

The penal school is hardly dead in modern course design, "for profit" or otherwise.  It's just been renamed "target golf".  

[Rick Shefchik]

Mike:

The most significant building boom in Minnesota has been in the Brainerd lakes area, in the north-central part of the state, where trees, lakes and mosquitos dominate. The old fishing resorts in the area are nearing the end of a 10-year golf course building boom which has featured new courses by Palmer (Deacon's Lodge, slope 128 ), Trent Jones Jr. (The Legacy, slope 147) Joel Goldstrand (The Pines, slope 145) and others (The Classic, slope 143; the Preserve, slope 139).

I haven't played Deacon's Lodge yet, but the dominant characteristic of the others is that these courses are carved out of the woods, and the woods do not yield misplaced golf balls. The underbrush is thick in there, and I'm not sure these courses have the intention or the wherewithall to clear it all out. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

These courses tend to cost $90 per round or more -- steep by Minnesota standards -- and when you add a few forced carries, bordering wetlands and some well-placed bunkers into the mix, these "resort" rounds can be a tough grind for the average hacker. The fairways are fairly wide, but I'm not sure the treelines are set far enough back on either side of these courses, at least not for spray hitters and high handicappers.

Business was down in the Brainerd area last year, but I don't think it had anything to do with the golf courses, which are beautiful and well-maintained. Last year the issue was weather. But it remains to be seen how successful these courses will be when they've been widely sampled by Twin Cities golfers; it might turn out that they're a novelty experience, after which most players will opt for something a little cheaper and a little less punishing.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JohnK
I love Pat's devil's advocacy. I agree it is useful in bringing out fascinating discusions and discoveries. But it takes a special person to do it endlessly, I reckon it takes someone who either loves debate for the sake of debate, an instigator or someone without any strong beliefs or tastes. Nothing personal, just an observation

Expressing personal opinions and explaining it up with reasoning is not telling someone what they must believe. You might agree and you have every right to disagree and back it with your own reasoning. Some may agree with you, some may agree with me, neither is right or wrong and neither one of is telling anyone what they must believe. If you prefer to like everything, there is nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't bash other like minded people with narrower tastes as being part of a herd mentality because you might disagree with them.

[TEPaul]

JakaB;

You're grateful to Pat Mucci only because you and Pat Mucci happen to be two of the most accomplished golf architectural rabble rousers in the world--plain and simple!

TomH:

I've got it! Put you and me together, two self admitted idiots, and a good idea might result!

Here's how you can accomplish what you were talking about of how to make a high course rating/low slope course ideal and fun for every level.

Granted Aronomink is an example of such a high rating/low slope course and generally that's because it's low on variety, one dimensionlly long, and not penal, none of which are ideal in and of themselves.

Under ordinary conditions it's just a slugger's golf course but if you just add to it the most ideal application of my "maintenance meld", think what it could accomplish? It could be super screaming fast "through the green" (maybe 50+ or even 100 yds of run) with greens firm enough where an aerial shot would not pitch-mark but barely dent!

Think what you'd have! A "maintenance meld" to go with a super long course where the very good and long slugger would truly need to combine accuracy with distance off the tees to keep the ball where it wanted it, and would also be in a bit of a quandry whether to fly the ball to the green or play the ground game run up for best effect and the shorter handicap player might actually reach some of the heretofore unreachable greens with two good shots and then true democracy on the putting surfaces for both putting and chipping would be in effect!

Think about it! It's the ideal multi-optional situation that gives everyone numerous options without much in the way of the penal on a high course rating/low slope course.

Brilliant! There really might be something to this "Maintenance Meld" thing since all it truly means is those maintenance practices that highlight the best of what any particular course might be, whatever that might be, and the fact that it might be something different from one course to the next makes it even better!

In architecture--Vive La Difference!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Do you still stand by your contention that "for profit" courses are not being built utilizing penal features for reasons of economic efficiencies?  If so, how many new, "for profit" courses have you played in the past few years?  

Remember, I'm only going by your dictate, "you have to play to assay!"  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

We disagree.

I've said previously that NGLA combines the penal and strategic elements better than any other course I know, but
I would still classify some of the holes as penal, including the 3rd and 4th holes, the 6th, 8th? 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th.  Some holes are more/less penal than others, but the penal features exist in substantive form.

Mike Cirba,

Your definition of Penal would seem to describe NGLA perfectly.

You've listed a few dozen courses, how many courses have been built in the last ten years, hundreds ?  Thousands ?

Tom MacWood,

I haven't noticed any shortage of your opinions on this site.

TEPaul,

Does an independent thinker have to conform to the prefered beliefs on this site, or can he agree with some and disagree with others, without being called a rabble rouser ?

I realize that it is most annoying when I ask a postulater of an idea, concept or belief to provide facts to support their position.  Why would anyone want to confuse an issue with
FACTS ?

[Ken Bakst]

Patrick

I had absolutely no doubt that you would disagree with me.

But I think the source of our disagreement is that we aren't on the same page with respect to the definitions of "penal", "strategic" and "heroic" golf holes/courses (not features).  I asked you to provide me with your definitions of such in another thread some time ago, but you never responded.   So until we get on the same page with respect to these definitions, we are going to continue to disagree.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If this ongoing discussion of Merion's bunker project is an example of postulaters of an opinion or idea being annoyed about having to supply facts to support a position, I doubt it. Numerous, numerous facts have been provided almost all of which you appear to not even acknowledge.

"Why would anyone want to confuse an issue with FACTS?"

I can't see that any of us are doing that. But it seems you're constantly trying to confuse an issue with almost no facts at all! That would certainly seem to me and most of these others to be the case with you on this Merion issue!

[TEPaul]

Listen, Pat, Old Buddy, recently you have said so many things on here that are unsupported by facts, confusing and contradictory, that it's just fine with me (and I'm fairly certain some others too) if the next time anyone asks you to support your position at all that you just take the Fifth Amendment--which of course is designed to prevent unintended self incrimination!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

I'm not sure that I could define "penal" in absolute architectual terms, and my feel for penal, or those holes or features that I would deem as penal, may differ by degrees from yours.  

Is there a hole that is solely penal, lacking any strategy ?

TEPaul,

I haven't read one fact about the retention of MacDonald & Co and the mission statement presented to them by Merion or its representitives.  But, perhaps I missed it.  Could you please restate the FACTS paying specific attention to exactly what MacDonald & Co was instructed to do by Merion, and if Merion is satisfied with the work they were instructed to do ?

Who supplied the FACTS you allege were posted on this site ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike Cirba,
Penal is as Fownes said. It is not necessarily limiting where a shot can be hit but it most definitely punishes mistakes. Therefore strategic holes have an element of the penal when they offer players various avenues but "chop off their heads" if they miss.
C&W use the 4th at Oakmont to illustrate "a penal hole on a course that celebrates the penal philosophy". They continue to say "the shot values are fair for all classes of players". They also show that players of all levels have a way to get safely to the green. Basically, it's the hazards you'll want to avoid but if you don't, you're screwed.
I think it is more the severity of the hazards, their placement in relation to the shot value and the limitations on recovery  that better define the penal school.

I also don't think that high slopes necessarily mean penal. High slopes can come from a high number of hazards on a course, none of them very penal in their playing characteristics.

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

There is a completely "penal" hole at my local miniature golf course.  The hole is set in the caldera of a volcano-like structure which makes it possible to hole your putt only if you hit it with complete precision in terms of direction and speed.  Anything less than perfection and the ball is back at you feet and you must try the same shot again.  Other than that one, I do not think there are any "penal" holes in the Universe, so Mike's question and your answers are really moot.

[Tom_Egan]

We're going around and around on this without commonly accepted definitions, and it's pointless and unnecessary (at least in part).  I can provide two easy ones from the USGA "Course Rating System Manual" (I'm a member of an Indiana Golf Association/USGA Rating Team).

1.  "A USGA Course Rating is defined as the USGA's mark that indicates the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers under normal course and weather conditions.  It is expressed as strokes taken to one decimal place, and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the scratch golfer.  A USGA Course Rating is equal to the average of the better half of a scratch golfer's scores under normal conditions."

2.  "A USGA Slope Rating is defined as the USGA's mark that indicates the measurement of the relative difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers compared to the Course Rating (i.e. compared to the difficulty of a course for scratch golfers).  The lowest Slope Rating is 55 and the highest is 155.  A golf course of standard playing difficulty has a USGA Slope Rating of 113.  If a course has a high Slope Rating, it is relatively more difficult for the average golfer than a course with a low Slope Rating."

A third definition would be most helpful, that of "Penal", or "Penal Golf Course", if we could even begin to agree on one.  Mike Cirba seems to have come the closest on this thread to providing a coherent one.  Ken Bakst seems to imply that he has previously determined his own -- and stated it.  Pat Mucci continues to question others' definitions but has not, despite repeated requests, presented his own.

For openers, let me provide a skeleton of one:  A Penal Golf Course is one where a relatively high number of shots, especially by higher handicappers, put the player in positions where at least one -- and often two or three -- shots may be spent in recovery.  The term Penal here applies to the golf course as it is, i.e. it does not matter whether the peril was created by the topography, the manner of hazards or whether they are natural or man-made, weather conditions, routing, or
any other actions taken by the architect.

This isn't perfect -- there probably is NO perfect.  It might be a start, though, and I wish we could agree because I think it's an interesting subject and I've always been a little confused about where the lines are drawn on the issues of penal, heroic, strategic.

To Tom Paul -- sorry for the long post.

  

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...I've just realized the absurdity of continuing a debate over whether or not a course is penal with someone who basically refuses to tell me his personal working definition of the very conceptual term.  

It's become an "Alice in Wonderland" wordplay, only the picture never changes to anything one can rationally discuss.

I say PENal, you say penAL, let's call the whole thing off!  

Patrick, I named 40, for-profit courses that I had PLAYED that were built in the past 10 years with slopes between 135 and 151.  Do those examples support your original contention that "for-profit" courses are being built without penal features and severe difficulty for the average player, or do they not??

The list of courses with a slope over 135, ALL FOR-PROFIT COURSES, is over 750!!!  Certainly would seem to complete dispute your contention that for profit courses are built without penal features (however you choose to define it) all in the interest of speeding play so that more money would pump through the turnstiles!

Rather than admit that you are either mistaken or misinformed, or tell me how many new public access courses you have personally played in the past couple of years that you are basing your statements on, you take the distinctly Clintonian position of asking us to define, ad infinitum, what "it" is.  

As I type, I see that Rich has seen fit to reduce the discussion to talking about miniature golf courses.  

That's fine.  You guys have a blast!

It's been fun, but enough's enough.  

You may be wrong, but you'd never admit it!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()