Most difficult / easiest course in Ireland

willabur

The Cashen course in Ballybunion?

I love that course, compared to the old course I find it alot more scoreable even though while playing it it feels very tough. It is up for a redesign soon, one of the main complaints about it is that the greens are too small so I expect that to be addressed. Tom Watson will be involved in the redux so there is a good budget there though I am not sure what his record is like on course design

Big dog daly

I always thought Macreddin off the back sticks to be extremely difficult. Have to hit driver on every hole and with furs and big slopes both sides of the fairway trouble is never too far away.

prawnsambo

Big dog daly wrote: »

I always thought Macreddin off the back sticks to be extremely difficult. Have to hit driver on every hole and with furs and big slopes both sides of the fairway trouble is never too far away.

And even if you get your drive away safely, the second shot is often as difficult.

Luckycharm

willabur wrote: »

Really not sure about opening shoulders on links, if the rough is up then its the last thing you can do

Open up as in I generally know the line my drives are going to go, on my own course have to be wary of the trees so have to often try to draw the ball which can end in disaster!!

FixdePitchmark

Big dog daly wrote: »

I always thought Macreddin off the back sticks to be extremely difficult. Have to hit driver on every hole and with furs and big slopes both sides of the fairway trouble is never too far away.

another one , I didn't think of.

it's a bastard in every way.

the walk alone is impossible..

willabur

Maccreddin is a beast, I have never played it without a cart

never will

prawnsambo

willabur wrote: »

Maccreddin is a beast, I have never played it without a cart

never will

I suspect the back tees will be up near the maximum slope rating when it's done. :eek:

FixdePitchmark

it's funny how the Celtic Tiger courses come up a good bit.

sort of sums up the hubris of the time.

So many of these places are useless for amateurs, except for a fun day out. Also many of the fun day outs are with societies making them even more useless as you face a 5 hour round +.

you couldn't exactly join as a members club and run around in 2.5 hours.

thewobbler

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

it's funny how the Celtic Tiger courses come up a good bit.

sort of sums up the hubris of the time.

So many of these places are useless for amateurs, except for a fun day out. Also many of the fun day outs are with societies making them even more useless as you face a 5 hour round +.

you couldn't exactly join as a members club and run around in 2.5 hours.

Agreed. I restarted my golf journey in the noughties, pre-children, and was continually wowed by these sprawling, chiseled creations. Brilliant venues for long days out. Brilliant venues if you have an American style disposition towards golf member membership.

Nowadays I much prefer a manageable challenge on a course that’s walkable in 3 hours. A lack of free time might have started this change of mindset, but I’ve really come to appreciate the reward that comes from a course that was designed to challenge, rather than impress.

Coollattin, Masserene, Balbriggan are some recent highlights in this conversion.

prawnsambo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

it's funny how the Celtic Tiger courses come up a good bit.

sort of sums up the hubris of the time.

So many of these places are useless for amateurs, except for a fun day out. Also many of the fun day outs are with societies making them even more useless as you face a 5 hour round +.

you couldn't exactly join as a members club and run around in 2.5 hours.

To be fair, the trend has been to design longer courses worldwide since the turn of the century. I can't think of any new course since then that hasn't been in or around the 7000 yard mark or more from the back tees.

Big dog daly

prawnsambo wrote: »

I suspect the back tees will be up near the maximum slope rating when it's done. :eek:

When can we expect the slope ratings to be released? I presume they will try judge then off the sss

spacecoyote

Big dog daly wrote: »

When can we expect the slope ratings to be released? I presume they will try judge then off the sss

Plenty of info on it in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057843575

In a nutshell, there have been teams of course reviewers out to courses around the country to derive the slope ratings for them.

It won't be just a rough judgement based on SSS

prawnsambo

Big dog daly wrote: »

When can we expect the slope ratings to be released? I presume they will try judge then off the sss

I don't know. Ratings have probably stopped once the Winter conditions set in, so I assume they'll start into them again around April next year. I'd say they'll be close enough to current SSS for the course rating, but to one decimal place. Slope will be a different matter as it's based on the bogey golfer.

downthemiddle

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't know. Ratings have probably stopped once the Winter conditions set in, so I assume they'll start into them again around April next year. I'd say they'll be close enough to current SSS for the course rating, but to one decimal place. Slope will be a different matter as it's based on the bogey golfer.

The ratings will be available in the summer of 2020.
Amongst the items taken into consideration for a rating are


Tees to be rated: MEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other:
WOMEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other:
Elevation above sea level: feet Adjusted shot distance: EXPERT MEN 250y 470y
BOGEY MEN 200y 370y 440y
EXPERT WOMEN 220y 400y 520y BOGEY WOMEN 160y 300y 440y
Prevailing wind DIRECTION Speed mph
Weather on day of course rating: TEMPERATURE / WIND DIRECTION SPEED mph/
SUNNY/ CLOUDY/ RAINY?
COURSE INFORMATION
Green Mowing: when were the greens last cut? DAY HOUR Cut to what height? Inch
Green Speed (stimpmeter) on rating date: feet: inches (measured on greens at holes number
)
at midseason (if different from above): feet inches (date provided by )
Green Hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM
How was green hardness determined?
Green surface condition: EXCELLENT(smooth, true) GOOD (some bumps, generally true) FAIR (many
bumps, inconsistent) POOR (very bumpy, in poor condition)
Fairway mowing: How often are fairways cut? Cut to what height? Inch Contour mowed?
YES/NO
Fairway hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM
Fairway condition: EXCELLENT (no bad lies) Good (some bad lies) FAIR (many bad lies)
POOR (all bad lies)
Intermediate cut (if any): how wide? yards, How often is it cut? To what height? Inches
Rough condition: Normally HEAVY Average LIGHT Recoverability normally DIFFICULT
AVERAGE EASY
Trees: number MANY AVERAGE FEW / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL
Bunkers: total number (approx) / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL / depth DEEP
AVERAGE SHALLOW
Sand condition SOFT AVERAGE HARD /
maintenance EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Course condition overall (describe):

FixdePitchmark

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, the trend has been to design longer courses worldwide since the turn of the century. I can't think of any new course since then that hasn't been in or around the 7000 yard mark or more from the back tees.

whitout checking Castleknock seems a sensible place..

slave1

downthemiddle wrote: »

The ratings will be available in the summer of 2020.
Amongst the items taken into consideration for a rating are


Tees to be rated: MEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other:
WOMEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other:
Elevation above sea level: feet Adjusted shot distance: EXPERT MEN 250y 470y
BOGEY MEN 200y 370y 440y
EXPERT WOMEN 220y 400y 520y BOGEY WOMEN 160y 300y 440y
Prevailing wind DIRECTION Speed mph
Weather on day of course rating: TEMPERATURE / WIND DIRECTION SPEED mph/
SUNNY/ CLOUDY/ RAINY?
COURSE INFORMATION
Green Mowing: when were the greens last cut? DAY HOUR Cut to what height? Inch
Green Speed (stimpmeter) on rating date: feet: inches (measured on greens at holes number
)
at midseason (if different from above): feet inches (date provided by )
Green Hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM
How was green hardness determined?
Green surface condition: EXCELLENT(smooth, true) GOOD (some bumps, generally true) FAIR (many
bumps, inconsistent) POOR (very bumpy, in poor condition)
Fairway mowing: How often are fairways cut? Cut to what height? Inch Contour mowed?
YES/NO
Fairway hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM
Fairway condition: EXCELLENT (no bad lies) Good (some bad lies) FAIR (many bad lies)
POOR (all bad lies)
Intermediate cut (if any): how wide? yards, How often is it cut? To what height? Inches
Rough condition: Normally HEAVY Average LIGHT Recoverability normally DIFFICULT
AVERAGE EASY
Trees: number MANY AVERAGE FEW / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL
Bunkers: total number (approx) / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL / depth DEEP
AVERAGE SHALLOW
Sand condition SOFT AVERAGE HARD /
maintenance EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Course condition overall (describe):

That seems like a good detailed approach but if a course knows it's going to be rated by outsiders then surely it will do everything to have conditioning and bunkers along with fairway height, green speed and secondary cuts at their absolute best which may not reflect reality

Wichita Lineman

slave1 wrote: »

That seems like a good detailed approach but if a course knows it's going to be rated by outsiders then surely it will do everything to have conditioning and bunkers along with fairway height, green speed and secondary cuts at their absolute best which may not reflect reality

I was there the day they inspected Moate in 2017. We did nothing different in advance. The course is prepared and presented for members and visitors not for the GUI graders.

prawnsambo

slave1 wrote: »

That seems like a good detailed approach but if a course knows it's going to be rated by outsiders then surely it will do everything to have conditioning and bunkers along with fairway height, green speed and secondary cuts at their absolute best which may not reflect reality

Not sure why they would want to do this. Course rating isn't about best or worst, just a measure of difficulty. Some of the questions about greens and fairways seem to indicate that it's not just about their condition on the day of rating.

paulanthony

slave1 wrote: »

That seems like a good detailed approach but if a course knows it's going to be rated by outsiders then surely it will do everything to have conditioning and bunkers along with fairway height, green speed and secondary cuts at their absolute best which may not reflect reality

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not sure why they would want to do this. Course rating isn't about best or worst, just a measure of difficulty. Some of the questions about greens and fairways seem to indicate that it's not just about their condition on the day of rating.

I think rather than having these aspects at their "absolute best" is there a danger that these aspects (or anything else which can be changed) could be amended in the run up to the grading to either raise or lower the number?

It depends on how you look at it, but I'm sure there are a few courses who would like to avoid a very low number for fear of this being perceived as meaning the course is too easy / straightforward / boring? Eg, if a society are deciding between two courses might they choose the one with the higher slope rating on the basis that it would be a better challenge or more interesting? Equally it could be argued that some may choose the lower rating as an easier round might be more enjoyable - depends on the perspective.

Some courses might not want to be perceived as too difficult for fear of putting mid-handicappers off and losing green fee revenue. If I find Druids Heath very difficult / not enjoyable and see The European Club is 10 points higher am I likely to stay away?

Maybe these factors will have such little effect on the rating that it will make no difference - obviously they won't be moving the lakes or bunkers or mounds but the difficulty of the rough, width of fairway and green speed can all affect the score...

prawnsambo

paulanthony wrote: »

I think rather than having these aspects at their "absolute best" is there a danger that these aspects (or anything else which can be changed) could be amended in the run up to the grading to either raise or lower the number?

It depends on how you look at it, but I'm sure there are a few courses who would like to avoid a very low number for fear of this being perceived as meaning the course is too easy / straightforward / boring? Eg, if a society are deciding between two courses might they choose the one with the higher slope rating on the basis that it would be a better challenge or more interesting? Equally it could be argued that some may choose the lower rating as an easier round might be more enjoyable - depends on the perspective.

Some courses might not want to be perceived as too difficult for fear of putting mid-handicappers off and losing green fee revenue. If I find Druids Heath very difficult / not enjoyable and see The European Club is 10 points higher am I likely to stay away?

Maybe these factors will have such little effect on the rating that it will make no difference - obviously they won't be moving the lakes or bunkers or mounds but the difficulty of the rough, width of fairway and green speed can all affect the score...

But surely the whole point of the exercise is to level the courses for the average golfer? Make it seem a bit easier and you actually make it harder for the average golfer to score on it because the slope rating is artificially low.

RoadRunner

paulanthony wrote: »

The European Club is 10 points higher am I likely to stay away?

Actually, the European clubs' solution to this is the best:



(bottom-right)

Loved the European club when we played it earlier in the year. Dying to go back.

Johnny_Fontane

think the marketers of big courses want the highest slope rating possible. Because the big money yanks want to play the toughest courses.

Its mad, but thats what they want.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

But surely the whole point of the exercise is to level the courses for the average golfer? Make it seem a bit easier and you actually make it harder for the average golfer to score on it because the slope rating is artificially low.

Make it seem harder than it is and scoup up all the interclub comps

neckedit

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

think the marketers of big courses want the highest slope rating possible. Because the big money yanks want to play the toughest courses.

Its mad, but thats what they want.

No, they want to play the most expensive courses.

First Up

Mostly they want to play the courses they have heard about - famous ones. Price doesn't come into it much; they expect to pay top dollar.

I don't think slope comes into it at all.

rooney30

First Up wrote: »

Mostly they want to play the courses they have heard about - famous ones. Price doesn't come into it much; they expect to pay top dollar.

I don't think slope comes into it at all.

Agreed , they want to play the famous courses , which are famous because they are the best courses . The best courses around don’t necessarily equate to the toughest courses around .

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

Make it seem harder than it is and scoup up all the interclub comps

So let the rough grow high, have bumpy greens, concrete bunkers and hairy tee boxes.

mjsc1970

Most Difficult = European Club, Off Blue Tees. In winter. Strokes Comp. If that doesn't bring you down to earth nothing will.

Easiest = Elm Green. But it's still pleasant and usually in good nick.

callaway92

Wanted to have a look at pictures of the European Club

Checked out their website and . . . .

davegilly

callaway92 wrote: »

Wanted to have a look at pictures of the European Club

Checked out their website and . . . .

I know, it's chronic isn't it. Looks like the website was designed the same year as the club was founded.