Course Rating and Handicapping Rating the Old and New Poppy Hills Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Main Event.
Now entering The Forest, the two combatants. In this corner, wearing the poppy orange trunks, the first
golf course owned and operated by a state or regional golf association, host to the 1991 NCAA Division I Men’s Championship, 19-time host to the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, first in the hearts and minds of its vast membership, the reigning heavyweight cham-PEEEEEAN of the NCGA, the old Poppy Hills! And in this corner, the challenger. Wearing recycled “think
green” trunks, upcoming host to the Nature Valley First Tee Open, the apple of Robert Trent Jones Jr’s eye, the lean and mean/brown is the new green, the fast and firm/the doglegs have less turn, the neeeeewww Poppy Hills! But first, the Tale of the Tape:
Poppy Hills White
28 years
High Ball Flight 71.0/134
6,163 yards The OLD
PLAYABILITY CHALLENGE vs.
AGE
HEIGHT WEIGHT LENGTH
Poppy Hills 3 Poppies
Two Weeks Low or High 70.5/126
6,299 yards
PLAYING LENGTH FACTORS Roll
Tee to Green Elevation Change Dogleg/Forced Lay-Up Prevailing Wind
OBSTACLE FACTORS Topography
3 3
Fairway Green Target
Recoverability and Rough Bunkers
OB/Extreme Rough Water
Trees Green Surface
3 3
3
3 3
Now let’s get ready to ram-bulllll! OK, perhaps a smidge overboard, but I was asked to pit the
old Poppy Hills versus the new from a Course Rating perspective. First, the Yardage Rating considerations. With the sandcapping of the fairways, the new Poppy Hills
boasts above-average Roll, which makes up for most, but not all of the extra yardage of the new layout. Extra Roll can be a double-edged sword, however. Hit is straight and the hole
3 The NEW
plays shorter. Hit it crooked, and the trees and other perils can come more into play. The three other Playing Length Factors are a wash.
Certainly the Wind patterns have not changed throughout the 13-month shutdown, nor have the overall Tee to Green Elevations changed appreciably. Interestingly enough, the Dogleg/Forced Layup totals
are nearly identical to previous ratings, but the adjustments come on different holes. Whereas they were applied to holes 8, 10, and 12 in the past, holes 4, 12, 14, and 18 were tagged this time. All in all, the new Poppy Hills does rate about 0.2 higher
for Scratch and 0.3 higher for Bogey on a purely “how long does the golf course play” perspective. The same cannot be said for obstacles, and that is where
the dramatic shift in playability reveals itself. As advertised, some of the sharp edges in the fairways
have been smoothed, which is reflected by lower Topography numbers. And the Fairways are certainly much more generous than before, but watch out for No. 12. The green diameters are now much larger, which should
translate into easier Green Targets, but the extreme firmness of the greens at this early stage in the course’s lifecycle warrant all sorts of bonus points. The firmness is enough to rate higher than the old layout—at least for now. Without any rough cut in sight, and a putter as an option
from well off the green, it is a no-brainer that our Recoverabil- ity and Rough numbers have plummeted. This, more than any single other factor, accounts for much of the rating decline. The number and severity of the greenside Bunkers have
been reduced a bit, but the vast expanses of waste areas more than compensate, especially for the Bogey golfer. OB/Extreme Rough has not changed much. We will see what happens when the vegetation in the waste areas matures. The addition of the creek on No. 9 could not make up for
the removal of the pond on No. 5 and placement change of the pond on No. 10. Water numbers are now lower. The jury is still out on Trees. They seem about the same,
but we will have to see how the pine straw under the Trees impacts recovery. Lastly, the Green Surfaces have certainly lost some bite
and all of their extra tiers. All told, Scratch obstacles dropped 0.7, while Bogey’s fell
2.3 strokes. And it is Bogey’s decline that accounts for the lion’s share of the reduction in the Slope Ratings. So there you have it . . . the anatomy of a more user-
friendly course (at least once the greens soften a bit). And just one more thing about the new Poppy Hills, “Down goes water con- sumption! Down goes water consumption!” Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
By Jim Cowan Director of Course Rating and Handicapping Email:
jcowan@ncga.org
SPRING 2014 /
NCGA.ORG / 63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88