[TEPaul]

A high course rating and a low slope in theory should be an indication of the ideal golf course! A high course rating (degree of difficulty of the course against par for the scratch man) indicates a good challenge for the good player, while a low slope should indicate a good accomodation for the Bogey golfer relative to the scratch man.

So when architects speak of accomodating all levels of play  well (ie, the ideal course) high course rating and low slope should be the indication.

We've had a bit of a problem in the Philly association with a well known course that has a very high course rating and a slope rating that appears unusually low. The club does not seem to appreciate this at all since it's apparent that far too many members (and others) think the slope rating is about the same thing as the course rating (ie, a slope rating also indicates the degree of difficulty for the good player). Or at least they seem to think that a low slope means the course is generally easier somehow.

I believe the USGA needs to do more to overcome this prevalent misunderstanding about exactly what slope does mean. I think a good place for the USGA to start would be to recommend courses always publish the "bogey rating" along side the "course rating", and doing so on the course's score card would certainly be a good place.

If they can do that slope may become better understood as to what it really is and it may become considered by far more golfers a good thing to have a high course rating and a low slope--again, as that would be an indication of a course that accomodates all levels well--the ideal course!

What do you all think of that?

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

This has been among my golf holy grails for several years now:  having bogey ratings published, which would lead to better understanding of what slope really means, which would be beneficial in many ways, just as you say.  We are compadres on this, mi amigo!

Unfortunately at least here in Northern California, there seems to be little interest in making this happen.  I did query the NCGA course rating / handicapping officials this year re this, and they said there was no interest from any club in the subject, and further, asking clubs to re-do their scorecards was not something they wanted to do.  Disheartening, huh?    

To me the real value might come just as you say - that LOW SLOPE would be what's valued, not HIGH slope, as it so misguidedly is now.  Then courses would be built that challenge the low 'cappers and allow the high 'cappers to have fun... instead of the all-too-penal monsters that seem to be built these days, with clubs falling over each other to set new slope records... The idea should be to compete to have slopes UNDER 120 - not OVER 140, as it seems to be today.

Oh well, I sigh wistfully.

In any event, I've posted nearly exactly this same lament as yours twice in my time participating in this discussion group.  It met with no interest each time.  Here's hoping the will of THE DOYEN will help in the effort!

TH

ps - interestingly, we have a course here in the Bay Area with a high course rating and low slope - many regulars here have played it - Monarch Bay - it gets generally poor reviews, for various reasons.

[THuckaby2]

Dave - your way is really just a different expression of exactly the same thing.

The bitch course would have a bogey rating of 100 - thus 28 in your way, at a course with a course rating of 72.

To me, publishing bogey rating of 100 makes more sense than a "28" number... there's no calculus at all involved... it really is a pretty good representation of what the bogey player can expect to score on that course.  But as you see, they really are the same thing, just expressed in different ways.

Publish bogey ratings and slope can cease to be published at all... it can be in the "calculus" that determines what handicap a player plays at, as it does now, but that can just be on a simple chart, just as now, with slope not even mentioned....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

I can't see the bogey crowd clamoring for a lower number using any system, not any time soon anyway.... if this were true, why aren't they clamoring for lower slope now?  It is a representation of exactly the same thing.... relation of bogey to scratch... Why would "29" be any different than "140"?  I wish this were so, I am just quite pessimistic.  

Thus as a start, I advocate simply giving them the facts that matter to them, and letting people make their own judgments.  So publish course rating AND bogey rating, and give good education as to what each number means.  Eliminate publication of slope, as its negative effect has been too great.  It won't take an Einstein to see that CR 72 and BR 100 gives a "Schmidt factor" of 28, so your way will be represented.  Slope also will still exist, but it will be kept in back calculations, as bogey rating is now.  The same charts continue to exist.

The key difference is bogey players know exactly what to expect, with zero mystery.  Then maybe the clamor goes for BR's less than 100, rather than the other way... here's hoping.

In any case you can see we are really advocating the same thing.

As for why the average is 113, oh yeah, I too have wondered why that couldn't have been set at 100, but I'm sure it's all on popeofslope.org anyway.  It really doesn't matter... how many slope 113's have you seen?  Can't see how any perception would have changed based on this numeric value changing to 100...

TH

[TEPaul]

Tom & Dave;

Since so many American golfers so completely misunderstand slope already (and seem to want it to be a high number), why not screw with the calculus somehow and give them the high number anyway when it's a harder course for the scratch man and more accomodating to the bogey man? Americans seem to relate to high numbers better if they want to think difficulty--so why not just give them some high numbers since they have things so assbackwards already?

I'm not in the slightest mathematical but can you work that out somehow? If they refuse to be educated how about just playing to their ignorance and giving them what they already think?

[THuckaby2]

Dave:  

We really are advocating the exact same thing.  140 is a number that's meaningless - on that we are in complete agreement.

And I do understand what you're putting forth - really I do.  I'm just pretty much with Tom Paul here - the thinking is so screwed up now, let's take some baby steps in trying to fix it... as Tom says, if they refuse to be educated how about just playing to their ignorance and giving them what they already think?  

We also concur on the bottom line here:  we want the bogey player to start asking for courses that are NOT relatively harder for him than for the scratch.  Stating this as a percentage is a fine idea.  I'm just having a hard time coming up with the mathematical representation of this that will work, unless you set some arbitrary standards.  I suppose you could set 72 and 90 as "standards" and then publish percentages based on that.  Whew, this gets into some convoluted math though... a course with 70 course rating gets expressed as "-2", and 100 bogey rating is "+10"... and we somehow set this out as a percentage...

I guess one could screw around with the calculations enough to make this work.  Where's Dean Knuth when we need him?  

What seems far simpler to me is to take what we have now, just publish CR and BR, don't publish slope, start the education process that way.  Give them what they want, what they know anyway, let them make their own judgments..

Then over time, yes, we can move to a system such as you suggest.

TH

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

Your ideas in the last post are really good ones to increase understanding amongst golfers about what slope really means--particularly the computer telling them something more understandable whenever they post.

To tell you the truth though, there's another reason I posted this thread.

If one really studied the way courses are rated for slope and such it's quite easy to see that logically many of the elements most of us on here want to see with restorations--less trees, firmer and faster conditions, wider fairways, less completely penal rough etc, etc, will generally drive down slope ratings.

If the golfing public (memberships) persist in misunderstanding what slope really is, resisting low sloped courses because they think that means easier for all they will also resist supporting good restorations.

[THuckaby2]

That's a huge, very important point, Tom.

And yet another reason to keep slope as part of the math, but do away with publishing it.

Low bogey rating won't be see as bad... relativity to course rating will be obvious and understood... it won't take much education effort at all.... restorations will not be objected to at all... this all flows like dominoes.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Once again, we are all saying the same thing.  I don't think slope has to go - it is a valuable tool in allocating strokes correctly at courses of wildly differing difficulty - what has to go is the publication of slope and the focus on it.  You'd agree with this, wouldn't you?

Again, the issue I have with your Bogey Accomodation Rating is that really, that's what slope is!  Tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto.  Yes, we can phrase it differently... and I understand that is what your "BAR" is trying to do.  I just don't see the math for this working without wholesale change... and given we already have a two very valuable, easy to understand statistical figures - course rating and bogey rating - why not start with publication of those?

I believe the same change in perception we all want will occur with this... and you won't have to reinvent the wheel.

TH

[Doug Siebert]

A lot of people here seem to be assuming that bogey players will flock to courses that are easier for them if it were known to them which ones they were.  I'm not sure that's the case, why else would so many bad players enjoy playing on courses where they need to bring a fresh dozen to finish?  How often have you heard someone talk about having to borrow a couple balls from a buddy to finish a round, not in a derogatory fashion, but as if it is something everyone else should congratulate him for?  Its golf's version of finishing a marathon or something.

I don't have much of a gripe with courses that have a high slope from the back tees -- that's usually because of 200+ yard forced carries to reach the fairway.  But I'm with you all 100% when I see those courses with high slopes from the regular or forward tees.  I'm just not convinced that golfers who know what slope really means will prefer courses with lower slopes, because those who I have explained how it works still like the slopey ones.

[ForkaB]

I personally don't think that the "Pope of Slope" is as smart as he thinks he is, but one absolutely brilliant aspect of his system is that it makes us think and express that we are better golfers than we really are!

In the old days, a 7 handicap was just that.  Now, a 7 at a course with a slope of 122 tells you, "My 'index' is 6.4"  If he/she plays at a course with a slope of 144, the "index" is 5.4.  These days. how many people tell you:  "My handicap is "7"?  How many say "My 'index is 5.4, but I'll play off "7" today."  It's a very subtle difference, but an insidious one that overly flatters golfers, IMHO.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Doesn't Talking Stick have a very high rating and low slope?

[Craig Van Egmond]

Jeff,

    From the backs, TSN is 73.8/125 at 7133 yards par 70.

[Doug Siebert]

My assumption about the 113 slope has always been that it isn't supposed to be the average slope over all rated courses, but the average slope over all courses.  There are plenty of cow pasture courses that aren't rated at all.  Within 20 minutes drive I have 10 courses, 3 rated 18s, 2 rated 9s, 1 unrated 18, 3 unrated 9s and one 9 I'm not sure about (haven't been there for 15 years)

The slopes of the rated courses range from 122 to 134.  All 4 of the unrated courses have lots of par 4s from 270 to 340 with little trouble -- the kind of thing that I'd expect would result in a relatively low slope.  Each course only has two or three holes where I think it'd be bad for a bogey player getting one stroke from a scratch golfer (assuming the USGA rating standards of 250 and 200 yard drives, respectively)  I wouldn't be shocked if the average slope of all these courses turned out come fairly close to 113.

OK, maybe it is wrong to take unrated courses into account, but how would the USGA know how many courses would choose to be rated?

One more thought....the 113 average slope is also probably intended from the average tees, where most of us in GCA are talking about and playing the tips.  I know I gave the slopes above from the tips, because that's what I know and remember.  I think my local courses are more like 115 to 126 or so from the regular tees, so the average slope of all 10 courses around here is even less than I think.

[Mike_Cirba]

The Pine Barrens GC in Jackson, NJ has a course rating of 74.2 and a slope rating of 132, which might be a bit too high.  It was designed by developer Eric Bergstol, and borrows some of the visual elements of Pine Valley with VERY wide fairways and lots of room to play on most holes for the high-handicap golfer.

It plays 7118 yards to a par of 72, and is generally ranked in the top 100 or so public courses for justifiable reasons.  The fact that it's a contiguous course with no housing on about 400 acres adds to its allure and it's a fine example of providing challenge for the better player with plenty of playability for others.

[hoggmeister]

Mike--

Good call on Pine Barrens.  I scheduled our company outing there this fall.  We had about forty golfers with handicaps from 5 to 50 and every one had a great time.

I agree that the slope is probably too high.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

We're going to have the recently renovated Ocean Course resloped and rerated next week.  In addition to sloping and rating from the Golds, Blues, Whites and Reds, the USGA is going to give us the numbers from the far back tees.  As it stands now, the Golds are 152/78.  The far back tees adds between 400-500 yards.  It will be interesting to see those numbers...  I'll let y'all know when I get them.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it possible that having the system as some sort of enigma, it closely mimics the game, ergo life? And, I don't see any reason to dumb down the process anymore. Why should it be easier for someone to figure out where to play. If they are GOLFERS they will learn. If they're target demos, than any number can and will be manipulated to get some percieved edge for the cash register.

Dave- I do think the language "bogey" is probably undesirable. But, I also believe the whole issue is moot to all but the beancounters.

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt said:

"Again, this is all about perception.  Tom, you said baby steps.  I disagree.  This thing is a fiasco from top to bottom and needs radical reconstructive surgery. the player does not need to know the slope."

Dave:

I really don't think slope is a fiasco at all--it only appears to be because so many golfers misunderstand it! As a mathematical application it actually works very well to even things out for all levels of golfers playing on different courses.

Slope is only a fiasco in the context of the perception of it, as you said.

There are two ways the USGA can go about correcting that, one way you mention in your remark above. They can either go about the long and complicated process of trying to reeducate the golfing public as to what it is exactly but that will probably be doomed to failure anyway as the  misperception is ingrained and prevalent.

The better way, and the one you mentioned, is to downplay the awareness of slope altogether and as much as possible while preserving its basic function.

I've been saying for years that all this stuff to do with the handicap system (as distinct from slope and GHIN) and slope itself should simply be included and buried within the USGA's GHIN handicap posting system, software, whatever and therefore become less misunderstood simply because it really isn't necessary for a golfer to know it, other than to check a sheet. I really don't think slope needs to go on scorecards either since any golfer adjusting handicap allocation needs to check a sheet to see what the adjustment is anyway.

I may be wrong somewhat about that but I don't think so.

I think you're right that things like slope and ESC should simply be buried in the handicap posting system and the software and the less golfers know about it the better. It's really no different in this way than the underlying "handicap formulas", something probably not 1%  of golfers are aware of nor need to be.

It can all probably work much better if golfers either know it all extremely well or don't really know it at all. And obviously after years and years it's apparent the former is not going to happen (knowing it all extremely well), so they should try the latter.

[JohnV]

Dave,  113 is not the average slope of all golf courses that is really around 118 to 119.  113 is the middle of the possible slope ratings.  I haven't taken the time to really figure out why they couldn't have used a different multiplier to come up with 100 being the middle vs 113, but perhaps I can think about it on the plane home tomorrow.  It seems that using 4.762 instead of 5.381 would have centered the numbers at 100.  But perhaps it would have not produced the spread in numbers that was desired.  Dean Knuth is a mathmatician as well as a handicap developer and must have had a reason (which doesn't neccesarily make it a good reason  

[TEPaul]

Dave:

They can probably bury slope within the computer to a large extent compared to what they do now but golfers do need to consult the slope sheet now before they play to get their course handicap allocation adjustment, correct? That essentially is the whole purpose of slope! So they do need to be aware of it before posting their score.

As for the 113 number, I can't see that it really matters. It's just a relative measure that the formulas work off of. Any number within reason could probably be utilized but what does that matter?

The misunderstanding of slope, as I see it, is most all golfers seem to think it relates to them and their game solely while it's only a mechanism to adjust for difference (in golfers). In this way it's probably a bit like "par" (in perception) but really very different than "par" that's supposed to measure the ability of the expert player alone.

But even "par" is now a relative measure (basically utilized primarily for handicapping purposes). If you applied "par" as we know it to the realistic ability of a tour player, would it be accurate? Of course not! But as a relative measure it works, sort of!

[johnk]

I think clay-man and TEP have the right idea.

Remember that 95% of all golfers have no connection
to how architecture and golf is thought about here.

Even on this board, probably 70% of the people
don't understand slope.  It doesn't matter because
the golfing public uses those numbers not for
handicap purposes, but as an initial measure of goodness
of the course.

The marketing analog in golf is the numbering of clubs and
the lofts of clubs.  Ping's Tec Driver is labelled with
an "effective" loft.  Most of today's 9 irons are 40deg or so -
what an 8-iron used to be.  I just bought a R580 driver.  The number is bigger.  It's better.

If you increase the slope on your card,
you'll get more golfers initially.  They'll come back if
they get good value, service and the course has a smidgeon
of architectural integrity.  It doesn't matter how the
public determines the goodness initially, though.

[THuckaby2]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!  

Even on this board, probably 70% of the people
don't understand slope.  It doesn't matter because
the golfing public uses those numbers not for
handicap purposes, but as an initial measure of goodness
of the course.

THEREIN lies the only real problem here, and I suppose this is my fundamental disagreement with my friend Dave, and where I fall in with Tom Paul and others.  The slope-based handicap system works just fine for handicap purposes - I feel Mr. Knuth made a great improvement for us all by allowing me to get 6 strokes at Spylgass Hill and only 3 or 4 at my local muni, with the same "handicap" (now called an "index"), for example - but the problem is in the perception of slope and what it has led to - and as John K says, this is pervasive among all too many golfers!

So change the perception of slope... that's all we need.  And to me this can be done just by publishing bogey ratings.

The wheel need not be reinvented.

TH

[Jack]

This is a very interesting thread - I read almost every mesage and this is what I think.

It is too easy on many courses to play bogey golf!!

I have encountered many folks who regularly score 90 or thereabouts and who can not strike the ball. They keep it out of trouble and can get it up and down but they often have swings resembling George Bush the elder.

I guess this makes me a purist but I have never been impressed with drives that go 150 yards ( I don't care how straight ) or the use of 7 woods.

I like courses that reward the ball striker. So I guess I am in favor of a range of course slopes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Although I think it's a case where the slope rating is way too low, on the face of it Aronimink sounds like an ideal, with a par of 70, a course rating of 73.7, and a slope rating of 122.

I would imagine that Rustic Canyon must have an interesting course/slope rating ratio, as well.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()