Question for Golf Architects

[Steve_ Shaffer]

When designing or building a new course, do you project or target course ratings and slopes from the various tees?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Doesn't even cross our minds, Steve. Honestly.

[JNagle]

Even on redesign and restoration jobs we always get asked, "is this going to effect our course rating, we don't want our HC's to change". To me this is a secondary issue.  We rarely see any change other than a few decimal points.

[Joe Hancock]

DeVries, Fred Mueller and myself were in a presentation for a new course. After presenting three different routings and options, the first question was "where are the bathrooms?". The second question was "how many stars will this be rated?" We didn't get the job and were quite thankful at that.

Joe

[Jeff_Mingay]

Joe,

Stars?! What the hell does that mean?

[Joe Hancock]

We think they meant either Michigan AAA, or some other "agency" that issues ratings with stars......

It was all very bizarre. They also wanted bentgrass fairways because it made them feel "rich"......honest, you can't make this stuff up....

Joe

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have rated courses for the Texas Amateur golf association and am aware of the factors that increase the difficulty / ratings.
My experiences are that the ratings are much more sensitive to the length than any other factors.
Next would be fairway width.
I have been meaning to get an approximate rating for my Texas project, but haven't yet - it will be a interesting number.

That is a long way of saying - definately not - and why it might not even be worth the effort.

Although the Houston Business Journal ranks courses each year - by course rating....

Cheers

[Edwin Roald]

Steve,

Another "no" here.

I think about things that the Slope system is meant to reflect, e.g. the difficulty of the course as experienced by a skilled player and a high handicapper, but not once have I thought about the actual ratings.

I feel that it is up to the governing bodies to come up with a rating/handicap system that works and can be adapted to a vast variety of golf courses. I don't think that it's my job to adapt in any way to the rating system.

These systems will come and go. Golf courses will remain.

[paul cowley]

...no...I pretty much approach the difficulty factor in the beginning by determining whether the course needs to be hard, not so hard, or easier.....and the slopes seem to pretty much come in later and reflect that.

[JohnV]

Mike is correct that yardage is the predominant factor in a rating.  The second is the size of the greens as it affects so many other items such as bunker ratings and recoverabilty.  Fairways and the distance to hazards such as heavy rough, OB or water from the center of them is another large factor.  Carrys over water  or heavy rough also can get ratings up in a hurry.

I'm sure that most architects don't think of specific numbers, but more in terms of the difficulty of the course.  If they are interested, I'd be happy to start consulting for them.  

It would be nice if they thought about how some of their decisions can cause ruling problems at tournaments.

[Forrest Richardson]

As noted, it can be a sensitive issue when changing an existing course. I can only recall a few times when it has come up in a new course site.

At the Wigwam (Gold) we set out to get a rating reasonably high from the tips — we managed 74.5 and a 135 slope. That was OK. It was in response to RTJ's original concept for The Wigwam Gold: That it be difficult. I suppose the Starwood marketing people like it.

[Tom_Doak]

I still have yet to figure out why the slope rating would matter.  If it does what it's supposed to do, then it will fairly account for the variance in handicaps between different players, so that whether the course is harder or easier than normal their matches will still come out the same.

Of course, I have my doubts that it really works as well as it is supposed to ... local knowledge and strategy are just two of the many important items which it cannot process.  But that's just another reason why I don't really care about the number!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This is all very interesting.

During my recent trip to Florida, my wife and I were the guests of Roy Case at his soon to open new public course in Lake Worth- Park Ridge GC. He was particularly interested in how my wife played from the forward tees. She did very well and had 2 birdies, a first for her, on two of the 6 par3s.This is a 6-6-6 course. After the round, he said that he takes the design approach that Paul Cowley mentioned as to whether the course needs to be difficult or not. Since this course is a public course and will get a lot of play, he said he did not want to design a difficult course that would hinder pace of play. He created a very good course on a landfill with some degree of elevation unusual for South Florida. There were uphill and drop shot par3s and a short par4 with a drop shot approach to a very sunken green. I just received an email from him stating:

"I am so glad you and Ruth enjoyed the course, and I was thrilled that Ruth did so well.

We just got the USGA rating for ladies playing the forward tees, they are Blue 74.4  - 129,  White 70.3  -  121 and  Red 67.4  -  109.

My targets were 130,120,and 110, so I am very pleased"

The Blue tees are the regular middle tees for men(where I played) and there is another set back for those seeking more distance. The White tees for men could be considered the senior tees. My wife played the Red tees.I don't have the men's ratings. There was no scorecard. The course will officially open in March as the infrastructure,roads and clubhouse, needs to be completed.

By the way, I didn't have any birdies but shot a nice 81 with no doubles.
 

[Yannick Pilon]

Doesn't even cross our minds, Steve. Honestly.

Bingo!

Same answer.