ANGC Rating/Slope for '07 Masters

[Jim Nugent]

Seems to me there are two questions here.  1) What would slope and course rating likely be for ANGC, using the USGA's methodology for calculating them?  2) What would bogey and scratch players actually score at ANGC from the tips, with a Masters setup?

Looks like actual scores would be considerably higher than the course rating and slope might indicate.  

In general, I think almost any difficult, long course, set up where the top pro's have trouble making par, is an almost impossible task for the 20 handicapper.  Even without forced carries, the high handicapper faces some Mission Impossible type situations.  

e.g. Oakmont has a slope of 147.  But what in reality would a 200 yard 20 handicapper score there?  What happens when he gets in the rough?  The bunkers?  How can he putt the greens?  

Those kinds of courses, with a U.S. Open type setup, will crucify average players.  Seems to me the official slope drastically understates the real challenge.  Course rating might, too.  

 

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

That's good arithmetic, but not necessarily good mathematics.

Sure, if you make all of those USGA assumptions re: ESC, nobody is NOT going to complete a round at ANGC.  In fact, using those assumptions, as a 10 you could "score" (for USGA posting purposes) 100 there (72+20 (max doubles) + 8 (max bogies)) without even picking up a club!

I'll take the over in you breaking 100 under the Rules of Golf at Augusta during the Masters, anyday, which means that such things as "ratings" and (even more so) "slopes" are irrelevant to the game of golf.

[JohnV]

Augusta National has never been rated.  A good friend of mine who was involved with the Georgia State Golf Association told me that the club has never joined the GSGA and doesn't want to be rated.  But, they do make a sizable donation annually to the GSGA Scholarship fund and give them four tickets to the Masters.

The yardage at Augusta would have to be heavily adjusted due to elevation changes so the effective yardage might be different than the card yardage.

Tom is correct that almost every green would a 10 on Surface  rating.  With the narrower fairways and the new trees, the rating and slope would be much higher than 10 years ago.

Equitable Stroke Control allows + handicaps to take double bogey so only triples or higher would be adjusted.

Mr. Goodale, you need to get up to date on ESC.  A 10 handicap now can take a 7 on any hole.  Since Augusta is a "standard par 72" that is the effectively the same as a double bogey per hole.  But, the big change is that there is no limit to the number of 7s they can take so their maximum postable score would be 7*18 or 126.

I should note that ESC is only for posting, not for scoring.  The 10 handicap could shoot 200, he just couldn't post higher than 126.

[Bryan Izatt]

Before deciding on whether a bogey golfer would get crucified at Augusta let's just agree that a bogey golfer is one who plays at least 20 rounds a year and plays the ball down within the rules and can count correctly.

I'm not convinced that such a player is likely to get inextricably stuck in traps.  They are after all capable of getting around their regular course on average with a bogey a hole.  They're not hopeless hacks.  At Augusta, on the first hole, for instance, the fairway trap would be meaningless for rating for a bogey golfer.  They couldn't reach it off the Masters tees, and could easily get past it with their second shot.

The use of ESC certainly skews the handicap calculation and is intended to help the handicap more accurately reflect the "potential" of the golfer.  Here in the great white north (where it seems the season will never start ) ESC allows only a double on any hole for hadicaps of 1 to 18.  For 19 to 32 it allows a triple on any hole.  For 33 and above it allows quads.  Although that works out to a max 126 for a 20 handicapper, same as the US, I'd think it would lead to posting of higher scores in Canada than the US since bogey golfers are more likely to take 8's on par 5's than they are to take 7's on a par 3.  I'd bet that a bogey golfer posting 20 scores on a Canadian course would have a higher cap than the same player posting scores on a US course under the different ESC approaches.

John,

Although I've done course rating in the past, I've never done the rating calculations; can you indicate what percentage of the CR is accounted for by the surface rating?  As I recall length was 80% of the rating, but what does surface rating contribute?  The other changes you noted (excluding the added distance) at Augusta no doubt would raise the rating compared to previously, but do you really think they are so penal as to raise the rating by more than a stroke (or even a stroke)?

I guess I'm still not conviced that a (legitimate) bogey golfer is going to get eviscerated to the tune of a score greater than 110 every time around, if they played 20 rounds there.  Or that those with lower handicaps would necessarily always shoot worse than their caps.

But, I'm happy to volunteer to test the theory.  Anyone get us 20 rounds on Augusta so I can test it out?  

[Doug Siebert]

Just because the pros averaged 77 during the Masters doesn't mean you can use that figure to base your calculations on.  Even assuming that triples and worse are few enough that they don't measureably change that number, it was taken when conditions were quite unfavorable.  The ratings assume "normal" playing conditions.  I don't think think either the temperatures or the winds were at all normal.

Let them come back and play next year, and if conditions are like they usually are for the Masters, I'm sure the scoring average will drop 2 or 3 strokes.

[Jim Nugent]

Golf writer Jaime Diaz was one of those who won the ANGC lottery this year.  Here is part of the article he wrote about his round:

"We didn't play anywhere near the same course that Zach Johnson had won on the day before. Although the hole locations weren't changed, it was obvious right away that the greens had been watered. They held quite well and putted slower, probably in the 10- to 11-foot range on the Stimpmeter. We had little wind, although the temperatures in the low 50s took a few yards off of normal carry.

The biggest difference from the tournament course came because we were required to play from the members' tees, from which the course measures 6,365 yards, more than a half-mile shorter than the 7,445 yards that the Masters field has to negotiate. All told, I'd guess that for the low- to middle-range handicap player, it's at least a 10-stroke difference in difficulty, while high handicappers particularly challenged by carries over water and short-game skills probably would shoot 20, or more, strokes better."

Diaz says he is about a 5, and he shoe 82 that day.  So here's some quick arithmetic.

A 5 handicap shoots 82 from the members tees, to slower, softer greens.  That suggests to me a 20 handicap probably shoots at least 100.  

Now play from the Masters tees, which are 1080 yards longer.  Diaz estimates that adds another 20+ strokes to the high handicappers score.  He's already at 120 or more.  Harden up the greens, and have them run again at Masters speeds.  The 20 handicapper's score balloons higher still.  

The evidence keeps piling up that a 20 handicapper scores 120 to 130 or more, if he plays from the Masters tees, setup and conditions.  

Diaz' experience also is more evidence that the course rating is in the mid 80's, when it's played during the Masters and conditions are like they were last week.