[Mike_Cirba]

I'm beginning to think that the well-intentioned "Slope Rating" is beginning to compete with the Stimpmeter reading for the "mine is bigger than yours" Testosterone award among modern golfers.

As I mentioned in the "Mouth of the Beast" thread, I played a course this past weekend where absolutely NOTHING has changed since the course was built in 1993...not a single bunker or hazard added, not a single yard added, not a single tree planted, not a single maintenance practice changed..., and yet in the past couple of years, the official Slope Rating of the course has gone from a reasonable and very realistically reflective 125 from the tips to a number of 138, which is absurd.

So, in the ultimate act of attempting ego-gratificiation of the visiting resort golfer, a very playable, very reasonably challenging course passes itself off as a "Championship" test, and makes everyone feel good about themselves.

In the past few years, I'm seeing more and more courses with a back tee rating of 140, 145, even over 150, and it's all become some type of hysterical braggadocio for the most part.  

I'm beginning to feel that the USGA "slope rating" has more to do with crass marketing than accurately reflecting the reality of the difficulty of a given course for a handicap player versus the scratch man.

I'm also becoming quite convinced that it is completely meaningless, ill-conceived, and obviously being compromised and abused, so I'd like to raise a motion to abolish "slope rating" as an abomination against the game.

Anyone second the motion?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This is similar to "grade inflation" in colleges today. The "respectable C" of 40-50 years is now the "respectable B."

I recently played my former club and was shocked, just shocked to see the slopes increased to:

Black tees:152, 74.7 @ 7084y

Blue tees: 148,73.3 @ 6743y

White tees: 138,71.4 @6301y

Nothing has changed since the days of a 131 slope from the whites. Perhaps GAP/USGA has changed rating criteria. It is a "manly" course  however.

[Jim Nugent]

I'd rather see bogey rating replace slope.  And do away with the adjustments, if any.  

[Adam Clayman]

Second!

Quantifying with a formula the mysteries of the sport seems futile.

With examples like this, the perception of impropiety is plenty of evidence that the USGA should remove it.

[jeffwarne]

When we were rated for the second time we went from a Course rating of 74.5 to 76.4, and our slope rating went from 142 to 137.
We built no new tees, cleared a lot of trees, and mowed some fescue to add strategy and speed up play.
(so I get why the slope might've decreased, but why did course rating increase so much)


how about just a course rating that factors in the slope???
Not a chance anyone undrstands this stuff as it currently stands

[wsmorrison]

Given the importance of handicaps, ratings and slopes to a process that allows competition among different classes of golfers, there would have to be a rigorous formula to come up with the numbers.  If 20 different course raters rated the same course on the same day, how much variation would there be in their numbers if they work independently?  

I've only once seen raters at work.  There was a group of four playing Sunnehanna one day.  Do they confer and come up with one number or each work alone?  Just how does it work?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I agree with you, the Slope rating has become the "Red Badge of Courage" competing with it's related friend, the "Stimp Reading"

[Jason Connor]

I also think there is politics in the slope.

I mean, I've played resort courses with super wide fairways (and sure, plenty of sand) with slopes of 134.

Then I'll play a parkland muni that maybe only 5800 yards but it's awfully narrow.  So narrow that if a drive leaks even a little it's a lost ball in the woods -- stroke and distance penalty.  And it'll have slope 107.

That never seemed right to me given that many high handicappers (for whom Dean Knuth designed the slope) spray the ball off the tee.


---

Given the importance of handicaps, ratings and slopes to a process that allows competition among different classes of golfers, there would have to be a rigorous formula to come up with the numbers.

I am a statistician by trade and course rating could be done so much simpler to me.  Someone doesn't "rate" courses.  Rather with GHIN it seems quite easy to let the players' scores rate courses.

By this I mean I've played 15 different courses this year. I'm sure many of you have played more than that.  And we report our scores.  To a statistician this means plenty of "mixing".  If we all just played one course, this wouldn't work.  But we each play a variety of courses each year.

Therefore the USGA is sitting on a goldmine of data that can be used to tell me how my 13.3 will play at Pebble Beach or the muni I'll play when I visit my uncle next weekend.  

 If 20 different course raters rated the same course on the same day, how much variation would there be in their numbers if they work independently?  

Which would you trust more, a 4 guys with a clipboard playing & walking a course "rating" it 72.8 / 128 or thousands of rounds each year by players with various handicaps who play that course and many other courses contributing to a fair, unbiased assessment of how difficult it plays?

A collaborator and I have repeatedly asked the USGA for handicap data because we think we can construct a better system.  But of course we've never been privy to such information.

[wsmorrison]

I'll take your system any day, Jason if as you say it is possible.  But as you are assuming ratings and slope in handicaps and using the handicaps and scores to come up with a better course rating (and over a much larger sampling of players and conditions thus improving the results), is it OK to use those assumptions to re-engineer the ratings and slopes?  

Do most of the course raters play the course and come up with a number or are they out there with clipboard rather than clubs all day considering details and following a specific process?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

the few times I have observed the process, a group (usually about a dozen) of State Golf Association raters play the course with the slope guide in hand (which has pretty rigorous definitions of when to add/subtract points) and then compares notes right after the round to make sure that no one is way off base on any  particular item. They then average the scores and make the rating.

For those that don't know, the slope guide has about a dozen factors that they look at.  I think the hole rating starts with the course rating, which is based primarily on distance.  Then, specific factors like fw width, hazards, green contours can add points.

I have seen ratings change with mowing patterns, etc. and I have seen high ratings being marketed.  However, I have also seen courses ask that their slope rating be decreased, thinking that a high rating is a turn off.  Its not inconcievalbe that a different panel going out to re-rate a course could see things differently than the first, esp. if there was any pressure from the course to subtly adjust, or if they addressed the issues that caused the rating heartburn in the first place.

I think the biggest driver of requests for re-rating come from competition committees at clubs, who get concerned as to whether their handicaps travel well.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
No.

What if the raters thought the set of tees you are referring to now lead to a higher number of holes that the bogey golfer can reach  in regulation? That's not inconceivable, given the advancements in equipment from 1993 'til now. Now the bogey golfer has the greenside bunkers to deal with, where before he had a pitch or long chip, and could more easily avoid the trouble, and he'd be using a fairway wood or long iron to do try getting on in regulation vs. the scratch golfer who'll still be using his short iron or wedge.  
That would but an upward swing to the slope.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()