Will they roll on the Course Rating Values?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Thanks. I would love to do that but as of now I plan on being in Cal for the US Open on the 16th. It's too bad because I can almost see White Manor from where I am sitting here typing, and I am familiar with the changes made there which seem extremely successive by every and all accounts I've heard and seen.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

T.E.Paul

Yes the Course Rating System has always had an air of mystery and controversy.

Of the 15 of the courses I've designed which have been rated with the USGA Course Rating System. None of the original Slope Ratings have survived more than a couple of years.

Why? I have my theories - but this is what happens.

The Greenkeeper sets up the course to the agreed playing conditions and the Raters come in and measure the course and the obstacles over 3 days.
The Raters come in Teams of 3, one low handicap, one mid handicap and a lady who have all had to take the mandatory Learning Courses. Being Swiss they are very precise using GPS and Laser measuring.

After a couple of weeks the Course Rating and Stroke Rating from the 2 mens tees and the 2 ladies tees are published to the great excitement and anticipation of the waiting golfers.

Almost immediately contradictory arguments emerges between the players about the efficacy of the Ratings. Most complaints come from players that feel their handicaps have suffered, the one’s that profit keep quiet.

The players equipped with their new handicap indexes enter competitions at neighbouring clubs - if they get stung they complain and if they win - the neighbouring club complains.

The captains and managers come under pressure from the players to “correct” the Ratings to fit their handicap, who then put pressure on the National Golf Association, who pass the buck back to the Raters.

At about this point politics can also be added to the equation with powerful personalities lobbying to achieve their respective ends.

In the end to avoid polemic the Raters revue their Rating and - conveniently - there is some room for interpretation within the Measuring System and the Ratings are reissued to match the need.

It would be great if John V.B or  Tom Huckaby the experienced "Measuring Raters" (my description to differentiate from a Golf Digest Rater)  throw some light on the "Readjustment" precedure. Do they use statistics from competitions to help revaluate the Slope Rating?

[Tom Huckaby]

John C-S:  hey, I'm just a rank and file "Measuring Rater" although I am now a Captain.  That means I do more work.  But anyway I have zero knowledge of any of your theories.. we do ratings, they get posted.  Hell maybe the stuff you suggest occurs.  But I sure don't know about it.  i do know that a very very prestigious club around here - California GC - was very very displeased with their ratings, and yet they remain as we computed them.

Matthew P:  please understand courses are rated under NORMAL SUMMERTIME CONDITIONS.  For those that host championships, unless they keep them as they do for championships all summer, that's not the conditions under which they would be rated.  Just regarding the distances used, at least at one time, it was based on how far the competitors in the US Amateur hit the ball.  Not sure if that has any relevance these days.  John V would know much better.

[TEPaul]

John C-S:

From your last post it seems the problems and confusions come not from the rating teams or the rating system (formulae etc) but from golfers who simply don't really understand it, what it is and is intended to accomplish etc. That is of course massively true and always has been.

In my experiences with course ratings and slope ratings I have found that perhaps a majority of golfers of all levels believe that a course's "Slope Rating" is and is supposed to be something like what a course's "Course Rating" is and is supposed to be.

The other problem, at least where I'm from, is that with the US Handicap System there are probably far too many American golfers who just don't have particularly representative handicaps for their particular games compared to other golfers outside America who essentially use a relatively different Handicap "system" or Handicap Posting System.

[Bob Harris]

T.E.Paul

Yes the Course Rating System has always had an air of mystery and controversy.

Of the 15 of the courses I've designed which have been rated with the USGA Course Rating System. None of the original Slope Ratings have survived more than a couple of years.

Why? I have my theories - but this is what happens.

The Greenkeeper sets up the course to the agreed playing conditions and the Raters come in and measure the course and the obstacles over 3 days.
The Raters come in Teams of 3, one low handicap, one mid handicap and a lady who have all had to take the mandatory Learning Courses. Being Swiss they are very precise using GPS and Laser measuring.

After a couple of weeks the Course Rating and Stroke Rating from the 2 mens tees and the 2 ladies tees are published to the great excitement and anticipation of the waiting golfers.

Almost immediately contradictory arguments emerges between the players about the efficacy of the Ratings. Most complaints come from players that feel their handicaps have suffered, the one’s that profit keep quiet.

The players equipped with their new handicap indexes enter competitions at neighbouring clubs - if they get stung they complain and if they win - the neighbouring club complains.

The captains and managers come under pressure from the players to “correct” the Ratings to fit their handicap, who then put pressure on the National Golf Association, who pass the buck back to the Raters.

At about this point politics can also be added to the equation with powerful personalities lobbying to achieve their respective ends.

In the end to avoid polemic the Raters revue their Rating and - conveniently - there is some room for interpretation within the Measuring System and the Ratings are reissued to match the need.

It would be great if John V.B or  Tom Huckaby the experienced "Measuring Raters" (my description to differentiate from a Golf Digest Rater)  throw some light on the "Readjustment" precedure. Do they use statistics from competitions to help revaluate the Slope Rating?

New courses should be re-rated every three years for the first nine years.  In our section, a different rating team will be used for each of the re-ratings. 
We do monitor results from competitions.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

T.E.Paul,

That’s definitly true the average golfer does not understand the complexities of the Course Rating System.

However the golfer does relate intimately to his Handicap Index.

If his Handicap Index has been more or less stable over 4 or 5 years and he joins a new club with a new Course Rating and his Handicap starts moving in the wrong direction (whichever way that may be) then he’s uncomfortable and put’s the new Rating into question - his democratic right. If a whole bunch of golfers feel strongly about it you have a political movement!!!

Here’s an interesting story of 2 of my courses which are only 15 minutes apart in the Canton of Graubunden, Switzerland

The first course, Domat-Ems G.C. is a Par 72 from the  2 mens tees of 6735 yards yards and 6375 yards, on a flat site with a lot of water hazards, bunkers near the landing areas and medium width fairways. I had remodelled the course in 2004/2005  and rebuilt the green’s and green complexes, removed and altered bunkers, added tees, changed the routing of 2 holes and generally enhanced the aesthetic appearance of the course.

In 2006 Domat-Ems was rerated with a:-
Course Rating of 73.9 and 72.3 (Back Tee Men and Mens Tee Standard)
Slope Rating  of 135 and 131.

The second course which I designed and constructed was Bunavista G.C. at Sagogn near Laax, in an alpine region, but only about 600 vertical feet higher. It has a Par 74 and 7064 yards and 6565 yards for the first 9 holes (played twice) - the next 9 Holes will balance the course at Par 72 and 6575 yards.
 
The course has wide fairways, no water hazards, some “hairy” bunkers BUT significantly  half of the holes are subject to some significant changes in elevation and cross slope lies.
In 2008 Buna Vista G.C. was measured by the same team.
Course Rating of 73.0 and 70.83 (Back Tee Men and Mens Tee Standard)
Slope Rating of  126 and 123   

Many of the new members of Buna Vista G.C were also members of Domat Ems G.C.. The single handicap players were not happy campers, they complained bitterly. In their view the Buna Vista G.C. was distinctly more difficult to play than Domat Ems G.C., yet the measured ratings had computed the opposite!!!!

As a result competitions at Buna Vista were boycotted by elite golfers since they feared their handicaps would suffer. Interestingly enough the course was overrun with green fee players, who loved the wide fairways and large greens and the general appearance of the course.

As you can imagine the terrace at the club house in Buna Vista had some heated discussions, and the beer didn’t help cool it down. False accusations and slander was liberally belched into the starlit evenings. It’a great how people can get emotional about a golf course!!!

My personal judgement of the Ratings were that  Domat-Ems had been overestimated due to the proximity of the water - which in spite of the predetermined landing areas and perceived danger,  the players would adjust their playing lengths to avoid. Also the flat course allowed for perfect lies from the fairways - meaning well executed golf shots were the norm.

In Buna Vista - despite the absence of hazards and the wide fairways - the undulations, change of elevation and cross slopes with ever changing lies have  predictably produced more unpredictable shots and high scores.

So what? No problem? Fraid not …….

The shit hit the proverbial fan and the raters came under pressure ….. however they have the oppurtunity for a rerate as the second 9 Holes come “on-line” this month. The Rating Committee for the National Association have organised all the Rating Teams available, not just one team, to measure the 18 Holes  ……….. the place will be crawling with Raters …….

Guess who will be providing provocative comment with the rating teams on the club terrace this month …….  mine’s a large Flimser beer please!!!.

[Jim Nugent]

The USGA recognized that players at the US Amateur are usually "+" handicaps ...

I remember the US Am at Merion several years back.  The field averaged over 78 there, IIRC.  Yet the course rating was in the 72's, again IIRC.  Either the players were not + handicaps, or the CR was far too low.  My guess is the CR was too low.  Also, that this is true of many courses that hold U.S. Opens or Amateurs.   

Are USGA championship conditions a fair way to measure a course against it's rating/slope value? I ask that as an honest question because I'm quite unfamiliar with these USGA standards.

My assumption would be, however, that since most clubs don't typically play nearly as difficult for members as they do during a championship, that higher scores vs. slope/rating would be expected.

Several GCA posters said Merion actually played easier that week than normal. 

[TEPaul]

JimN:

First of all I'm not too sure that Merion even has a listing on their card from that close to the true back tees that were used in the 2005 Amateur and in qualifying. So, a true "Course Rating" from those tees may not be all that determinable.

And second, yes some at Merion were a bit upset that the USGA didn't set up the course as challenging as it easily could have been in qualifying but the USGA's essential standard with that sort of thing is that they have 312 golfers trying to qualify over two days and they don't have enough day-light sometimes to get it done to their hopes and expectations if they make the course too tough in the qualifying rounds.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, how much distance did the USGA add to the normal tips at Merion, and how much harder do you think that made it?  Could they make it 2 strokes harder than normal?

I thought Merion has some pretty strict limits on how much it can stretch out the course, and that was one of the USGA's concerns, before it awarded the US Open. 

I remember the high scores surprised me.  During qualifying, I think only a few players shot in the 60s.  Low round was around 69?