[Mike_Young]

I so often hear guys say that the handicap at our shorter older course just doesn't travel well when they go to other more modern courses....how can that be changed on almost any short older course without major expense???  Of course have an opinion but want hear some others before popping off...

[John Moore II]

I so often hear guys say that the handicap at our shorter older course just doesn't travel well when they go to other more modern courses....how can that be changed on almost any short older course without major expense???  Of course have an opinion but want hear some others before popping off...

Get the association to come out and re-rate the course would probably be a start. I know of a course in NC that is fairly modern (well 25 years old now) but the course hasn't been re-rated in at least 13 years and given the changes they've made to make the course easier and how much farther nearly all players hit the ball now, I would say the rating is probably a full shot too high. I should think this is the case at a great number of courses, especially the older ones.
A course in Raleigh, NC comes to mind as well: 6071 yards, yet 3 of the par 5's are easily reachable with mid and short irons, the other two are reachable with long irons or woods. And a quick look at the par 4's tell me that a scratch golfer would have no more than an 8 iron into any hole, most likely not more than a wedge with several of the second shots coming with 30~ yard pitches. Par 3's all require between a 3 hybrid to a 9 iron, depending on player. Yet, the course and slope ratings from the back tees are 69.2/125. A more accurate number would probably be 67.2/115, if not slightly lower than that.
I think the course rating system has not nearly caught up with the level of play seen by the scratch golfer today, neither have the USGA distance standards. Change the distance standards and revise the course rating system and I think you'll have handicaps that travel better. Of course this is nothing the course can do on its own.

[Jason Topp]

I don't think the rating and slope system is all that accurate.  I know many people who carry handicaps at modern courses in the winter that are higher than their handicaps in the summer at a Midwestern courses.  They take my money in the spring when they return to Minnesota but still have their fat Florida handicaps.

I think the problems can be attributed to the following:

1.  The system assumes specific playing characteristics for a scratch and bogey golfer.   If I recall correctly the scratch hits it 250 and is able to reach a 470 yard hole in two shots and the bogey player hits it some shorter distance.  The modifications to ratings based on obstacles are determined with those distances in mind.  Most scratch golfers hit the ball longer than 250 although some hit it shorter.  Bogey golfers are all over the map and, in my experience, the percentage that play by the rules is exceedingly low.

2.  I think it is impossible to use the ratings and slope system effectively on a course that is exposed to a lot of wind.  The difficulty is too variable on the windy course.  My course is well protected from the wind.  One of my friends at the club joined a modern course that is a bit longer, but much more exposed.  A 15 mph wind is not that big of a deal on my course but it makes a huge difference there.  On calm days, his course plays easier than mine (from similarly rated tees) but calm days at his course are very rare.  He used to be scratch.  Now he is a 2.  He shoots the same scores he used to shoot when he comes back to my course.

3.  Modern courses usually have more disaster holes and I do not think the ratings and slope system do a very good job of accounting for the chances of disaster.  If I am playing with someone that plays a Florida course full of water with my handicap from a midwestern parkland course, I know I am in for a long day unless I play really well.  A Florida course with a slope in the 130's is a tough course.  Nearly every Minnesota classic course has a slope in the high 130's with ratings that are about the same (when compared to the yardage) as a Florida course.

The way to solve this problem is simple.  I would create course ratings created by actual playing results.  You would need individuals across the handicap spectrum and you would need to make sure those individuals are following the rules to create such a result, but I would bet the handicaps would travel more equally.  Such scores could probably be generated from competitive events at each club which would be much more accurate than daily scores.  Such scores are already designated with a "T" under GHIN.  You would use handicaps under the current system until enough data is generated to make adjustments and adjust every couple of years after that.  I am sure Choi could come up with a regression formula that could make the adjustments.  I also think course rating could be adjusted for certain weather conditions - mainly wind speed but also possibly others.  

I have no doubt that the raters do their job well.  I just think the formula is inherently innacurate and it would be possible to improve it without a ton of effort.

[V. Kmetz]

The one thing that would allow for a truer traveling handicap is for the existing handicap to have been built on more traveling rounds and fewer on one's "regular" course to begin with.

I really can't see too much the home course can do - architecturally - to alter one's playing experience and executions on another course.

Maintenance-wise, perhaps the greens can be made faster or the mowing patterns tightened (to make outer margins part of fairway or rough) and the pins be slightly more aggressive as they move around the weekly traffic pattern.

But that's merely "conditioning" the player to take higher scores, not catalyzing him to equivalent play on another course.

Here's one: Build a better practice range

cheers

vk

[Simon Holt]

This topic is the bane of my life. 

Our club has a real mix of US and UK members...Member Guest is the best fun you can have with your clothes on but there is always someone who is getting pretty beat up and the age old debate about which handicap system works best comes out to haunt us.  This will be my last post as I can feel the rage starting already!  Good luck though- I will read with interest!

[Sean_A]

I so often hear guys say that the handicap at our shorter older course just doesn't travel well when they go to other more modern courses....how can that be changed on almost any short older course without major expense???  Of course have an opinion but want hear some others before popping off...

Mike

I think for the very good club players, a shorter course is MORE DIFFICULT to maintain a low handicap on than a longer course.  These guys generally have no issues with length and when they get two or three shots back on par from the SS comapred to giving maybe two shots - its a no brainer that I would take the guy from the shorter course against the a guy from a longer course if sight unseen.  

It is a totally different matter once we kick up toward a 7ish capper and above.  Many of these guys don't travel well (including me) if they are faced with a longer course.  In this group will often be many older guys who know how to get it round a short course, but suffer badly off their caps on a long course.

I don't know what the solution is other than to keep the wagers friendly and there is no harm done - tee hee.  Too many guys get uptight about this stuff when they aren't really playing for anything that matters and is really more about fun, comeraderie and a bit of exercise.  

Ciao

[John Gosselin]

Putt out + Play by the rules + Post your scores = Money in the bank

I play a fair amount of golf with a wide variety of people and I don't see many with real handicaps because they are posting scores without really finishing a golf hole. When someone tells me "that's good" I generally say thank you, but then putt out  for handicap purposes.

I have 2 kids in college, so I love playing people with Hollywood handicaps.

It's not all the system.

[Dan Herrmann]

To me, many slopes are too high.  I do think course ratings are OK though.

The USGA says the average is 113, but I don't think it's anywhere near that low.

[Mike_Young]

Putt out + Play by the rules + Post your scores = Money in the bank

I play a fair amount of golf with a wide variety of people and I don't see many with real handicaps because they are posting scores without really finishing a golf hole. When someone tells me "that's good" I generally say thank you, but then putt out  for handicap purposes.

I have 2 kids in college, so I love playing people with Hollywood handicaps.

It's not all the system.

BINGO....PUTT IT OUT....side breaking short putts of three feet or less will do more to solve the handicap problem than any distance issues...AGREE  100%...

[Bob Harris]

To me, many slopes are too high.  I do think course ratings are OK though.

The USGA says the average is 113, but I don't think it's anywhere near that low.

Per Dean Knuth:

When I introduced the system in 1982, the theoretical average Slope Rating was 113 because USGA data showed that scores go up on average 1.13 strokes per handicap stroke. The actual average Slope Rating is 120. The majority of courses in coastal states have Slopes of 121 and higher. Many Slopes lower than 118 are mid-American public courses.

[PCCraig]

What one thing would allow for a truer traveling handicap ?

Honest golfers.

[JohnV]

To me, many slopes are too high.  I do think course ratings are OK though.

The USGA says the average is 113, but I don't think it's anywhere near that low.

Dan, 113 is not the average of all slopes.  It is slope of an course of "standard playing difficulty".  Most courses have things that raise them above the standard.

[JohnV]

Get the association to come out and re-rate the course would probably be a start. I know of a course in NC that is fairly modern (well 25 years old now) but the course hasn't been re-rated in at least 13 years and given the changes they've made to make the course easier and how much farther nearly all players hit the ball now, I would say the rating is probably a full shot too high.

John,  Course ratings expire after 10 years.  Most associations rate more frequently than that.  If the course in question is a member of their golf association they should complain that they aren't getting the service they are paying for.  If a course makes major changes it should get re-rated again after those changes.

Anyone playing that course technically can not post scores from there.

[Steve Kline]

Hanrivals should only be based on competitive rounds where everything is holed out. Then scores from that day amongst all competitors should be compared to account for any weather or course condition factors.

[Jason Connor]

The way to solve this problem is simple.  I would create course ratings created by actual playing results.  You would need individuals across the handicap spectrum and you would need to make sure those individuals are following the rules to create such a result, but I would bet the handicaps would travel more equally.  

Agree. And as the statistician on this board, it's so easy to do.
Another thing is that it might help the USGA increase revenue.

Right now, I can calculate my handicap by myself if I know the course's rating & slope.

With this system you put your rounds into the computer at your home club or through GHIN then every 2 weeks (or every night, whatever) USGA runs the big algorithm.  You couldn't do it alone since your handicap is reliant on all scores from everyone else.

GHIN already has courses it in.  But now it knows that I played Tobacco Road today and you played it last week but our two rounds go into it.

At it's simplist, it's really just one big 2-way ANOVA.  Or it would also be straightforward to construct an E-M algorithm sort of thing that does the "best 10 of last 20" like we have these days.


The alternative is to just use real scores for the course & slope ratings.  It would be interesting (USGA has this data in GHIN) to see what raters are the most accurate.  Or which ones over or under rate a course.  This would actually be very easy to see which courses are over & under rated using GHIN data.

[Jason Connor]

But to answer the OP: I agree that you should have your home course re-rated.

[John Moore II]

Get the association to come out and re-rate the course would probably be a start. I know of a course in NC that is fairly modern (well 25 years old now) but the course hasn't been re-rated in at least 13 years and given the changes they've made to make the course easier and how much farther nearly all players hit the ball now, I would say the rating is probably a full shot too high.

John,  Course ratings expire after 10 years.  Most associations rate more frequently than that.  If the course in question is a member of their golf association they should complain that they aren't getting the service they are paying for.  If a course makes major changes it should get re-rated again after those changes.

Anyone playing that course technically can not post scores from there.

I was aware of both those facts and that was kind of my reason for posting. As far as I know the members there are still able to post handicaps, but I am not sure totally. Either way, last time I was there, the rating was the exact same as it was when I started playing there in 1997 and they have made changes. I was using it to point out that numbers may or may not always be accurate.

[Jim Nugent]

The way to solve this problem is simple.  I would create course ratings created by actual playing results.  You would need individuals across the handicap spectrum and you would need to make sure those individuals are following the rules to create such a result, but I would bet the handicaps would travel more equally.  

Agree. And as the statistician on this board, it's so easy to do.

Without knowing the formula, doesn't handicap depend on CR and slope?  i.e. do we have a chicken and egg problem here?  

Actually, we already may have the problem, in reverse: CR and slope depend on handicap. 

[Jason Topp]

The way to solve this problem is simple.  I would create course ratings created by actual playing results.  You would need individuals across the handicap spectrum and you would need to make sure those individuals are following the rules to create such a result, but I would bet the handicaps would travel more equally.  

Agree. And as the statistician on this board, it's so easy to do.

Without knowing the formula, doesn't handicap depend on CR and slope?  i.e. do we have a chicken and egg problem here?  

Actually, we already may have the problem, in reverse: CR and slope depend on handicap. 

The idea is to determine the course rating and bogey rating based on actual scores rather than evaluations from ratings panels.  Current course handicaps might be a reference point in that calculation but they might not.  If you use them you could evaluate the extent to which actual scores vary from expected scores for a given handicap and make adjustments so that handicaps at one course would be equivilant to handicaps at another course.

Jim would need to explain any details.  I only know enough to be sure that the statistical calculation would be relatively straightforward.

[Ken Moum]

I think this problem is entirely caused by golf association course raters... that and the fact that the GHIN system is a mess anyway.

The raters don't assign enough variation in overall course rating and slope between courses, so people who play easy courses are getting too few strokes, and people who play very hard courses are getting too many.

According to the guy who invented the system, a "standard course" had a slope of 112, and according to an aritcle in Golf Digest a few years ago the average was 118.5.

Regardless, I see damned few courses with slopes that low, and with a max of 155, there simply isn't enough differentiation between courses to account for how golfers actually play them.

When you add the fact that the GHIN system ignores one of the primary skills in golf--the ability to play well when you want to the most--we have system that doesn't work for most people.

Anyone who plays a course with lots of penalty strokes available in the form of water, OB or tall grass is, in my view, going to have a big advantage over those who play courses without all those penalty opportunities. And until the slope and rating system accurately predicts scores for golfers with 10-25 handicaps, the inequity will always exist.

I do put some blame on course owners and members, who don't want their  courses to have a rating of 68 with a slope of 105, but that's about the only rational solution.

FWIW, I wish the slope number had been less of a public deal, and instead we had published the bogey rating, wihch is what the slope is derived from anyway.  Maybe people would better understand how the system works.

K

[Jason Connor]

Without knowing the formula, doesn't handicap depend on CR and slope?  i.e. do we have a chicken and egg problem here?  

Actually, we already may have the problem, in reverse: CR and slope depend on handicap. 

That's a good question, but with enough data (and we have thousands to millions of rounds) it's actually pretty easy.
It's especially easy since many of us play multiple courses.  If everyone just played their home course it wouldn't work.

It'd be very similar to the way the PGA Tour calculates stroke average -- their algorithm isn't just the player's average, it factors in the course each day.

[Jason Connor]

The idea is to determine the course rating and bogey rating based on actual scores rather than evaluations from ratings panels.  Current course handicaps might be a reference point in that calculation but they might not.  If you use them you could evaluate the extent to which actual scores vary from expected scores for a given handicap and make adjustments so that handicaps at one course would be equivilant to handicaps at another course.

Jim would need to explain any details.  I only know enough to be sure that the statistical calculation would be relatively straightforward.

Right.  That's matches my 2nd suggestion.  By the end of the first year a course has thousands of rounds, that much better to calculate slope and rating than any rater spending a day there.

And it'd be easy to re-rate every course every year this way.  Some ratings could change due to maintenance practices.  Some due to changing hazards, etc.

From a statistical point of view, I think the 1st method would give everyone more accurate handicaps.  But this way at least there is something to print on the card.

[Bob Harris]

The way to solve this problem is simple.  I would create course ratings created by actual playing results.  You would need individuals across the handicap spectrum and you would need to make sure those individuals are following the rules to create such a result, but I would bet the handicaps would travel more equally.  

Agree. And as the statistician on this board, it's so easy to do.

Without knowing the formula, doesn't handicap depend on CR and slope?  i.e. do we have a chicken and egg problem here?  

Actually, we already may have the problem, in reverse: CR and slope depend on handicap. 

Not correct, course rating and slope are based on the effective playing length of the course and the 10 obstacle factors.

[Jason Connor]

I agree with Ken.  Everyone looks at a high slope as some badge of honor when in fact high CR and low slope should be the ideal -- of course that's a damn hard course to design.

I grew up playing on courses carved out of the woods in the Appalachians.  Basically if you hit left or right, your ball was lost in a thick forest.  So if you play by the rules of golf, you have a huge index.

But I don't think raters really treat those woods and the ease of lost balls heavily enough.

Take that to a course where left or right means you're in the next fairway and I had a great traveling handicap.  


Once in grad school, a prof and I asked the Pennsylvania State Golf Association for a bunch of their GHIN data.  They wouldn't give it to us.  We thought we could do some really great handicap related research if we had a big dataset of player, course, and score.  (players could have been de-identified).

[Jud_T]

The home course bias is particularly keen in my experience.  Guys get comfortable on their home course and know their way around, where to miss it, can read the greens better than most caddies, etc....Seems to me combining current, or improved, rating and slope with the best elements of the UK system, tournaments on a variety of courses where everyone plays strictly by the rules, would be the best solution....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()