Handicap and its negative effect on golf course architecture/maintenance

[Clyde Johnson]

I was drawn to the following article on Darius Oliver’s Planet Golf regarding the effects of the handicap system, the attitudes of golfers/clubs towards handicap, and its resulting effects on maintenance, and thus playability:

Sliding down that slippery Slope

Ever since Golf Australia announced changes to our local handicapping system, including the implementation of the United States slope rating system for golf courses, I have feared for what might happen to some of our great layouts once their slope numbers were computed and announced. It was during a recent conversation with the President of a prominent metropolitan golf club that I realised my fears about the introduction of the US slope rating system here were well founded.

This particular President was boasting that his course had received the highest slope rating in its region, and that the club was preparing to use these results in their marketing. Aside from how proud this President was of the achievement, what was most striking about our conversation was learning of the steps taken by the club to ensure it received a healthy (read high) slope number. In some places the fairways were narrowed and in others the roughs were increased, while an emphasis was placed across the course on ensuring the greens were running as quickly as possible.

Things clearly went well, because although this is not a course that I would have described as overly difficult, according to Golf Australia it is now officially the toughest in the city. And clearly for some this is a good thing.

According to the President, the reason for the celebration was that his had always been a ‘players club…that prides itself on providing good golfers with a stern test of their skills’. In his words, ‘the last thing they wanted were good golfers breaking par.’

What’s odd about this particular course, however, is that it has two short par fives in its closing run, and simply reducing the par from 72 to 70 would have toughened it significantly for better players anyway, and not made it more difficult for everyone else. I guess at the end of the day being able to boast a high slope rating, as well as a par of 72, is pretty appealing.

Having seen how many American clubs exploit a high slope rating to promote the virtues of their course over a less difficult neighbour, my fear has always been that by following the US slope system our clubs would fall into the same trap and unnecessarily toughen up their layouts. As someone without a handicap, and who doesn’t play competitive golf, it’s always felt somewhat hypocritical to pass judgement on a handicapping system that I don’t even use, but there is no doubt that these changes imposed by Golf Australia will affect Australian golf course setup. I just hope Aussie golfers have enough sense to recognise that a course with a high slope rating isn’t necessarily a great course, it’s simply a hard one.

(http://planetgolf.com.au/index.php?id=1519)

Such issues have annoyed me for some time. I am a member at an extremely modest club in England’s Lake District, which for the last few years has cut its fairway’s narrower (with most effect on the weaker - the dominant cut off rough is not too penal for a single figure golfer), reduced green size and extended two tees in order to add a shot onto the Course Standard Scratch. The course is now more one-dimensional than ever – playing a medal, almost, engages auto-pilot mode as playing/pin positions become tiresome. I find such an importance placed on handicap almost as sad as it is predictable, especially as it such a small percentage of club golfers who will actually play competitive golf (at any level) away from their home clubs.

Anyway, as I haven’t seen much mentioned on here, I would be interested in any other thoughts/stories? I also wonder if any of GCA’s resident architects have experienced requests from clients to design for a particular slope/handicap rating?

[Jason Topp]

I would prefer that courses focus on "bogey rating" rather than slope in order to counter this effect.  I seriously doubt any course would brag that its course is much more difficult for an 18 handicap than another course. 

Perhaps my experience is unique, but I hear a lot less discussion about slope in the US than I did when the concept was first introduced.  It seems like many courses built in the 80's and 90's were designed to have a high slope but more recent courses are almost the opposite - designed to let players get around the course.

I think golfers learned that losing a bunch of balls makes the game less fun.  Most high slope courses here involve a lot of water hazards and therefore a lot of lost balls. 

[Doug Siebert]

I wish people didn't mistake high slope for difficulty.  I try to educate people when they bring this up, but their eyes begin to glaze over right after you explain the concept of scratch and bogey rating and get into the math

[Dan Herrmann]

Doug- we even see "high slope rating" in ads for golf courses.  It's another example of the law of unintended consequences.   Real shame....

[David Harshbarger]

Doug- we even see "high slope rating" in ads for golf courses.  It's another example of the law of unintended consequences.   Real shame....

Dan,

The great thing about measures is everyone "gets" it.  The bad thing about measures is not everyone gets "it".  Any good manager knows if you measure and mind what's important, you get intended results, but if you measure and mind what's unimportant, you get unintended results.

So, if you want people to mind GCA, measure it.  Then golf course Presidents can work hard to setup their course to get the "highest GCA rating in the Metro area."

Wouldn't that be a good problem?

Dave

[Melvyn Morrow]

Why are we letting NUMBERS take over our game.

Today everything has to be complicated, I presume to justify the expense of changing the Status Quo  - but WHY???

Golfers have a brain they can think, they can also plan their game, why try to place Numbers after all each golf course is meant to be different even with all the Templates. Golf needs that variety of play, the challenge of the new course, not a uniformity that may or may not be cost effective on maintenance but expensive to put into practice.

Now more than ever we need to see innovates in the design process not gimmicks – we need not a radical re think but IMHO a reinvention of our hazards. The courses need to offer a continuity of play by concentrating on fairway hazards, shortening the length but allowing some unprotected overshoot of the Greens, Let the design Numbers do the walking, if that is halfway good or correct, it will give far more to the Golfer, Club and the maintenance Team and Budget.

We do not need complicated golf, we need the Golfer to thing about THE GCA and how to successfully navigate the course to minimise his score – well those who believe in score it seems to be Set in Tablets of Stone – come on Guys there is more to Golf, come to that more in life than always keeping score.

If the slow player continues to play at their slowing rate we should number them  and advise faster players of the slow mobile hazards they will soon encounter – perhaps that it, keep slow player on the course at all times making them the ever changing hazards rather that start playing with numbers again, it will certainly cost less on maintenance as the grass will grow faster than some of these guys can walk or ride and they pay to play too.

What ever happened to lateral thinking, did it get lost in an island Green or take a wrong turning on a housing complex?

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think we may be overestimating this effect.

On another thread I noted that I have rounds played estimates from some of my comparable courses in comparable markets that show that golfers actively seek out the less challenging, lower slope rated course.  And we know that only a small percent of golfers keep their handicap.  And survey after survey shows that golfers choose courses for maintenance and pay little attention to design (other than they think they know good design when they see it)  Few report choosing courses because of difficulty.

Its only the handicap slave type that adhere to ratings, and those are the ones who sort of try put the slope ratings to golf courses.  If the course hasn't changed, then golfers won't change where they play.  If the long rough causes more strokes and more lost balls, my bet would be that most golfers will gradually drift away to courses they find more enjoyable and which charge them less in the hidden lost golf ball taxes category.

[Garland Bayley]

I wish people didn't mistake high slope for difficulty.  I try to educate people when they bring this up, but their eyes begin to glaze over right after you explain the concept of scratch and bogey rating and get into the math

So what is the difference between high slope and difficulty? If you have two courses with course ratings the same, and different slopes, the one with the higher slope is more difficult for 99.9% of all golfers. Do you not agree they will shoot higher scores there? So what is the difference?

[Doug Siebert]

Sure IF THE COURSE RATING IS THE SAME, but that's an irrelevant scenario.  Typical golfers hardly look at course rating at all, slope is what catches their eye and in their mind equates to difficulty.  If you present them with two courses, one which has a rating of 74.0 and a slope of 130 and the other with a rating of 70.0 but a slope of 140, they'll tell you the second one is more difficult.  Even if you can convince them the bogey rating for the second course is lower - sometimes even if they are close enough to scratch that slope doesn't matter much for them at all!

Not saying the second course might not actually play more difficult for some golfers (guys like me who hit it far but not always so straight) but they are basing that evaluation solely on the slope rating, because they believe that's a number that represents the difficulty of the course.

[Garland Bayley]

Sure IF THE COURSE RATING IS THE SAME, but that's an irrelevant scenario.  Typical golfers hardly look at course rating at all, slope is what catches their eye and in their mind equates to difficulty.  If you present them with two courses, one which has a rating of 74.0 and a slope of 130 and the other with a rating of 70.0 but a slope of 140, they'll tell you the second one is more difficult.  Even if you can convince them the bogey rating for the second course is lower - sometimes even if they are close enough to scratch that slope doesn't matter much for them at all!

Not saying the second course might not actually play more difficult for some golfers (guys like me who hit it far but not always so straight) but they are basing that evaluation solely on the slope rating, because they believe that's a number that represents the difficulty of the course.

You are right theoretically. How about practically. Can you find even a single example of your stated scenario?

[Mark Saltzman]

Sure IF THE COURSE RATING IS THE SAME, but that's an irrelevant scenario.  Typical golfers hardly look at course rating at all, slope is what catches their eye and in their mind equates to difficulty.  If you present them with two courses, one which has a rating of 74.0 and a slope of 130 and the other with a rating of 70.0 but a slope of 140, they'll tell you the second one is more difficult.  Even if you can convince them the bogey rating for the second course is lower - sometimes even if they are close enough to scratch that slope doesn't matter much for them at all!

Not saying the second course might not actually play more difficult for some golfers (guys like me who hit it far but not always so straight) but they are basing that evaluation solely on the slope rating, because they believe that's a number that represents the difficulty of the course.

You are right theoretically. How about practically. Can you find even a single example of your stated scenario?

Sure. 

Tobacco Road: 73.2/150

Capitol Hill - Senator: 77.7/133

[Mark Saltzman]

I've always thought of slope/rating like this:

Slope matters more the higher your handicap, and course rating matters more the lower your handicap.

Slope goes up because of hazards that are in play for poorly struck shots (so forced carries off the tee which are not a problem for a low handicap, and hazards well right or left).

Course rating goes up based on difficulty even if you are hitting good shots.  So length is a big one (you could give me a 500 yard par 4 with no hazards and sheer length will dictate that I make 5 most of the time), difficulty of greens, depth and placement of fairway bunkers.  Basically those things that will stop you from making a par but won't mean a double either.

[Garland Bayley]

Sure IF THE COURSE RATING IS THE SAME, but that's an irrelevant scenario.  Typical golfers hardly look at course rating at all, slope is what catches their eye and in their mind equates to difficulty.  If you present them with two courses, one which has a rating of 74.0 and a slope of 130 and the other with a rating of 70.0 but a slope of 140, they'll tell you the second one is more difficult.  Even if you can convince them the bogey rating for the second course is lower - sometimes even if they are close enough to scratch that slope doesn't matter much for them at all!

Not saying the second course might not actually play more difficult for some golfers (guys like me who hit it far but not always so straight) but they are basing that evaluation solely on the slope rating, because they believe that's a number that represents the difficulty of the course.

You are right theoretically. How about practically. Can you find even a single example of your stated scenario?

Sure. 

Tobacco Road: 73.2/150

Capitol Hill - Senator: 77.7/133

Relative lengths? If I go to those places and want to play about 6300 yards, what are the ratings?

[Garland Bayley]

I've always thought of slope/rating like this:

Slope matters more the higher your handicap, and course rating matters more the lower your handicap.

Slope goes up because of hazards that are in play for poorly struck shots (so forced carries off the tee which are not a problem for a low handicap, and hazards well right or left).

Course rating goes up based on difficulty even if you are hitting good shots.  So length is a big one (you could give me a 500 yard par 4 with no hazards and sheer length will dictate that I make 5 most of the time), difficulty of greens, depth and placement of fairway bunkers.  Basically those things that will stop you from making a par but won't mean a double either.

And what is the dividing line between high handicap, and low handicap? What percent of players fall below that line?

[Mark Saltzman]

Garland,

One need not define high/low handicap. It is a sliding scale. The higher your handicap, the more slope will be of importance to you, the lower the more rating is of importance.  At least, that is always the way I thought of it. Indeed, in the formula for calculating handicap, slope ratings have very little impact on those Players that are scoring anywhere near the course rating, just as course rating has very little impact on those players shooting well over the rating (and slope is a significant factor).

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

One need not define high/low handicap. It is a sliding scale. The higher your handicap, the more slope will be of importance to you, the lower the more rating is of importance.  At least, that is always the way I thought of it. Indeed, in the formula for calculating handicap, slope ratings have very little impact on those Players that are scoring anywhere near the course rating, just as course rating has very little impact on those players shooting well over the rating (and slope is a significant factor).

Since "slope ratings have very little impact on those Players that are scoring anywhere near the course rating", and since those players are a very small percentage of "Players", wouldn't it seem that a general rule of thumb is that slope is the difficulty measure for the vast majority of players?

Again, technically correct, but not much in practice.

[Tony Ristola]

I liked the very old system.
Course was rated, you took the best 10 of your 20 scores, looked it up your total on a chart and voila... your handicap.

Handicaps are merely around so folks can compete fairly.

[Matthew Petersen]

Garland,

One need not define high/low handicap. It is a sliding scale. The higher your handicap, the more slope will be of importance to you, the lower the more rating is of importance.  At least, that is always the way I thought of it. Indeed, in the formula for calculating handicap, slope ratings have very little impact on those Players that are scoring anywhere near the course rating, just as course rating has very little impact on those players shooting well over the rating (and slope is a significant factor).

Slope works more as a multiplier of difficulty. Rating reflects the basic difficulty of the golf course; the length, the greens, the bunkering. Slope gives you an idea of the severity of other hazards, water, OB, potential for lost balls, etc.

Which is to say a relatively high handicap guy who hits it short and straight and never really in trouble is going to be better served looking at the course rating, despite this higher index.

[Mark Saltzman]

Garland,

Yes, I agree. I didn't think/realize I was arguing against that point.

Like I said, i have found that course rating is largely by length. So, most players should simply pick the appropriate length and then look at the slope. If slope is higher than they like to play, they should recognize that the course plays hard for that length and should move up a set.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Which is to say a relatively high handicap guy who hits it short and straight and never really in trouble is going to be better served looking at the course rating, despite this higher index.

Not sure this is a good rule of thumb, because length is by far the greatest determinant of slope.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Numbers, numbers, but can we trust the numbers - and anyway which handicap system are we talking about - it’s all numbers unless policed correctly, but then who wants their score policed - I for one as am happy about my figures, alas some are certainly not and handicaps in the eyes of a few seem to dictate male standing, which we all know is just a prick of a subject.

Melvyn

[Matthew Petersen]

...
Which is to say a relatively high handicap guy who hits it short and straight and never really in trouble is going to be better served looking at the course rating, despite this higher index.

Not sure this is a good rule of thumb, because length is by far the greatest determinant of slope.

Yardage is easier to look up and interpret than slope rating and I am pretty confident that most players pick their tees based on the yardage, so that would seem to somewhat mitigate that factor.

[Joe Grasty]

I've only been playing golf since 2004, but I've yet to see a course here in DFW advertise its slope or rating.  I see nearly every course described as a "championship" course, except for a few pitch and putts.

[Mark Saltzman]

Which is to say a relatively high handicap guy who hits it short and straight and never really in trouble is going to be better served looking at the course rating, despite this higher index.

I don't think this is quite right. I have played many courses that have very high slope ratings and low course ratings because of forced carries off the tee in the neighbourhood of 200 yards and forced carries on the second shot on par 5s in the neighborhood of 375 yards.

That is where you can get low course rating but high slope rating.

[Tom_Doak]

Handicaps SHOULD have a positive effect on golf course architecture.  If you are a 12-handicapper and getting 5 shots from your opponent, you should expect that there are a few holes where you can't get to the green in two, but still might win the hole if you play smart and use your stroke -- instead of expecting that there is a tee designed just for you so that the "shot values" are exactly the same as for the other guy.

But, that's only applicable if you are playing a match against the other guy, instead of just adding scores up at the end.