Course distance measuring??

[Mike_Young]

I am not one to be very concerned about  published distance on a course but I just ran into an interesting scenario and would like some feedback.

A group of course raters from the GSGA (Ga. State Golf Assoc.) came out to slope and rate a new project that I have opening.  I have always assumed that measurements for rating purposes were calculated from the middle of each specified tee.  And this is what I have used when giving an owner the correct distance for his golf holes.  To some owners this distance question is of utmost importance.  Well, I was informed by the rater that my distances were incorrect for the following reason.....USGA rules say that tee markers must be placed at least 2 paces from the back of a tee.... therefore when finding the center of a tee you must step forward 2 paces and then take half of the measurement from there to the front of the tee.  In other words: a course loses 36 yards total.
In this particular case it took the course under 7000 yards and has freaked the owner.  To me, no big deal but am I right to think that the rule for placement of tee markers on a teeing ground should have any bearing on a course distance that is supposedly based on teeing ground location.  Markers change from day to day.  Just give me some opinions .
Mike Y.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

That is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.  I would think the middle is the middle is the middle.  Talk about anal!

I'd also be concerned that the owner is so perturbed by this slight deviation.  Is 7,000 yards some type of badge of honor?

Depending on your relationship, you might want to show him a list of the top 10 courses in the country, which if memory serves, only one is greater than 7,000.

[Peter Galea]

Mike,
I have always used the "rule of thirds" when measuring distances. "Plates" are placed 2/3 of the way back from the front of the tee.  This allows some freedom of movement for preservation of distance, allowance for wind and course conditions. If the course is measured from all the way back, it rarely plays at the total distance, skewing handicaps.

[Mike_Young]

Mike C.,
Thanks for comments.  I agree with everything that you have said but in the "real world" many developer/owners do see distance as a "badge of honor".  They consider it their marketing tool and are told by many marketing companies that it is important.  Several time I have had to stretch 6800 yds to 7000 just for marketing.  

Pete,
I agree and think most supts. do that but man will it "piss off" some of these raters.

Thanks,
Mike

[Bill_Coggins]

Mike,

To be REALLY anal, but possibly of some help.  You should only lose 18 yds.

example.. If the tee is 10 paces deep.  YOUR middle is 5 paces from the front (half of 10).  If I take off 2 paces, making it 8 deep, THEN find the NEW middle, it is 4 paces from the front (half of eight).  Atmost a loss of 1 pace per hole.

I disagree with what the raters told you.  There isn't any rule that says you MUST hit from the short grass on the tee.  Only from within 2 club lengths from behind the markers.  Their logic for moving the center up would also apply to the common practice of never placing the markers on the very front edge.  Does the offset from the front makeup for the offset from the back?  What about if the teeing ground is not level?  Do they adjust for that as well?  :-/

What do the folks in South Carolina do?  Their "design" foot is not a foot but a "factored" foot that varies in length depending on your distance from the "origin."  Now you've got to have "factored" paces from the back of the tee.

I think I would make a great official of some kind.  I'm just too good at being a twit, and its all going to waste.  What a shame...

[JohnV]

As a former course rater, I think the folks were going a little too far.  If we were given a choice, we always measured from the middle of the pad.  If two tees (say Blue & White) were on one pad, we'd go with 1/3 and 2/3s of the pad.  But, we also always listened to the owner/super/pro we were working with and if they wanted the measurement taken near the back we would do it for them, after all, it is their course.  Of course, if we measure a course longer than it usually plays, the slope/course rating might come out slightly higher which means that all the players handicaps come out slightly lower.

One big issue is to make sure that some kind of marker is placed where the measurement was done so that the next group of raters who come along 6 or 7 years later start from the same place.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Interesting stuff and yes a little anal on the part of some owners etc! I like JohnV's explanation--more reasonable.

We're doing a restoration at my course and some of the members asked me to look into how the restoration would affect the course rating and slope. I got in touch with the GAP guy (our association) and he said rating is still approximately 90% distance related and that in that context a rule of thumb would be that for every 18yds of total distance a course loses or picks up it would lose or gain 0.1 of a shot (app. 180yds=1 stroke)! Don't know if that's accurate but that's what he said and that's what we are going by!

[BillV]

Two yardage books that I have (*Both Dye courses) that show front of green yardages and depth of green and tee yardages, require full depth of green and tee to reach maximum card yardage!

I always thought it was strange and not realistic.  Apparently not "correct" either.

(*Riverdale Dunes and Carmel Valley Ranch)

[Rick Shefchik]

JohnV's explanation of the way course raters determine yardage was both instructive and reasonable. If the course owner is going to place the blue tee markers two club-lengths from the back of the furthest tee boxes, doesn't it seem logical that the raters would measure from the points where people are actually going to be playing the course?

I agree that it's too bad some owners feel compelled to create 7,000 yard courses just for the sake of the number, but if that's how long the course is going to play from the tips, that's how long it should be rated.

By the way, JohnV, how did you get your job as a rater?

[Mike_Young]

Bill Coggins,
you are correct on all points.

John V,
I have always calculated distance when routing by using a center measurement of tees as I think most architects do.  So I think that is the fairest method of measuring.  As for a rater asking an owner what they want; in Ga. they will not do that .  They take the attitude that know what they are doing and it must be accepted.  Many times we have placed the markers where we would measure from and placed our own measurement on the card.

T E Paul,

You made my point in one statement.... " rating is 90% distance related"....  We know that is baloney but the owners have to fight it in order to keep up with the Jones.

Bill V,

That is probably the best way to confront it.  

I wish it didn't matter.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I have always known that the USGA will not allow a tee marker in competition less than 2 yards from the back of the tee, but never have heard the correlation that it affects the center of the tee.  I, like you, like John Vs explanation and flexibility.

I do know that many club members do get anal about the course rating, and as such, 18-36 yards can really cause some discussion.

I will probably add a clause to my contracts saying I guarantee no particular yardage, as if we don't have enough to worry about!

[JohnV]

One other thing I should note is that in some cases the yardages we come up with when rating have nothing to do with the yardages that get put on the score card.  I know of one course in Oregon that added 10 yards to every par 4 and 5 in order to get the yardage up, even though this put them off the back of most tees.  Everyone just figured they were driving it further when they played there.  When another course built their final 9 holes, they added 10 yards to the par 4s and 5s and 5 to the par 3s.  So when people went to the yardage markers on par 3s and then looked at the card, they were 5 yards off.  Very useful to know when playing in tournaments.  Also, the second set of holes were interspersed with the first (not 10-18) so you had to know which holes were built last.

As long as there is no forced layup and you don't do it on a par 3, I don't see that it is a big deal to fudge the card for marketing.  It is a lot like the TV announcers saying a hole is 460 yards when the tour moved the tees up and it is playing 430 that day.

[JohnV]

One other thing.  We have even had owners tell us they are going to build a tee in 6 months and show us where.  We then measured and rated from there.  Then when we came back 6 years later, they never built the tee.  Since this usually resulted in a longer distance than real, the players suffered with lower handicaps.  After time, we managed to ignore these plans and tell them we'd come back and rerate the one hole when they got the tee built.

Of course, there are so many other ways that the rating can be different.  For example, if they tell us they keep the rough at 2.5 inches and then make a decision to start cutting it to 1 inch, it can make a big difference.  Or change green speed or fairway width right after the ratings.  Oh well, as much as some try to make it an exact science, it never will be.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Again, I like the more logical and less anal ways you seem to do ratings in Oregon. With one exception, however. Here in Philadelphia, we are not going to do a rating on something that's not constructed and on something that someone just tells us they're going to do. We wait until the course is constructed and playable! And that's very logical on our part because the course needs a rating for play. We aren't interested in their concerns about marketing only play and for handicapping purposes!

[JohnV]

Tom,  
When we go to re-rate a course, they might tell us about some relatively minor change such as building a new tee on one hole that is planned.  If it seems like they really are going to do it, we might calculate the rating as if it already existed.  This comes about because we might be there in March or April and they are planning on building the tee once the weather gets better and we might not be coming that way again for some time.  Remember that Oregon is a much bigger area to cover than Philadelphia and with only about 10 raters, we can't guarantee when we'll get back to an area.  Also, they frequently are going to get scorecards printed and don't want the rating to change 2 or 3 months down the road.  For one or two tees it usually won't make much of a difference.

For new courses, we won't rate them until the course is pretty close to opening (at least have grass growing everywhere.)  Again, this is a service to the course as they do need to get the information. But, with new courses we try to get back to them the next year and re-rate them to make sure that everything came out the way we we told.  The USGA says that this should be done for all new courses.  One of the cool things about rating is we sometimes are the first non-construction staff to get to play the course.  Some courses have even invited us back to be the first group off on opening day.

But, now I'm in California and I'm done with rating for the time being.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

If the owner is as freaked out as you say, why not just add two (2) yards of soil/sod to the back of every tee and solve everyone's problem for a few hundred bucks ?

[jglenn]

For a few hundred bucks?  

Surely, Patrick, you must have forgotten to put a smiley at the end of that post  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Okay, okay, I was trying to get project approval for a few dollars and would admit to being over budget when all the work was done.  Those work order changes and add ons can kill you.  

[Chris Kane]

When someone requests alterations in order to ensure a yardage of 7000 is the day that I know golf in going off the rails!

[jim__janosik]

Mike:

I  think you are a victim of the  Yardage Police.  By  Tee
Marker  I  take it to mean the permanent  stone imbedded
in the ground  on the side of the teeing ground that  is usually
called the monument.  You can put the monuments whereever
you want.  Practicaly  speaking  the  USGA  "rule"  I take to be a recommendation  that  allows  for  the teeing ground  
to  be  two clubs lenght deep.  I have played many courses
where the markers  left  4 feet  from thje back of the tee
to  stretch out a hole.  I  think  you've been had because
in  CA  I have always had my courses  measured  from the monument  not  the center of the tee.  You get a yardage
from each of  the sets of  tees,  black, blue white or whatever.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike
To add another vote by a course rater from here in south texas...
We always measure from the center of the tees.
To be a stickler how exactly do these yardage police determine the center of the tees, and what is their positional tolerance?  And if they are holding you to a few yards how do they perform a rating in 3-4 hours.
What are the tolerances of their equipment.

At the end of the day the rating is only for purposes of equitable scores between different courses, the yardage isn't dictated by the USGA.  Put down any yardage you like.
Do they sell ERCII's?
Mike

[SL_Solow]

Sorry about the delay in responding but sometimes work interferes.  As a sometime rater for the Chicago District Golf Assoc. I thought the USGA had set specific guidelines so I consulted the USGA Course Rating System Guide (1998 ed.).  On page 11 the Guide instructs raters to establish a course rating from "each set of permanent markers."  It then provides procedures for "obstacle ratings"  when the distance between tees exceeds 25 yards, when there are multiple tees for the same markers(e.g. multiple white tees) and other specific situations.  Thus if the developer or designer wants to set a "permanent marker" at the back of a tee, he/she can try.  However since. a rating is designed to help equalize handicaps artificially lengthening a course by placing markers where players can't stand distorts the system and probably hurts the members by increasing the rating and thus artificially reducing handicaps.  Perhaps the marketing benefit will justify such a tradeoff but not for me.