[mike_malone]

Classic courses suffer by producing lower handicap players.

[Doug Siebert]

The ESC limits tend to limit the damage this can do. At least as a mid single digit handicap, I can't take more than a double bogey, and if I'm hitting OB or losing a ball a double bogey is the most likely outcome.

If I play a classic course like Pinehurst #2 maybe I don't lose a ball but if I take four shots to get up and down multiple times the outcome is the same, double bogey.

[SL_Solow]

Why does a course "suffer" because it produces lower handicap players?  If players have lower scores, their handicaps should be lower.  If the difference is caused by penalty strokes, they remain higher scores.  Do higher handicaps mean better courses?  If that is your criteria, then we have extremely different perspectives.  I have played a lot of courses that are "harder" than the Old Course but not many are better.  The handicap system isn't designed to rate architectural merit; it's designed to equalize competition.  If counting handicap strokes skews this calculus, then we have something to talk about.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm guessing Classic Courses like Pine Valley, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, and Oakmont don't produce low handicaps.

[Jamey Bryan]

Mayday,

My experience is the opposite.  Local (at least in the Carolinas) rating groups tend to overly recognize OB and water hazards in considering slope ratings, and underappreciate green severity and subtle difficulties such as approach angles.  As a result, members of classic courses tend to have handicaps which travel extremely well!  Camden's senior group won three or four consecutive Midlands Seniors titles partially as a result of this (one season they were undefeated home and away.....  Unheard of!)

Jamey

[James Brown]

I'm guessing Classic Courses like Pine Valley, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, and Oakmont don't produce low handicaps.

I have never seen a club produce more legitimate low handicap golfers than Oakmont.  A 4 handicap at Oakmont is scratch!

[Jeff Bergeron]

As a practical matter there are serious weaknesses in the USGA handicap calculations. Right now my handicap is the same for all five mens sets of tees at my club (3 different tees and combos) ranging from 6,000 to 7200 yards. How can that be?

[Jason Thurman]

As a practical matter there are serious weaknesses in the USGA handicap calculations. Right now my handicap is the same for all five mens sets of tees at my club (3 different tees and combos) ranging from 6,000 to 7200 yards. How can that be?

It can't. You just don't understand how the tee adjustment math works.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm guessing Classic Courses like Pine Valley, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, and Oakmont don't produce low handicaps.

I have never seen a club produce more legitimate low handicap golfers than Oakmont.  A 4 handicap at Oakmont is scratch!

James,

That's my point.  A course like Oakmont will turn a scratch into a 4 or 5.

[Jason Topp]

I have always thought course ratings (and particularly slope ratings) would be much more accurate if they were determined by data rather than an artificial rating that involves a fair amount of judgment and assumes hypothetical players who do not exist.

The idea would be to create some sort of regression analysis that uses actual scores and correlates them between courses.  With enough scores in the database you could have a rating that works more accurately.


There are a number of complicating factors in such an approach (for example - what scores do you count?  How do you make sure that the scores actually reflect golf played by the rules?  How many scores would you need?  How do you make sure that scores at one place are comparable to scores at another place?) but I suspect someone with statistical expertise could figure out how to deal with those issues.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have always thought course ratings (and particularly slope ratings) would be much more accurate if they were determined by data rather than an artificial rating that involves a fair amount of judgment and assumes hypothetical players who do not exist.

The idea would be to create some sort of regression analysis that uses actual scores and correlates them between courses.  With enough scores in the database you could have a rating that works more accurately.


There are a number of complicating factors in such an approach (for example - what scores do you count?  How do you make sure that the scores actually reflect golf played by the rules?  How many scores would you need?  How do you make sure that scores at one place are comparable to scores at another place?) but I suspect someone with statistical expertise could figure out how to deal with those issues.

Jason,
Assuming this could be done, how do you propose to finance the project?

[Jim Franklin]

I'm guessing Classic Courses like Pine Valley, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, and Oakmont don't produce low handicaps.

I have never seen a club produce more legitimate low handicap golfers than Oakmont.  A 4 handicap at Oakmont is scratch!

James,

That's my point.  A course like Oakmont will turn a scratch into a 4 or 5.

I think it will turn a 4 or 5 into a scratch. I have a few good rounds at Oakmont and Pine Valley and the result of each was to knock my cap down significantly. If I played there a lot more, I bet my cap would be around scratch.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have always thought course ratings (and particularly slope ratings) would be much more accurate if they were determined by data rather than an artificial rating that involves a fair amount of judgment and assumes hypothetical players who do not exist.

The idea would be to create some sort of regression analysis that uses actual scores and correlates them between courses.  With enough scores in the database you could have a rating that works more accurately.


There are a number of complicating factors in such an approach (for example - what scores do you count?  How do you make sure that the scores actually reflect golf played by the rules?  How many scores would you need?  How do you make sure that scores at one place are comparable to scores at another place?) but I suspect someone with statistical expertise could figure out how to deal with those issues.

Jason,
Assuming this could be done, how do you propose to finance the project?

Umm... With money?

Good morning, David. Nice to see that you are as pleasant, helpful, and happy as ever this morning.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm guessing Classic Courses like Pine Valley, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, and Oakmont don't produce low handicaps.

I have never seen a club produce more legitimate low handicap golfers than Oakmont.  A 4 handicap at Oakmont is scratch!

James,

That's my point.  A course like Oakmont will turn a scratch into a 4 or 5.

Kalen,
There isn't any mathematical reason this should be true, is there?

Oakmont has a course rating of 76.2 from the second set of tees, so a scratch golfer from another club doesn't have to shoot par or better at Oakmont to play to his handicap.  If he's scratch, it means that we can expect his ten best of 20 rounds at Oakmont to average 76.2 (or thereabouts), while the other 10 rounds would, of course, be higher.  The USGA would expect his AVERAGE round at Oakmont to be somewhere around a 79 or 80, in fact.  I think it's easy to look at a scratch golfer averaging 79 and think that he's not really scratch, but that's not the way the math works in the handicap system.

Averaging 4 or 5 over par in his BEST rounds at Oakmont doesn't turn him in to a 4 or 5 handicap; that IS scratch golf at that course.  It's the differentials that matter, not par.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,
Assuming this could be done, how do you propose to finance the project?
[/quote]

I am sure it could be done and I suspect the USGA could fund it.  A simple way to gather the data would be to use T scores in its existing GHIN database. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Mayday,

My experience is the opposite.  Local (at least in the Carolinas) rating groups tend to overly recognize OB and water hazards in considering slope ratings, and underappreciate green severity and subtle difficulties such as approach angles.  As a result, members of classic courses tend to have handicaps which travel extremely well!  Camden's senior group won three or four consecutive Midlands Seniors titles partially as a result of this (one season they were undefeated home and away.....  Unheard of!)

Jamey

Jamey,
The reason that rating groups "overly recognize OB and water hazards in considering slope ratings" is because those ratings are based on bogey golfers, and bogey golfers have a hard time with water, OB, forced carries, and the like.

One of the criticisms of Tobacco Road over the years has been the wide disparity between the course rating and the slope rating; low handicappers find the course easy, bogey golfers have trouble finishing and often don't have much fun.  At the risk of over-generalizing, classic courses might be the opposite; lower slope ratings because of the absence of the above factors, but higher course ratings because of the subtle design features that you mention.

[Ed Brzezowski]

The author of this thread may wish to borrow a USGA Rating book and reading it front to back. Ob is easy to figure, length of shot and distance to the OB stakes from the landing zone.. One value for scratch and one value for Bogeyboy.

Greens are rated easily and I can assure you speed and severity of slope figure highly. If any raters are reading this there should be a forth column for greens but that's another matter.

Just attended at USGA seminar and the Carolina boys did a great job in rating. I believe they won the contest for best rating.

[Dave McCollum]

I changed some of our OOB areas to lateral hazards to improve pace of play.  Shortly after the rating folks showed up and spent the morning rating the course, significantly reducing the ratings.  In the afternoon they played the course.  When finished, I asked them if they scored close to their handicaps/ratings.  They refused to answer. 

It is quite rare for low cappers to shoot close to their caps in tournaments here because we have a bunch of short, tricky par 4’s and only a few long ones.  Scratch guys and pros almost never play to the ratings.  Playing from middle tees, I have to shoot in the mid-seventies to maintain a 10 cap.  I don’t really care, but it seems like the ratings are overly influenced by distance and OOB.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I changed some of our OOB areas to lateral hazards to improve pace of play.  Shortly after the rating folks showed up and spent the morning rating the course, significantly reducing the ratings.  In the afternoon they played the course.  When finished, I asked them if they scored close to their handicaps/ratings.  They refused to answer. 

It is quite rare for low cappers to shoot close to their caps in tournaments here because we have a bunch of short, tricky par 4’s and only a few long ones.  Scratch guys and pros almost never play to the ratings.  Playing from middle tees, I have to shoot in the mid-seventies to maintain a 10 cap.  I don’t really care, but it seems like the ratings are overly influenced by distance and OOB.

If I recall the stats you are only supposed to " shoot your cap" 25% of the time. Same at our course, tighten things up a bit and all the lower caps shoot higher numbers.  Vanity perhaps?

[mike_malone]

My point was that adding a stroke to your score without taking a swing tells me nothing of your skill

[Pete_Pittock]

My point was that adding a stroke to your score without taking a swing tells me nothing of your skill

If you play a wrong ball, why should that count towards your handicap?
If you drop a ball one inch barely outside the permitted area and play it, why should your two stroke penalty count towards the hdcp?

Mike,
Are those examples you were looking for?

[Jason Topp]

My point was that adding a stroke to your score without taking a swing tells me nothing of your skill

No but hitting the ball in a spot where you incur a penalty does.

[Michael Whitaker]

As a practical matter there are serious weaknesses in the USGA handicap calculations. Right now my handicap is the same for all five mens sets of tees at my club (3 different tees and combos) ranging from 6,000 to 7200 yards. How can that be?

Jeff,

It is based on the Slope rating of the five "courses." If the Slopes are close together your Index could yield the same Course Handicap on each.

[Bryan Izatt]

As a practical matter there are serious weaknesses in the USGA handicap calculations. Right now my handicap is the same for all five mens sets of tees at my club (3 different tees and combos) ranging from 6,000 to 7200 yards. How can that be?

Jeff,

It is based on the Slope rating of the five "courses." If the Slopes are close together your Index could yield the same Course Handicap on each.

I don't think it is possible for a course with a 6000 yard set of tees and a 7200 yard set of tees to have slope ratings that are close for those two sets of tees.

More likely Jeff has a handicap around zero where the Slope has minimal impact on the course handicap.

[Bill Gayne]

Not counting penalty strokes for handicap would only penalize mid and high handicappers. Low handicappers are low because they avoid penalty strokes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()