Best courses rated under 113 slope?

[Jeff Schley]

As we know the average slope rating is 113, although this is very low IMO as many of us surely don't play those "dog tracks".  I grew up on a course that was 120 and it seemed so easy compared to the "top 100" or best private courses I have played.  I'm curious what courses would be considered the best in the esteemed views of those here.
Our standards are high and I purposely didn't use the word "great" or even "good" to describe those shared, but "best" of a subset which meets the criteria of under 113 slope.  I know we can dial down certain tee boxes as some courses have 4-5 different tee boxes, thus let's say from at least the members tees or white tees if possible.

[Mike_Trenham]

Pinehurst #1 109 second longest set of tees, 118 from “tips”.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I honestly can't think of a course with a slope under 113. I live at Bryce Resort in Virginia where the slope is 123 from the white tees. It ain't great, but it is a fun little layout.

[Jake Marvin]

Just going to point out that calling 113 "average" is a misnomer. All it really means is that 113 is the slope at which the number of strokes over the course rating equals the handicap differential (i.e. if I shoot 76 on a course that plays 72.5/113, my differential is 3.5). The harder the course (slope-wise), the lower the differential. That's a lot different than average, since I'm guessing 90-95% of 18-hole American courses are over 113.


FWIW, I've played 2 sub-113 courses this year, both dog tracks as you say. Your best bets are likely high-end short courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I've built a couple of courses where the original slope rating came in at 118 or 120.  The client was horrified and asked for it to be re-rated.


In theory, I think that a low-slope course is ideal for most situations ... but I also think the rating formula is flawed and doesn't account properly for strategic elements (when you're in the fairway, but at an angle where there is no way to get close).  So i don't waste time worrying about what the slope rating will be.


Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

[Joe Bausch]

Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

Who knew?!


True, Eddie B?  Or is this more fake news?

[Peter Pallotta]

Don't know, Joe - but my experience suggests that not all 121s are created equal. The math/science/system is beyond me, but I've had some fun over the years trying to figure out why & how *this* 121 (or 130 etc) is so much harder than *that* one. The best and most interesting 121 I've ever played is an old public course north east of Toronto that was laid out in the 60s by the land owner-amateur architect. The Par 3 2nd hole is a 212 yard reverse redan. 

[Bob Harris]

Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

Who knew?!


True, Eddie B?  Or is this more fake news?

FAKE NEWS

[Jim Nugent]

Does anyone know which course in the US has the lowest slope, and what that number is? 

my experience suggests that not all 121s are created equal. The math/science/system is beyond me, but I've had some fun over the years trying to figure out why & how *this* 121 (or 130 etc) is so much harder than *that* one.

Peter, slope does not measure difficulty.  It's supposed to show how hard courses are for bogey golfers compared to scratch.  It tells you nothing about their actual scores.  Only the difference between them (multiplied by 5.381 to make things even more unclear).  The higher the slope, the harder the course is for bogey next to scratch. 

Take a course with 121 slope.  I know the formula: it says the difference between bogey and scratch is about 22.5 strokes.  i.e. bogey golfers are supposed to shoot around 22.5 strokes higher than scratch.  That could mean 74 for scratch and 96.5 for bogey.  Or 80 and 102.5 or 68 and 90.5 and so on.   

Slope is needlessly complex.  Worse, it hides the real question: what should the average golfer 'expect' to shoot there? 

Golf does have a measure that tells you that.  It's called bogey rating.  They use it to calculate slope.  I think scorecards should post bogey rating, course rating (what scratch is supposed to shoot) and delete slope altogether. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In theory, I think that a low-slope course is ideal for most situations ... but I also think the rating formula is flawed and doesn't account properly for strategic elements (when you're in the fairway, but at an angle where there is no way to get close).  So i don't waste time worrying about what the slope rating will be.

Doing that would be nearly impossible. I think the two-number system works surprisingly well to account for the near infinite variety of golfers, golf courses, and golf shots that can be played, to produce a pretty meaningful result (a player's handicap index). This is even more incredible considering that something like 90% of a course's rating and slope are simply due to length.

Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

Though that may happen occasionally, to imply that it's how things work is bull. I've been a course rater for 13 years and captain going on four - our rating of Kahkwa was questioned (not because of how it compared to other courses, but because of how members thought it should rate), so my golf association rated the course, then the USGA rated the course. They got the same numbers we did. My association handles some pretty big name Pittsburgh area clubs, and they've not done anything like this in the 13 years I've been rating courses.

I think golf courses used to care a lot more about their rating and slope, but I have never heard of this type of manipulation being done in my 13 years. Not to say it doesn't occasionally happen, but I think those times are rare.

-------

As stated above, good luck finding many good courses under 113. It's not truly the "average" as stated above, it's just the point at which the course handicap scales with the index scales 1:1.

[Garland Bayley]

I believe that Forrest Richardson 's course just outside the Albuquerque airport is rated 109 or 110. I don't consider it a dog track.

Now the course rated 109 or 110 where Kalen broke 80 surely is a dog track.

[Kalen Braley]

I believe that Forrest Richardson 's course just outside the Albuquerque airport is rated 109 or 110. I don't consider it a dog track.

Now the course rated 109 or 110 where Kalen broke 80 surely is a dog track.

Garland,


I've done it thrice.  The one where i shot a 77 is 69.3 and 114.  So thats close!!


The other one where i shot 79 twice is 70.6 and 123

[Bob Harris]

Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

Though that may happen occasionally, to imply that it's how things work is bull. I've been a course rater for 13 years and captain going on four - our rating of Kahkwa was questioned (not because of how it compared to other courses, but because of how members thought it should rate), so my golf association rated the course, then the USGA rated the course. They got the same numbers we did. My association handles some pretty big name Pittsburgh area clubs, and they've not done anything like this in the 13 years I've been rating courses.

I think golf courses used to care a lot more about their rating and slope, but I have never heard of this type of manipulation being done in my 13 years. Not to say it doesn't occasionally happen, but I think those times are rare.

-------



I been a rater for 20 years and on my Association’s Rating Committee for the last 10.  I have never seen a CR/Slope manipulated to keep it below that of another local club.



FYI, there are 12 member clubs in the Golf Assoc of Philadelphia that have a higher Course Rating/Slope than Merion including 1 public, 5 corporate owned and 6 member owned clubs.

[Tom_Doak]

Also, just like course rankings, slope ratings are anchored by the numbers already assigned to the best courses in the area ... if a new course gets scored higher than Merion, the rating team goes back and starts fudging the numbers a little to produce the desired result.

Though that may happen occasionally, to imply that it's how things work is bull. I've been a course rater for 13 years and captain going on four - our rating of Kahkwa was questioned (not because of how it compared to other courses, but because of how members thought it should rate), so my golf association rated the course, then the USGA rated the course. They got the same numbers we did. My association handles some pretty big name Pittsburgh area clubs, and they've not done anything like this in the 13 years I've been rating courses.

I think golf courses used to care a lot more about their rating and slope, but I have never heard of this type of manipulation being done in my 13 years. Not to say it doesn't occasionally happen, but I think those times are rare.

-------



I been a rater for 20 years and on my Association’s Rating Committee for the last 10.  I have never seen a CR/Slope manipulated to keep it below that of another local club.



FYI, there are 12 member clubs in the Golf Assoc of Philadelphia that have a higher Course Rating/Slope than Merion including 1 public, 5 corporate owned and 6 member owned clubs.

Bob:


My experience is mostly from 20+ years ago, in the beginning of the system, when I would sometimes go out with the rating teams.  They were clearly aware of the numbers they had given to certain prominent courses, and they were constantly being discouraged from putting high numbers on individual elements, which I took to be in order to be sure not to exceed their parameters.


Only once did I see a group go back and change a few of their numbers after they had plugged them into the formula and seen what the slope was going to be ... but on nearly all of my early courses, they came back a year or two later, and the slope wound up 5-7 points higher than the first go-round.


I realize that the plural of anecdote is not "data", but I can only speak to my experiences of seeing five courses be rated for Slope.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Aronomink is the course around here that surprises many people.  At 6100 yards, it slopes at 123; at 6500 yards - 126; and at 7100 yards - 130.  Yet all three lengths have course ratings over par.  I guess the raters thinks it's difficult for everybody, but not that much more difficult for higher handicappers.

[Bob Harris]

Jim,


Those are old numbers, the current numbers are:


Par 70


Back          7190.      75.5/138
Middle.       6522.      72.2/130
Forward.     6115.      69.7/125   




Bob

[Jim_Coleman]

    Sorry for the old information.  But point still holds.  I find it odd the my course, Rolling Green, has substantially higher slopes at all comparable distances (5800 -69.7/129; 6300 - 72.3/134; 6700 - 73.7/140; 6900 - 74.7143).  Doesn't make sense to me.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

    Sorry for the old information.  But point still holds.  I find it odd the my course, Rolling Green, has substantially higher slopes at all comparable distances (5800 -69.7/129; 6300 - 72.3/134; 6700 - 73.7/140; 6900 - 74.7143).  Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sure it would make sense if you looked at the way the data is calculated. Length is first, always, but after that you can get big swings based on the green target values (the value of which affects several other aspects of the scratch and bogey rating).

[Tom_Doak]

So how exact is this, when the numbers keep shifting like that?  Sounds like the GAP agreed with Jim's take that Aronimink was tougher than they said, and adjusted the slope upwards.

[Bob Harris]

So how exact is this, when the numbers keep shifting like that?  Sounds like the GAP agreed with Jim's take that Aronimink was tougher than they said, and adjusted the slope upwards.

I don’t know where Jim got his numbers, here are the old CR/Slope vs. the new CR/Slope (rated on 4/13/2018) after the Hanse restoration:


Back             old.            74.7/134.      new 75.5/138
Middle.                           72.3/129.             72.2/130
Forward                          70.3/126.             69.7/125


The changes in the Course Rating for the Forward and the Back were primarily due to some new tees.


Tom, we’re scheduled to rate both Stonewall courses this year.  Love to have you attend and see how we do it today.

[Jim Hoak]

This might be better discussed in a separate thread, but I think it is interesting to think about what slope ratings signify for golf course architecture.  As has been discussed in here, the slope rating is actually derived from the ratio of the course rating (scratch rating) to the bogey rating.  The bogey rating of a course is seldom known by most golfers, but it is done as a part of rating each course.  The course rating shows the difficulty of a course; the slope rating is showing the ratio of how much harder it is for the average player than it is for the best players.

A low slope rating is when the course rating and the bogey rating are somewhat close together--in other words, a course that can be called a "hard par, but easy bogey" course.  It probably means fewer water hazards, out of bounds, etc.--things that cause a bogey player's score to run up faster.

Isn't that what many of us want?  A course that may be difficult for the scratch player, but manageable by the less qualified player?  A high slope course, on the other hand, is one where the bogey shooter has a disproportionately hard time.  Why would anyone argue for that?
 
Therefore, I have long felt that a high slope rating was signifying a bad thing--something I would probably not want in a course I played regularly.  I think that people who take pride in the high slope rating of their course, thinking that it shows how tough the course is, are misinformed.  Simplistically, a high course rating shows a difficult course--fine.  But a high slope rating just shows in some ways the relative unfairness of the course to less good players--not fine.  Agree?

[Ken Moum]

I think scorecards should post bogey rating, course rating (what scratch is supposed to shoot) and delete slope altogether.

Amen!


At least that way, there's a chance that we'd be able to eliminate the belief among bogey golfers that a high slope equates to a "good" golf course.


If we published just the bogey rating, my friends might finally realize that high slope actually means less fun.


K

[Ken Moum]

But a high slope rating just shows in some ways the relative unfairness of the course to less good players--not fine.  Agree?

I totally agree.

But I don't understand what Jake is saying about the 113 slope not actually being an average.

The guy who pretty much invented the concept says this on his website:

" The slope of the scores line of an average course has been observed to be 1.13 and USGA Slope Rating is referenced as 113 to deal in whole numbers."

"A Slope Rating of 113 also is the empirically derived average value on standard American golf courses."

"Slope Ratings range from 55 to 155, with the average being 113."

" The only time a golfer plays to his Index is at a course of average difficulty (Slope Rating 113)."

[Bob Harris]

But a high slope rating just shows in some ways the relative unfairness of the course to less good players--not fine.  Agree?

I totally agree.

But I don't understand what Jake is saying about the 113 slope not actually being an average.

The guy who pretty much invented the concept says this on his website:

" The slope of the scores line of an average course has been observed to be 1.13 and USGA Slope Rating is referenced as 113 to deal in whole numbers."

"A Slope Rating of 113 also is the empirically derived average value on standard American golf courses."

"Slope Ratings range from 55 to 155, with the average being 113."

" The only time a golfer plays to his Index is at a course of average difficulty (Slope Rating 113)."

At a USGA rating calibration about 15 years ago, I suggested that that in addition to the course rating and slope, they include the Bogey Course rating to their database. They thought it was a great idea. 


In regard to the 113 being the average slope, Dean Knuth’s response:

Golf Digest, December, 2008 Handicaps - Your Questions AnsweredAverage Slope Rating I read that the average course Slope Rating is 113. I've never seen a Slope lower than 120. What gives? A: A 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. The lowest is 55 (short par-3 course), and the highest is 155. By Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department, Knuth invented today's USGA Course Rating and Slope system.

[MCirba]

Thanks Bob...that's illuminating.