[JESII]

West <-> East


Where you at?


As to Slope...no clue

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If you didn't mean what you wrote in the Doak Scale, that is new news to me.  It says what it says. 


I pointed out in my post above, that I love The Preserve at Bandon Dunes.  It was my favorite of all the courses we played out there but it won't make any greatest course lists and even on a site like this with a bunch of GCA nerds, if I made a post that the best course at Bandon Dunes was The Preserve they would laugh at me. 


I have said a zillion times on this site the hard doesn't equate to good.  It is easy to make a golf course hard but that doesn't make it good.  The point of my post, and I think even you have to agree, is that there needs to be "some level of challenge" to make a golf course great.  I just don't know what that is? 


Take for example the St. Andrews' Himalayas Putting course.  I love it but if it was a big flat pancake it wouldn't be that exciting or noteworthy.  Golf is interesting because of the challenge the game presents.  There is a reason the game was first played on the links, around buildings, and across hazardous ground,... 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A question on slope if I may as the concept isn’t exactly well known on the eastern side of the Atlantic.
Is an 18-hole slope rating built-up on a hole-by-hole basis?
Or, in other words, can you break-down a slope rating into 18 separate parts with some holes having a higher individual number and some a lower individual number but when added together they equal the overall 18-hole rating?

Slope is just derived from the scratch rating and bogey rating for each of the holes.

So, yes, you can derive a "slope" for each hole. It would suffer from being a small number (4.1 versus 73.4 and 5.3 versus 95.7 or something).

[Thomas Dai]

Slope is just derived from the scratch rating and bogey rating for each of the holes.
So, yes, you can derive a "slope" for each hole. It would suffer from being a small number (4.1 versus 73.4 and 5.3 versus 95.7 or something).

Thanks Erik.
So presumable, too generalise, a hole that has no bunkers, no ponds/ditches, no trees, no rough etc would have a very low slope rating whereas a hole with lots of such features would have a higher slope rating?
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
That is correct.  Slope reflects difficulty for the bogey golfer.  The higher the slope the more challenging the design.  As I said earlier, a shorter course with hazards placed out of the way, with greens that are not treacherous, with limited water hazards and/or deep penal bunkers, and minimal if any long forced carries,... will have a much lower slope. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So presumable, too generalise, a hole that has no bunkers, no ponds/ditches, no trees, no rough etc would have a very low slope rating whereas a hole with lots of such features would have a higher slope rating?

Pretty much. But… length is still a predominant factor. The scratch golfer hits the ball 250 and then 220 in the rating system, while the bogey golfer hits it 200 and then 170. So any hole that's about 430 yards, even if it's wide open with no trouble, will typically rate a good bit higher than a hole that's 350 with a few bunkers for the bogey golfer. It takes them three shots to reach the green, after all.

That is correct.  Slope reflects difficulty for the bogey golfer.  The higher the slope the more challenging the design.  As I said earlier, a shorter course with hazards placed out of the way, with greens that are not treacherous, with limited water hazards and/or deep penal bunkers, and minimal if any long forced carries,... will have a much lower slope.

To nit-pick, the slope requires two points as all lines do, so a 74.5/133 course might actually play a good bit "tougher" to a bogey golfer than a 70.1/137 course, especially if both are par 72.

17.6×133/113+74.5−72 = 23 CH
17.6×137/113+70.1−72 = 19 CH

Slope is "relative." The NCRDB lists the bogey rating these days, so I'd look more at that if you want an actual overall "difficulty" level for a bogey golfer.

Aronimink from the blue tees: 72.2/130, with a bogey rating of 96.3.
Pine Valley from the front tees: 71.9/150, with a bogey rating of 99.7.
Seminole from the white tees: 69.7/129, with a bogey rating of 93.7.
And finally… Bandon Trails from the greens: 71.1/129 with a bogey rating of 95.0.

The last two for example have the same slope, but BT plays tougher for the scratch and bogey golfer.

That said, they tend to track pretty closely, of course. You're not going to find many 74.3/112 courses, nor are you going to find many 67.3/148 courses… because length is the primary (by far) determinant of the course ratings for both scratch and bogey golfers. (I'd be a bit surprised if courses with those ratings exist at all, and if they do, what they're like, and what drugs the rating committee may have been on at the time  ; that said, the latter is more likely, I think, because again the slope is relative, not absolute).

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
Nice summary!!


As I said ad nauseam, use any challenge or difficulty scale or rating you would like.  My question was can a relatively simple course with not much challenge for even a bogie golfer (let alone a scratch player) be universally consider great?  The Preserve at Bandon might be a good example and a few others were mentioned as well.  Maybe it is possible but examples are few are far between.  You won't see any holes like #10 at PV as part of the design even though they are a mere wedge or 9I to play for most 

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for the further clarification Erik.
Does fairway or greenside camber influence the slope rating?
ie would say a hole with a cambered hogs-back fairway attract a higher slope rating than a flat hole of equal length (assuming no forced carry, bunkers, water, rough or trees etc)?
Anyone able to highlight a link to a simple summary that lists the various criteria and the values given to each element?
You can probably see where I’m going on this one .....
Atb

[Bob Harris]

Thanks for the further clarification Erik.
Does fairway or greenside camber influence the slope rating?
ie would say a hole with a cambered hogs-back fairway attract a higher slope rating than a flat hole of equal length (assuming no forced carry, bunkers, water, rough or trees etc)?
Anyone able to highlight a link to a simple summary that lists the various criteria and the values given to each element?
You can probably see where I’m going on this one .....
Atb

Yes, there adjustments for fairway camber and topography in Scratch landing zones, Bogey landing zones and at the green.


http://https://gapgolf.org/about/volunteers/course-raters/


To get the values for each factor you would have to access the USGA Course rating Manual.

[David Ober]

128 to 130 is about the bare minimum, IMO to achieve "greatness" if "challenge" is anywhere in anyone's definition of great. Of course there could be exceptions. And Sheep Ranch having a low slope is a joke. What, on the 14 days a year when it's not blowing 25 and gusting to 45+? LOL

[JESII]

The idea of challenge here is an interesting one because don't you feel enough challenge on a 470 yard hole that you need to make 4 on to hold serve against the guys you play with? At the same time, they feel if they make a 5 they're losing ground...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Does fairway or greenside camber influence the slope rating?
ie would say a hole with a cambered hogs-back fairway attract a higher slope rating than a flat hole of equal length (assuming no forced carry, bunkers, water, rough or trees etc)?

None of those things have much of an effect on the rating or slope, particularly if they're only on a few holes on the course.

90% or so of the course rating and bogey ratings are measurements: length of the hole (the majority of that 90%), size of the fairway, size of the green. Stuff like that.

A few cambered fairways might not affect a rating at all.

[Thomas Dai]

Yes, there adjustments for fairway camber and topography in Scratch landing zones, Bogey landing zones and at the green.
http://https://gapgolf.org/about/volunteers/course-raters/
To get the values for each factor you would have to access the USGA Course rating Manual.

Thanks Bob. Unfortunately the link doesn’t open.
Does anyone know the slope for some classic individual holes eg 10th at Riviera, 16th at N Berwick etc. Indeed a hole-by-hole slope breakdown for a classic course, say TOC, might be enlightening.
Atb

[Thomas Dai]

Does fairway or greenside camber influence the slope rating?
ie would say a hole with a cambered hogs-back fairway attract a higher slope rating than a flat hole of equal length (assuming no forced carry, bunkers, water, rough or trees etc)?

None of those things have much of an effect on the rating or slope, particularly if they're only on a few holes on the course.
90% or so of the course rating and bogey ratings are measurements: length of the hole (the majority of that 90%), size of the fairway, size of the green. Stuff like that.
A few cambered fairways might not affect a rating at all.

Thanks Erik.

So conceivably by having a very short length course with no bunkers, water, rough, trees, forced carries etc that’s very wide but has masses of fairway/greenside contour you could have a course with a low slope that’s actually a right bugger to play especially if ground conditions and the putting surfaces are very firm and fast and the ball is bouncing and rolling all over the place?
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thanks Bob. Unfortunately the link doesn’t open.

https://gapgolf.org/about/volunteers/course-raters/
He got an extra "http://" in there or something.

Does anyone know the slope for some classic individual holes eg 10th at Riviera, 16th at N Berwick etc. Indeed a hole-by-hole slope breakdown for a classic course, say TOC, might be enlightening.

You could probably find out the bogey rating for those holes. Again, the "slope" isn't going to tell you much. A scratch and bogey rating of 4.1 and 5.3 would have a "slope" of 116, but if the bogey rating was 5.4 it'd jump to 126. It's not a number to be taken in small doses like that because of the fluctuations. Plus, raters will use tweener values and/or say "well, this hole is between a 4 and a 5 for this feature, so let's call this one a 4 and bump the next hole we are between the higher value" because they know the rating and slope are calculated and used only for the nines.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks Erik and Bob.
Bit of a learning curve this side of the Atlantic.

More reading needed so thanks for the (revised) link etc.
Atb

[Bob Harris]

Yes, there adjustments for fairway camber and topography in Scratch landing zones, Bogey landing zones and at the green.
http://https://gapgolf.org/about/volunteers/course-raters/
To get the values for each factor you would have to access the USGA Course rating Manual.

Thanks Bob. Unfortunately the link doesn’t open.
Does anyone know the slope for some classic individual holes eg 10th at Riviera, 16th at N Berwick etc. Indeed a hole-by-hole slope breakdown for a classic course, say TOC, might be enlightening.
Atb

In my golf association, a number of clubs have requested and received the hole by hole Course Rating and Bogey Course Rating.  They are using that information to do the handicap allocation by hole. 

[jeffwarne]

The VAST majority of golf played at Tara Iti would be at a slope of 113 or less.
The back tees(one up fom Championship) are 117 slope, the rest of the tees are 110 or less


Pretty sure that's Top 100


If there were no "Championship" Tees,I'm pretty sure it would quaify.


The more relevant issue is whether the ones Slope rated above 150 belong on a Top 100 list

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting. In post #56 Mark made clearer his original post, ie "My question was can a relatively simple course with not much challenge for a bogey golfer (let alone a scratch player) be universally considered great". Now, in the same post Mark suggests we can use any "difficulty scale or rating" that we'd like to describe said 'relatively simple course'; but for most of this thread and right from the top Mark used a slope rating of 113 to describe it -- and I fully understand why: because I too equate that number with just about the blandest and easiest course one can imagine.
But now, with the posts about Tara Iti, and Jeff W's specificity re its slope rating, it seems clear that both Mark and I are wrong, plain and simple, and that so too is the traditional 'measuring stick'. 
Apparently, a 113 sloped rating *doesn't* equate to the blandest and easiest course one can imagine!

But yes, Mark and I are right in another way: if we did find the blandest and easiest course we could imagine, it most definitely would *not be* considered great, let alone be universally considered as such.

[Mark_Fine]

Yeah Peter you get it 😊 Apparently it is possible to design a very easy golf course that doesn’t offer much challenge to even a bogie golfer and still be considered a fantastic design!  I wave the white flag again as I was wrong to assume otherwise. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - no white flag waving necessary, because (while there is much I don't understand or am misunderstanding about course ratings and slope etc) it is striking that the 'assigned number' we both have long equated with a very boring golf course clearly doesn't mean what those who *gave it* that number/slope/designation thought it meant.
But I should bow out now -- I'm even more confused about such things than I was before!

[Tom_Doak]

It's not just a matter of my own personal magnetism (and the ocean views).  The other best course in that part of the world is Royal Melbourne, and that should have a reasonably low Slope rating, too.

[David Ober]

Tom,
If you didn't mean what you wrote in the Doak Scale, that is new news to me.  It says what it says. 


I pointed out in my post above, that I love The Preserve at Bandon Dunes.  It was my favorite of all the courses we played out there but it won't make any greatest course lists and even on a site like this with a bunch of GCA nerds, if I made a post that the best course at Bandon Dunes was The Preserve they would laugh at me. 


I have said a zillion times on this site the hard doesn't equate to good.  It is easy to make a golf course hard but that doesn't make it good.  The point of my post, and I think even you have to agree, is that there needs to be "some level of challenge" to make a golf course great.  I just don't know what that is? 


Take for example the St. Andrews' Himalayas Putting course.  I love it but if it was a big flat pancake it wouldn't be that exciting or noteworthy.  Golf is interesting because of the challenge the game presents.  There is a reason the game was first played on the links, around buildings, and across hazardous ground,... 

^^^^^Post of the Year

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I can’t imagine Royal Melbourne having a very low slope.   It holds a tour events.  Maybe from the forward tees but not from the tips. 

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks David 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()