[JohnV]

Peter,

For course rating purposes, we measure with straight line laser shots.  Elevation is calculated (or estimated) and the effective playing length is adjusted to account for it as well as other factors such as roll, altitude, forced layups or doglegs that can be cut.

For par 3s we just measure from the tee to the front of the green and the back of the green.

For par 4s or 5s we usually pick a spot in the fairway and measure from there back to the tee and forward to the front and back of the green.

For doglegs, we measure to the turning point from the tee and then to the green from there.

For double doglegs or holes with totally blind landing areas or greens we might have to do an extra section in the middle.

The new lasers that adjust for the angle of elevation don't seem like they would give truely accurate measurements and are somehow estimating the change in effective distance based on the angle.

[TEPaul]

Ben:

The explanations of slope (and course rating) and all the confusion for most golfers with and behind both by Tom Huckaby and Doug Siebert in the first few posts of this thread are really excellent---and comprehensive. Basically what they told you is just about all one needs to know.

But, then, why is it that slope rating is still so misunderstood by so many golfers? That's a good question. If the "bogie rating" was also listed on scorecards (along with the always listed "course rating" (the degree of difficulty only for the scratch player) would it make a difference in understanding?

It might but I think only to a degree. Why isn't the "bogie rating" listed as well on more score cards? Good question and my feeling is it's generally just a matter of lack of available space on scorecards or the feeling that there's little available space. My personal feeling about the reason of such  misunderstanding behind some slope ratings on some golf courses is simply because American's just tend to admire and respect more a higher number---even if they don't even understand what it means or what it's supposed to indicate!    

It is possible, however, to satisfy some of these clubs who constantly complain their slope is too low thinking a low slope rating is in some way indicative that their course is too easy and therefore does not get the respect they'd like to see it have?

I think it definitely is possible to convince clubs who feel that way that they shouldn't. And this is precisely what we (GAP) apparently have done with one of our courses that complained about their slope rating for years and particularly recently when their course was rerated and their slope actually went down. That would be Aronimink.

We apparently convinced them, as Tom Huckaby mentioned on the second post of this thread, that a really high "course rating" against the actual par of the course that Aronimink does have and a rather low slope (that they do have) is actually indicative of what might be considered the "IDEAL" golf course---eg it really challenges the very good or scratch player without beating the brains out of the handicap or "bogie" golfer the way some of the massively high slope courses like Merion and PVGC do!  

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

This has been my pet peeve, campaign, crusade, call it whatever you will, for a long time now:  correction of the misunderstanding of slope.  It just kills me how so many courses see high slope as a good thing when really it's the opposite of what a course ought to be!

So I'm gladdened to hear some good news from the GAP and the great example that Aronmink can be.  That course is obviously well known nationwide, and heck yeah I am going to cite it ad nauseam from now on.

The fight is still a tough one though:  in recent weeks ads for courses in our local newspaper have trumpeted "our 142 rating course - come see how tough it is" and "Got game - bring it! 152 SLOPE!".  Big sigh.  For anyone with any sense these are good reasons to avoid the course.  But the "142 rating" ad was particularly galling in its blatantly incorrect usage of the terms.

But golfers will always have egos, and this will always sell to the macho sect.  Even if they are being macho about the entirely wrong thing.  The first course that advertises "Got game - bring!  75.5 course rating!" is gonna get roses from me... the first one that says "fun for all - 75.5 for the sticks, 116 slope so regular guys have a chance" is gonna get a keg for the post-round party.

 

More seriously, I continue to be baffled as to why Bogey Ratings aren't published.  I agree that such wouldn't be a panacea, but it could only help.  Publish those and put slope ONLY by the posting machines and people would really know what to expect from a golf course... And it would take a bold course indeed to trumpet it's high Bogey Rating.  Perhaps this would lead to more courses with high CR's and low slopes, which of course would be the most fun golf courses for all.

TH

[PThomas]

fwiw, I, a golf crazed individual like most/all GCAers, doesn't care about slope, really..so if someone obssessed with the game feels that way I would think that "Joe Six pack' would care even less about it, if that's possible

an indication of that is that I only quickly scanned this thread!

I thought the higher a slope , the harder a course is, but my quick scan indicates that is wrong

I will be a good boy and try to read this thread in its entirety!

stuff like this complicates the game for me...what difference does  the slope make if I cam enjoying myself playing the game on a good course with good company?

[THuckaby2]

Paul:  obviously none of this matters a lick if one is having fun.  That's all that matters.

Aye, but there's the rub, as Billy Shakes might say....

SO many golfers take the macho tack of "it's got to be tough or it's not worth my time"... demanding to play the tips when their abilities would suggest the middles at best, for example... disdaining courses with ratings that are "below" them in their perception... that these numbers DO matter.  As I describe, courses tend to advertise to them and cater to them... More courses get built that are longer and tougher than 99% of the golf world needs them to be... Magic numbers like "135" start to crop up - that is if my slope is less than 135 my course must suck.. kinda long the lines of the magic par figure of 72 or yardage figure of 7000...

It just particularly sucks in this context, as high slope is absolutely NOT what a course should be about, yet so many seem to be striving for it.

And a lot of it is due to the misunderstanding of the term.

Don't you want courses that challenge the scratch while at the same time are doable for the bogey player?  To me that should be the standard for golf courses, not the exception.  It's sad to me how rare examples are of this.

And it all goes back to the misconceptions people have.

TH

[PThomas]

guess it's too late too put the slope Genie back into his bottle, which is unfortunate because if it's causing more problems to the game than benefits, that is not good

as for people who play the wrong tees, etc., God knows how you solve that problem...I posted a similar thought recently about how tees should only be labelled by color, and not Ladies, Men's, Championship, etc...perhaps then people would go to the appropriate sets of tees

I wonder if "Ladies Tees", etc., are in the rulebook?  if so, the USGA should change that

[THuckaby2]

Paul:

There are damn few courses - at least in the public arena - that use the term "ladies tees."  That's part of the politically correct era in which we live.  And courses do try to get people to play the tees proper for their skill level... however, the bias against "ladies tees" will not soon go away.  I am satisfied however that on that side of things we are going in the right direction.

I'm not satisfied at all that the understanding of slope is moving the right way... as great as TEP's example is, it's depressing when I see the ads I do out here.

Let's not go overboard here though:  I surely believe the concept and use of slope is a good thing overall.  It allows for realistic handicaps to be used at all courses.  That in and of itself is a good thing and trumps all perception issues.

However, it does just continue to suck how the terms are misused, and the effect this has.  

But such is golf!

[Scott Seward]

>>>>That sounds like the difference between using lasers to measure versus using GPS.  With lasers you just measure the distance between the laser and reflector and elevation gets included.  With GPS you can measure the true distance between two points, and their elevation, allowing them to be separated.  (Note that to get accurate readings, especially for elevation, you need to use survey grade GPS receivers at about $20,000/ea, not the $200 toys you buy on the Internet or come in golf carts) <<<<

The above is incorrect. Using a GPS pack should yield the same results as a laser or the course is being incorrectly measured. Also, the cost has come down considerably (7-8000 range for sub 6cm accuracy).  



If you took a hilly course that was originally measured with a laser and remeasured it with GPS, you could easily lose well over 100 yards in course length.  Probably not what most courses are looking to do unless the members are hoping for a bit of free sandbagging!

[THuckaby2]

"TEP:
This has been my pet peeve, campaign, crusade, call it whatever you will, for a long time now:  correction of the misunderstanding of slope.  It just kills me how so many courses see high slope as a good thing when really it's the opposite of what a course ought to be!"

TomH:

It's been one of my real concerns too and probably for close to 20 years now while on GAP. That would probably be beginning around the time you were still in smelly diapers with a little sawed off golf club in your hands!  

 
Well would that such were true.  But OK, I know I am a relative newbie to this crusade.

I also don't know why it bugs me so... but it does!

[peter_p]

John V or Huck,
Sorry I dropped this into a slope thread, not quite the right place. Lets examine a theoretical hole.
     Assume a drop shot par 3 has a horizontal distance of 150 yards and a vertical drop of 40 yards. The diagonal from tee to green is therefore about 155 yards.
     Using the old technology, what likely would have been posted on the tee as the yardage? Using the new technology, would that change?

[THuckaby2]

Peter:

Course measuring is not my bag - we do some measurements as part of the course rating process, but for the particulars of what goes on the scorecard and why, we need experts who actually do (did) this like Scott Seward.  Hopefully he'll chime in.

TH

[THuckaby2]

141 does not tell really tell anyone about what kind of course a certain track might be.  141 could mean a lot of things besides an indicator of how many golf balls one is likely to donate.

But I guess it's close enough in that respect, so I have no problem with that.

The problem is when courses get in an arms race to have higher and higher slopes, when high course rating and low slope is really what a course ought to aspire to.

There, I just saved you reading the rest of this thread.

 

[JohnV]

Peter, using the standard lasers we use, we would record the distance as 155.  That is what the laser measure.  Our surveyors laser would give us the angle also and we could have gone to the trouble to calculate that, but what we would do is put the yardage at 155 yards and the elevation as -120 feet and the formula for effective playing length would subtract some yardage for the -120 (sorry I'm at the Mid-Am and I don't have the book to look up how the -120 is turned into a yardage.)

In the great scheme of things, elevation changes make very little change in the yardage of a hole except for drop shot par 3s.  For example, a 450 yard hole that is 60 feet uphill is only .9 yards longer than a flat 450 yarder hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()