[John_Cullum]

What are the numbers on the Merion courses?

East
forward 69.5/135

TH

Thanks for that. 69.5/135 would have to be one of the leaders.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - damn right - one of the leaders for what we DON'T want courses to be!

Kill the bogey, let the scratch off easy.

Of course, any self-respecting scratch isn't gonna play those forward tees, and from the back he is challenged more than enough.  And any bogey with a brain knows he's playing a US Open course so he ought not to expect a fun and stress-free day from any set of tees.  So this is no knock on Merion at all - it is what it is and I have zero doubt of its greatness.  I'm just still ranting about the concept.

 

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

A team of 3 or 4 raters goes to a site and after getting very detailed measurements of the course and the distances to various things such as water, OB etc they use the manual provided by the USGA to complete the rating, rating the course for both the scratch and bogey golfer.  The rating is quite analytical, taking most of the base values straight from tables, but there is quite a bit of latitude for the raters to adjust those values based on what they are seeing.  Each hole has a yardage that is measured.  The yardage can be adjusted for factors such as elevation change, doglegs etc.  The hole is then rated on 10 obstacle factors that can have values between 0 and 10 for that hole.

After all the holes are rated for both golfers, the numbers are run through a series of calculations to determine the scratch and bogey rating and finally the slope.

No time for more detail right now, you can try to search the archives for when I've gone into greater detail if you want.

John -- sounds like it is what I called "theoretical."  Is it ever put to the test?  i.e., do the raters ever bring scratch and 18-handicap golfers to the courses, to see how they actually do score?  

[Jim Nugent]

What are the numbers on the Merion courses?

East
forward 69.5/135
middle 70.8/141
back 72.4/142


West
front 66.4/110
middle 67.8/115
back 68.9/117

TH

Tom, those numbers really surprise me.  Last year we were hearing the course was not set up hard for the U.S. Amateur.  If I remember right, no harder than for member play.  Yes?  But the world's top amateurs averaged a whole lot higher than 72.4.  Wasn't it closer to 76 or 77?  Isn't that why the USGA felt comfortable bringing the Open back there?  If so, how do those scores square with the course rating?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim:

The rating teams also play the golf course as part of the rating process.  Typically the teams include at least a few close to scratch and a few close to bogey.  If in the playing something just doesn't come out right from the "theoretical", adjustments are made.

Note also that when JV refers to teams of 3 or 4, he means those doing the ratings together... The way it works out is that that team covers 4-5 holes, depending on how many tees have to be done (only tees 25 yards or more apart get separate ratings).  The entire rating team to do a whole golf course is usually 9-16 guys, again depending on how many tees have to be done.

TH

[John_Cullum]

John -- sounds like it is what I called "theoretical."  Is it ever put to the test?  i.e., do the raters ever bring scratch and 18-handicap golfers to the courses, to see how they actually do score?  

That's a very good question. As you note above, I doubt many 0 handicaps could get around Merion in 69/70 3 out of 10 tries.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim - I just got those numbers off GHIN - it's entirely likely there's a separate set of "tournament" tees they used for USAm that aren't listed there.  Someone familiar with Merion could confirm this.

If not, well then this just shows that the USGA was right in changing the definition of scratch player for rating purposes with this year's changes... Not to get too deep into this, but previously, scratch was supposed to represent a player who makes the match play in the USAm.  It became recognized that the players who do this are all plus handicaps... Thus our current definition has changed, and it recognizes that reality.  Those players are great and are going to score below the course rating.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - but you know how this all works, right?  A 0 handicap SHOULD only shoot 69-70 at Merion less than half the time... Remember only the low 10 out of 20 count, handicap measures potential not reality, etc. etc. etc.

TH

[John_Cullum]

TH

I understand that. That's why I said 3 out of 10 tries.

I also recognize that no system is perfect, and at least we are all (at least in the US) on the same page. It's a much more accurate system than the old days.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - aha!  Gotcha.  So your question is more that the good folks of the GAP might have gotten the rating wrong?  Well methinks they need to go back and re-do it.  I'm sure they'd have no problem finding the time.

 

Ratings do look weird at times... Those don't look strange to me though.  I'm guessing the front tees are REALLY short, and there is a tournament set not listed there.  But my guesses are often wrong.  

[Jason Topp]

This post grew as I investigated further.  Nonetheless - this is an outsiders take and I would be interested in whether I am off base in any of this analysis.

The US system is really based on yardage, adjusted by factors that are somehow weighed to adjust that yardage.  The assumption is that the scratch player uses a shot tee to green for each 220 effective playing yards and a bogey player plays a shot for each 160 yards.  

I read a book from the 60's last winter that used some studies to show that average scores of top players could be directly correlated to yardage, regardless of whether one was playing a links course or on an american course.  This research supports the general approach used by both the USGA and in other areas for course rating.  I am not aware of similar research for the bogey golfer but it probably exists.

I find regional differences pretty surprising, however.  In Minneapolis, it is very rare to find a good course with a slope of less than 130.  Usually, courses in this area have few penal features that cost you more than a stroke.  By contrast, in California, Arizona or Florida a course with a slope rating above 130 is usually a pretty penal course for a bogey golfer - where a shot in the desert , lake or out of bounds costs you 2 shots.  I think a typical bogey golfer will have one hole on such courses where he cannot even finish the hole, at least not in single digits.  I know of at least a few people who winter in Florida and their handicaps always go up by 2-4 shots. However, I have also played with people in Arizona who hit a 200 yard slice off the tee that they can control, who would not do great on a longer midwestern course but play extremely well on tight short courses with a lot of trouble.

My guess is that the regional differences come in part from yardage differences.  Under the formula, a course with longer yardage will have a higher slope, even if there are no yardage adjustment.  (7000 yards=129 6000 yards= 109)  Often, courses that have a lot of penal hazards are short and would require an extremely significant adjustment to raise the slope dramatically.  In addition, fast sloped greens in the midwest must impact the slope pretty dramatically compared to flatter grainy greens (which I find at least as or more difficult).

I think the system is a bit flawed in this respect and that forced carry and irretrevable side hazards have a much greater impact on the bogey golfer than is reflected in current slope ratings.

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html

You can use these formulas to see how much the yardage has been adjusted for your course.  At mine - the rating from the back tees is 72.3.  The rating if there were no adjustment for hazards would be 70.7 (6566 applied to the formula).  The bogey rating is 98.1 which would be 91.7 (6566 applied to the formula).  Slope is 139 which would be 113 without any adjustments.  

Scratch Yardage Rating for Men
Scratch Yardage Rating: (Scratch Effective Playing Length of Course / 220) + 40.9 Example: If the effective playing length of the course is 6,419 yards, the scratch yardage rating for men is calculated as follows:


Playing Length / 220: 6419 / 220 = 29.18

Result + 40.9: 29.18 + 40.9 = 70.08

Scratch Yardage Rating (rounded): 70.1

Bogey Yardage Rating for Men
Bogey Yardage Rating: (Bogey Effective Playing Length of Course / 160) + 50.7

Scratch Yardage Rating for Women
Scratch Yardage Rating: (Scratch Effective Playing Length of Course / 180) + 40.1

Bogey Yardage Rating for Women
Bogey Yardage Rating: (Bogey Effective Playing Length of Course / 120) + 51.3
 e. Course Rating Formulas

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:

I'm just one of the guys who provides the on-course data.  That has all flown wildly over my head.

BUT... the good news is it will make perfect sense to JV, and when he returns I'm sure he will comment.

 

I will say this though:  the purpose of calibration seminars is to get everyone on the same page and use the same methodologies, so that regional differences will be minimized at least systematically.  If courses seem to be higher rated and sloped in different areas, then it's just supposed to be that they have greater hazards and are longer, and don't occur because teams in one area rate differently than teams in others.  I know you didn't touch on this, but that's all I have to offer.

[peter_mcknight]

Don't know if they rerated it with the new US Amateur tees, but it was 73.6, 142.

The one I always found interesting was Firestone--75.1 and 128.

[Tom Huckaby]

Gary - what was 73.6/142 - which tees?  What they used for US Am?   The numbers I got were from GHIN web site, what one would use if one was posting a score from a current round played at Merion.

And those are interesting re Firestone... sounds like a golf course as it should be...  very cool.

What sucks though is that I've seen Firestone on TV, and it sure didn't inspire me to want to jump on a plane to Ohio.  Looked pretty long and tight and straight and boring to me.  I hate it when my theories don't match reality.  

[Jim Nugent]

Jason -- real informative post.  What are "effective playing yards?"

[Jim Nugent]

Gary - what was 73.6/142 - which tees?  What they used for US Am?   The numbers I got were from GHIN web site, what one would use if one was posting a score from a current round played at Merion.

Suppose the U.S. Amateur tee course rating for Merion was 73.6.  Didn't all or almost all the guys who qualified have a + handicap?  I'm guessing +3 or so on average.

But I just looked up the average score there.  78.158.  Shouldn't the course rating be a whole lot higher than 73.6?  Wouldn't someone with a +3 handicap average a lot better than 78.158, on a course rated 73.6?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim- we need JV for this.  My best stab is that no matter what the club says, if a rating were done on the day 1 of the USAm, it would come out higher than 73.6.  But I am just guessing.  In any case JV can explain the math and how this works far better than I.   If you want to know how an on-course rating is done, I'm your man (but of course JV is also).  If you want to know the whys and whatfors, I'm PeeWee Herman and JV is Einstein.

 

 

[JohnV]

John -- sounds like it is what I called "theoretical."  Is it ever put to the test?  i.e., do the raters ever bring scratch and 18-handicap golfers to the courses, to see how they actually do score?  

Yes, it is theoretical.  By definition, someone who shoots the course rating is a scratch golfer.  Therefore, it can never be wrong.

In order to test it, you would have to have those players play the course 20 times and take the 10 best.

The definition of the course rating used to be the average score that the players who qualified for the US Amateur would shoot on the course.

One thing the USGA did do was have their course rating Master Raters (Love that term ) rate the US Amateur site and then compare the scores to the rating.  For many years it came out almost exactly right.  Starting in 2002, the players started beating the rating.  The USGA then looked at the handicaps of the players who were in the Amateur and realized that they averaged a "+" handicap so they removed that definition from the manuals.

[JohnV]

Given that the rough was higher and the green faster than under normal playing conditions, the course rating would be a lot higher at Merion on day 1 of the Am than in normal play.  The pressure might have something to do with that also.

[Jason Topp]

Jason -- real informative post.  What are "effective playing yards?"

Jim:

As I understand it, they measure the distance and then adjust based on a variety of factors that make the course play longer, shorter or more difficult.  My knowledge comes solely from reading the website.  Others certainly would know more.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV - thanks!  That all jives with what I was thinking, which has me feeling a little less uneasy.

Jason - that's a damn good summation, not sure how it could be better stated.  

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tobacco Road has a low rating/high slope

151 slope I think from the website...

You're right, that's what they have on their web site, but TR got re-rated on 7/18/2001 and it's been 72.6/147 for almost 5 years now (hasn't been re-re-rated since, although they have added yardage on at least 2 par 3's).  They keep the 151 on the web site for 'bragging'/marketing reasons, I'm assuming (I doubt they've never noticed it).  The original lowering of the slope was likely (at least partly) caused by the closing of the back tee on #14.  That back tee made for one puckering mid-iron.  Now, it's just a puckering short iron.

Also, the hill guarding the blind left side of the green on #15 was lowered.

[Tom Huckaby]

When this subject came up before - and it has - TR was discussed as the poster course for low rating/high slope, and we speculated as to why that might be so.  One of you search experts might be able to find the thread...

As for bragging about a 151, jeez I hope they don't have this motive - to me that's the crux of what's wrong about this issue.  A high slope should cause shame rather than pride.

BTW normal rating sked is at opening, then 3 years later, then every six years thereafter - all unless the course requests otherwise.  Typically lengthening two par 3s wouldn't be worth a re-rate - remember tees have to be more than 25 yards apart to get a separate rating anyway - but I suppose a particularly consciencious course could ask in that case.

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Huck, that's about right.  TR opened in '98.  Re-rated 3 years later in '01.  Guess they're due again next year.  I'm not sure if the knocking down of the hill fronting left side of #15 was before or after the '01 rating.

As an FYI, TR's CR of 72.6 is at par 71, so it's not as 'low' (in relation to par) as it sounds.  Like a 73.6 at par 72.

[Tom Huckaby]

Scott - cool - yeah, that's plenty of challenge for the scratch.  But that is also one VERY high slope.  As I recall there were good reasons for it - reasons that get to the heart of what a fun, quirky, cool course TR is - but as Jay notes in his Strantz biopic, one and all should take care to play the right tees.  A bogey player playing the tips at 151 slope would be hard-pressed to have much fun, correct?

Keep an eye on the re-rate - it still should move all that much even with those changes.  If it does you'll know some correcting was done.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()