Rating factor scores Pacific Dunes 3rd at Bandon

[Garland Bayley]

A rating factor using a high course rating with a low slope rating is suggested to be an indicator of quality of the golf course when it comes to trying to suit a broad base of players. Since the course rating and slope rating can be used to calculate the bogey rating, it would seem that bogey rating minus course rating would be the appropriate way to calculate this rating factor. Just like in golf, the lowest score wins.

The Calculations for the green tees are
Bandon Dunes 97.5 - 71.7 = 25.8
Bandon Trails 94.9 - 71.1 = 23.8
Old MacDonald 94.9 - 71.3 = 23.6
Pacific Dunes 95.3 - 70.7 = 24.6

NOTE: Thread has been renamed due to a request I received.

[Anthony Fowler]

Garland, these are interesting observations.  I agree with Huck that a great course should be playable for beginners and average players but challenging for excellent players.  By this measure, I think all the Bandon courses are doing great, so it may not be fair split hairs between them.

I can see why Old MacDonald would score so well on the Huckaby meter.  The fairways are wide open, it's hard to lose a ball, and it's hard to make a big number.  However, the green complexes are so nasty that it would be hard for even the best of players to make birdies.

To some extent, I would have predicted Bandon Dunes to be the worst by this measure.  I think it's a lot easier to make birdies out there because the holes (and greens in particular) tend to be more straightforward.  On the other hand, there's a lot of trouble and the potential to make big numbers.  Nonetheless, BD is much better than the average course by this measure so it's not fair to call it "the worst."  

I'm not sure that the ratings are reliable, but can you show these scores for some other well-known courses to give us some points of comparison?

[Garland Bayley]

Pine Valley 101.2 - 72.8 = 28.4
Rustic Canyon 94.9 - 71.7 = 23.2

You can look up these ratings yourself by going to ghin.com and looking up the USGA links.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Let Huck speak for himself.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

Your statistical analysis would mean more if the USGA Slope System was actually very good at analyzing all of the factors that make a golf course difficult or interesting.  However, since it is far short of a perfect system, the numbers it will produce are at best only part of a final analysis.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - as someone who for 19 years was a USGA slope/course rating volunteer - I could not agree with you more.  The USGA did try to take the "person" out of the system as much as they could.  Theorectically a rating team of 5 people SHOULD come up with the same slope/rating as a second team of 5.  To the USGA's credit this happens most of the time.  The problem, as you point out, is that the 4 distance and 8 obstracle-stroke categories they use may not well represent "interest and difficulty."  JC

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

Your statistical analysis would mean more if the USGA Slope System was actually very good at analyzing all of the factors that make a golf course difficult or interesting.  However, since it is far short of a perfect system, the numbers it will produce are at best only part of a final analysis.

Of course. That is why I tried to indicate it would only be a factor. The way I did it will not translate between different lengths of courses very well either. Perhaps dividing by the yardage somehow could adjust for that. Doing such an adjustment would just send Old MacDonald higher and Pacific Dunes lower.

[Garland Bayley]

.

[Garland Bayley]

bump for new subject.