[Jeff_Mingay]

I've never paid much attention to course ratings and slope. I do know, however, that difficulty is sadly the measure of greatness in the mind's of many golfers.

We all know the ideal is a high course rating and a comparatively low slope [challenging for better players, yet accommodating to high-handicappers]. I think must of us here agree, too, variety and strategy are of greater importance than sheer difficulty.

Nonetheless, what are the course ratings and slope ratings of some of your favourite courses, including the world's best? [I have some scorecards in a box in the attic, but I'm too lazy to get them right now!]

Which of the world top-10 has the highest course rating these days? Which has the lowest slope?  

Curious,

[Gerry B]

Pine Valley is in the low 150's in terms of slope

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Course rating and slope are still dominated by length, so I would suspect Cypress Point has the lowest CR and slope of the top ten courses.  Which means nothing, really.

The Brits don't think much of Slope, but I would love to know what they would do with a course like Painswick.  The SSS was 63 which made sense to me ... my 73 on day one would have been right in line with my current handicap, and Rich Goodale's magnificent 66 would not be out of line for his handicap.  

But the range of scoring from one day to the next could be considerable, so I wonder if a 4800 yard course could somehow have a high slope?  Or, would the fact that a 10-handicap could possibly shoot a low number mean the course should have a low slope?

The problem with slope is that it tries to address the "average" golfer, when different golfers have all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses.  There are some 18-handicappers for whom Medinah is simple and Painswick insufferable; and there are certainly a lot for whom it is the other way around.  Assigning a single number for each doesn't really do much for me.

[Mike Benham]

Tom -

When I return from my trip to Scotland, I sent an email to the USGA and asked how do I interpret the SSS rating to post my scores.

They sent me an Excel file with 500 Scotish courses with slope and ratings (circa 2002 I believe).

Some interesting ones for comparison purposes:

Aberdour          66.0  116   5,460 yds
Royal Dornach   72.8  138   6,581 yds
Royal Troon      73.2  134   6,641 yds
TOC                72.1  129   6,566 yds

At the top of charts:

Southerness     73.2  148    6,566 yds
Narin               73.2  146    6,452 yds
Carnoustie       75.1   145    6,941 yds

Check the yardage, rating and slope ...

Rothesay        73.9  139     5,533 yds

Mike

Ps:  If any one wants a copy of this excel file, drop me an email and I will foward it to you.

[Pete Lavallee]

Great points about Slope, Tom. The USGA needs Slope to make sure that an 18 from Medinah can compete with an 18 from an easier course. The Brits keep it fair by averaging the score of the field during tournaments; much more result orriented, rather than trying to measure the mythical bogey golfer's performance. I still think their handicap system promotes more comraderie, ettiquette, weeds out sandbaggers, and provides the best adjustment for a fair competition.

[Scott Seward]

Tom - Course rating is dominated by effective playing length, slope much less so.

Cypress was just re-rated last year and its slope now stands at 136. But the thing to remember is that slope is not meant to be comparable course to course, course ratings are. And since regional golf associaitons are responsible for ratings, not the USGA, they make sure that courses in a region have comparable course ratings.

I agree that none of this matters when judging merit.

[Jim Franklin]

Who do you contact to have a course "re-rated"? Our West course plays to an average of 4 strokes higher than our East course during club championship week, but is rated nearly 2 shots easier. It doesn't make much sense to me.

[TEPaul]

"The problem with slope is that it tries to address the "average" golfer, when different golfers have all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses.  There are some 18-handicappers for whom Medinah is simple and Painswick insufferable; and there are certainly a lot for whom it is the other way around.  Assigning a single number for each doesn't really do much for me."

TomD:

This, truly is the inherent problem with slope rating! Under the slope system the slope rating is the formulaic difference between the "bogie" and "scratch" rating.

Both the "scratch" golfer and the "bogie" golfer are actual theoreticals in the GHIN "course rating" and "slope" rating systems. No one is too clear on the subject but it's assumed that approximately 85+ percent of rating involves raw distance (22 yards=.1 of a stroke for men and 18 yards=.1 of a stroke for women).

The remaining approximately 15% of the course and slope rating involves what's called the "obstacle rating". In a word, that generally involves architectural feature danger and penalty, or other danger for the scratch or bogie golfer.

And obviously that directly relates to an analysis of where hazard features and such are placed on a golf course.

Anything over 250 yard is not considered to come into the obstacle purview of the "scratch" golfer (which seems slightly ridiculous today) and hazard features must be approximately in the neighborhood of 200 yards for the bogie golfer (of the tee).

The "bogie" golfer, by the way, is considered to be in the 17-22 handicap area!!

If all obstacle and length considerations, off the tee for instance, for the bogie golfer is only 200 yards you certainly do have a good point that the USGA's GHIN slope system does not address very well the entire spectrum of what a bogie golfer can be.

We certainly know there're legitimate 18 handicappers who hit the ball only about 200 yards and relatively straight but there are also legitimate 18 handicappers who hit the ball 300 yards and not straight.

The USGA's GHIN slope system has not been able to countenance this difference----probably for obvious reasons.

However, there is a way today for handicapping and slope to countenance this difference and this problem. In a nutshell it'd require hole by hole score posting by all and letting the power of the computer work out the differentials and the equitable and applicable handicap and stroke hole allocations for any player against any other player!

[Evan Fleisher]

Jim,

Here in Iowa, one only needs to contact the local golf association in charge of performing the re-ratings for the USGA, in our case the Iowa Golf Association.  You pay the fee, they get you on the schedule, and one day they come out to do the rating.  Other than that courses are only rated about once every 10 years, only sooner if "major" or "significant" changes have occured to warranr the re-rating.

Who do you contact to have a course "re-rated"? Our West course plays to an average of 4 strokes higher than our East course during club championship week, but is rated nearly 2 shots easier. It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Jim Franklin]

Evan -

Thanks, I will let my pro know so he can make the call.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike Benham: thanks for posting the USGA course rating and slope for those courses in the British Isles.

The Old Course seems to reflect the "ideal" - comparatively high course rating/comparatively low slope. 72.1 and 129. Interesting, for whatever it's worth.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
Pine Needles has the most ideal CR/SR combination of all ranked courses(US). I once did a search of them all and it came to the forefront.

I don't agree with Tom Doak and Tom Paul's assessment that  "The problem with slope is that it tries to address the "average" golfer". To me, that's what makes it worthwhile.
Establish a base player, find a median level of difficulty, apply it to a rating system and you have the means to handicap.
There is no way to make ratings equal given the extremes of players, i.e. 18's who hit it 300, 18's who hit it 200. Our present system gives us a base while allowing room for "courses for horses".

 

[Tim Taylor]

Is it just me, or are "newer" courses generally rated and sloped higher than older courses?

TimT

[Ken Fry]

To expand on Scott's point, too many "mainstream" golfers will judge a course on it's course rating and slope without ever seeing it.  (i.e. anything will a slope rating less than 130 would not be worthy of their time.)

Someone posted a remark under Talking Stick's course review a few years ago that they felt the course was too easy and they much prefered playing courses with a slope over 130.

[Matthew MacKay]

Tim...you're correct that new courses tend to have higher course and slope ratings, but this is only because they tend to be longer than older courses.  Very few new courses here in the Greater Toronto Area are less than 7000 yards, and indeed length is the major factor in course and slope ratings.  I work in Course Rating at the Golf Association of Ontario so I know how seriously golf courses take their ratings in order to impress the public.  We had one new club call the other day begging us to boost their ratings because they felt they were losing business due to their relatively low ratings in comparison with other courses in the area.  Ratings have become a marketing tool.  This is all very frustrating considering 98% of the golfing public have no idea what course and slope rating really indicate.

[JohnV]

Jim,
As Evan said, to get your course re-rated, contact your local golf association.  If your club isn't a member, they will probably charge a fee.

Tom Paul,

Yes, the mythical "average" golfers are used to determine course rating and slope, but since everyone uses that same course rating and slope things should work out ok.

How is the basic Standard Scratch Score calculated in Britain?  They have to have some idea of an "average" scratch golfer and how he would play the course I would think.  

Certainly it would be nice to adjust the USGA Course Rating and Slope based on that day's playing conditions etc.  Especially since many courses move the tees up substantially from where they were rated.

Tim,  in general most newer courses do seem to have higher course ratings and slopes.  This would be because they are usually longer and have more hazards in play than the older courses.  Also, the first rating is frequently done before the course opens is based somewhat on the clubs statements on rough height and green speed.  The next time the rating is done it frequently goes down since they play lower rough and slow the greens to speed up play.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom -

When I return from my trip to Scotland, I sent an email to the USGA and asked how do I interpret the SSS rating to post my scores.

They sent me an Excel file with 500 Scotish courses with slope and ratings (circa 2002 I believe).

Some interesting ones for comparison purposes:

Aberdour          66.0  116   5,460 yds
Royal Dornach   72.8  138   6,581 yds
Royal Troon      73.2  134   6,641 yds
TOC                72.1  129   6,566 yds

At the top of charts:

Southerness     73.2  148    6,566 yds
Narin               73.2  146    6,452 yds
Carnoustie       75.1   145    6,941 yds

Check the yardage, rating and slope ...

Rothesay        73.9  139     5,533 yds

Mike

Ps:  If any one wants a copy of this excel file, drop me an email and I will foward it to you.

I suspect that Rothesay number is a typo.  Its not possible that a 5533 yd course could get a 73.9 rating if 85% of the formula is based on length.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()