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!  

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?

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

>>>>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!

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?

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.