Course Slope Question on a Brauer Course

[Ben Voelker]

This may be a fairly elementary question, but I'd like to ask about the slope of a golf course.  As I understand it, slopes compare the difficulty of a golf course for the average golfer.  I've also understood that it is mostly based on the length of a course, as well as I'm sure, water hazards and OB.

My question then is, how does Highlands Golf Course in Lincoln, Nebraska, one of the courses I played on a pretty regular basis as a teenager, a 7,000 yard course, only have a slope of 119?

It seems cofusing because of the length, as well as the water that comes into play on 3 holes, and the long fescues off the fairways.  Is there another factor that is just as important as the length of the course?

Maybe someone that has/does evaluate slopes could explain this to me, because I feel that it's a plenty difficult and underrated course, very fun to play.  Any Ideas?

[THuckaby2]

Ben:  I am a volunteer course rater here in Northern California, so perhaps I can shed some light; however if we are lucky John VanderBorght will see this as he is the forum's true expert on these matters.

In any case, keep in mind that slope actually represents the relative difficulty for the bogey golfer as oppposed to the scratch; that is, we come up with a bogey rating and a course rating (scratch) and slope is based on the difference between these two numbers.  

Knowing nothing about the course in question, all I can guess is that it must have a relatively high course rating and bogey rating - it would be darn near impossible NOT to have such at 7000 yards, because you're right, distance is by far the heaviest factor in all of this - but that it just must not have hazards that unduly affect the bogey golfer.... or at least don't  effect him that much MORE than they effect the scratch.  If a course is really tough for BOTH golfers just based on length, and doesn't have the type of hazards that effect the bogey more (lots of sand, lots of carries over hazards), then you could end up with a modest slope.  Perhaps that's what's happening at this course?

Look at it this way:  you should be HAPPY the slope is low.  If you think about it, the perfect golf course would challenge the scratch while at the same time giving the bogey a fighting chance at success.  Seems to me your course is doing exactly that (based on the numbers, anyway).

Hope this helps.  JV could explain it a lot better I'm sure.

[Doug Siebert]

There isn't a rating done for "slope".  You do the normal course rating, which is based on a scratch golfer who hits it 250 off the tee and 220 from the fairway, and then you rate again for the "bogey golfer", who is assumed to play bogey golf and drive 200 yards and hit 170 from the fairway.

The length of the course has very little to do with creating a higher slope.  Higher slopes happen when you have hazards that are in play for bogey golfers but not for scratch golfers.  Stuff like water hazards that require 150 yard carries, OB that's reachable for a bad shot but not something that would worry a good player, and so on.  If a course is relatively wide open but is just long, it shouldn't have a high slope.  In fact, a hypothetical 7500 yard course that's got 120 yard fairways, big flat greens and no water, bunkers or OB would probably slope under 100 since it'd be easier for a bogey golfer to beat bogey on a such a course than for a scratch golfer to beat par, and that would be reflected in a comparatively low bogey rating.

Slope is not a measure of "difficulty" like most think it is, it is just a relative comparison of the difficulty that the course presents from the given tees for bogey golfers versus that presented for scratch golfers.

[THuckaby2]

Very well said, Doug - much better than me.  And I especially like:  

Slope is not a measure of "difficulty" like most think it is, it is just a relative comparison of the difficulty that the course presents from the given tees for bogey golfers versus that presented for scratch golfers.

I've been campaigning against this misunderstanding for years.. in fact I'd call it my personal pet peeve in golf.  For whatever reason, it just bugs the heck out of me when people trumpet the slope of a course as an indicator of its difficulty... in fact a new course out here is running adds based on this (come play our challenging course - "slope rating" (sic) 141) and it has just ensured that I'll never pay to play it.  As I see things, courses should be more ashamed of high slopes than proud of them.   What good is a high slope to anyone other than masochists?

Don't get me started... again....

TH

ps - by the way, the course I refer to here is not the horrific The Ranch (discussed in here many times, brutally awful, 2nd highest slope in all of NCGA); it's Deer Ridge out in Brentwood, which is actually a pretty decent course for cart-ball housing development golf... and does things so RIGHT in its website - lots of quotes from great architects - it kills me their adds are so WRONG....

[James Bennett]

would it be simpler to publish the bogey rating, rather than have a 'slope' which then has a mathamatical equation applied including a fraction akin to Pi to determine some other adjustment to handicaps?

I'd love to know more about slope (well, actually the bogey course rating) - we don't do it in Australia.

[Doug Siebert]

James,

It would make more sense from the standpoint of average golfers knowing how hard a course is, but the slope is the number you use to calculate your course handicap so you'd need to know it as a user of the USGA system.

The irony, of course, is that 90% of the people who note the slope of a course don't have a USGA handicap so it might be better to hide the slope in small print and trumpet the bogey rating.  Maybe golfers who believe breaking 100 means they've had a good day would have some incentive to choose tees from which the bogey rating is at least less than 100!

[Ben Voelker]

Thanks all for the help, being extremely uneducated on the issue, I appreciate the patient responses.

The course is one that allows for many angles of play on many holes (especially off the tee) and no forced carries that I can think of, other than a few holes with an optioned forced carry that 95% of the people there choose to have a go at.  So that would explain the slope.

Tom, while I certainly don't care what the slope is, it just seemed fishy that courses I've played that are easier have had much higher slopes.  For curiousity's sake, is there anyway to find the bogey rating published anywhere?

[Jason Topp]

Ben - the Ghin web site www.ghin.com - has a ratings lookup feature.  It lists the scratch rating, the bogey rating and the resulting slope.

For Highlands from the back tees the ratings are as follows:
Overall: 73.8 97.6 128
Front Nine: 36.6 48.8 131
Back Nine: 37.2 48.7 124

The slope is lower from the more forward tees.  
 
 
 

       
 
       
 

[THuckaby2]

Publishing of bogey ratings is the main thing I continue to lobby for.  Jason's right - most if not all are listed on ghin.org, and that is a step in the right direction.  Now if we can just get them on scorecards then we'd have something.

Doug, how did you get so wise about all of this?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Your numbers make more sense. Most of the public courses I have designed have Slope ratings of 128-132 from the back tees.  Of course, Colbert Hills and the Quarry are much higher.

Ben,

If I recall, the USGA has a section on their website on how slope is developed.  If I recall, the course rating is developed for scratch players, mostly on length, but the rating committee can add 0.1 stroke to each hole on the basis of their evaluation of 11 factors, like green size, fw width, hazards, and mental factors (like pure fear)

I think the slope factors are about the same, although the numerics are different.  Its possible that the rating committee, seeing the course before opening, didn't see it the way its maintained now.  That happened at the Quarry, where the natives were in further than they eventually got mowed, and raised its rating higher than Hazeltine in MN.  I think they review courses on a periodic basis to allow for that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the average slope rating in this country is 113.  Isn't the idea is that if your home course is, say 100, in the name of simple mathmatics, then if you play a course from a set of tees where the slope is 120, then for that match, your handicap is adjusted proportionally vs. a scratch player.  If you are a 20 at home, you would get 24 strokes, etc. to account for the course being more difficult for you, but not the scratch player. I guess if you were playing another bogey player who was a 10 on a 150 slope course, then he would  get only 8 shots, so it would even up the match even more.

I am probably wrong in the details on this, but you get the idea.  You can tell how much I consider the slope rating when I design!

[THuckaby2]

Jeff, you have the concepts right in general and are close enough on the details; hell it does get very confusing and is pretty arcane.  Just remember that slope is calculated based on the difference between course rating and bogey rating and it's all pure math.  How each of those is calculated you have basically correct.

And ratings teams do rate both based on what they see, and what the course operators tell them.  Ratings are supposed to be done based on normal summertime conditions.  So yes, if we are told a course has 2inch rough and then they maintain it at 4inch thereafter, the ratings are going to be out of whack.  Same goes for green speed, width of fairway, several other factors.

In any case, you as a designer are right on NOT to consider all this too much as you create a course, I think.  If you did it would just lead to more formulaic courses and less creativity, which can't be a good thing.  The only way this MIGHT play into your world is that you might have a goal to create a course with high course rating and low slope... that is, learn how that could happen, design with that in the back of your mind... Not at the expense of finding/creating the best possible golf holes, but just with it as a thought.

Because the more one thinks about it, the more that would be a course enjoyed by nearly everyone....

TH

[Ben Voelker]

I found that last night when I was trying to find some of this information...

I find it interesting that the Highlands scorecard from last season (the same card they've had for years) shows a much lower slope than what is posted on GHIN.com.  As a matter of fact, all four Lincoln Parks and Rec courses appear to be that way.  Seems like slope isn't a big concern to them either...

Does anyone think it would help getting higher handicappers to play the correct tees to introduce the bogey rating on scorecards and trying to educate people about its meaning?  I suppose you'll always have the weekend hacks that insist on playing "the tips", but seems like it might be a step in the right direction in speeding up some of the 5+ hour rounds at some of the busy munis.

[THuckaby2]

You are speaking my language, Ben - and I think every little bit helps.  That is, the more information the better.  My hope is that publishing bogey ratings would also help end the "slope wars" we seem to have out here in CA at least... But man anything that helps people to play the proper tees - and thus make the game go faster - has to be a good thing.

[JohnV]

Ben, I just looked up Highlands on GHIN.com and also noticed that the slope is listed as higher than your original post.  This might be because the the course has recently been re-rated and the club hasn't ordered new cards.

New courses are usually rated before they open.  They are supposed to be re-rated every two or three years for the first 10 years because things change rapidly during that time.  After that they are supposed to be re-rated at least once every 10 years, although we do them every 5-6 years here in Western PA.

As others have stated, the slope is the difference between the course rating (scratch) and bogey rating multiplied by a constant 5.381 for men.

If you took an XY graph and plotted the course rating at 0 on the X axis and then plotted the bogey rating at approximately 20.0, the slope of line between them (and extended beyond them) would be graphical representation of the slope.  As you could see, if you raised the Course Rating, but kept the bogey rating constant the slope would go down.  Similarly the slope would go down if you lowered the Bogey Rating.

Doug, Yardage does have a fairly large effect on slope.

If you took a 7000 yard course with 0 points of obstacles, it would rate at 72.7 and 117 (Bogey Rating= 94.5), while a 6000 yard course with 0 points of obstacles would rate at 68.2 and 108 (BR = 88.2).  Every 220 yards adds one to the scratch rating, while every 160 yards adds one to the bogey rating so longer courses have higher slopes even if the obstacles are the same.

[Ben Voelker]

John, thanks for the post.

How would the obstacle points be determined for the rating then?  Is that simply a rater walking the course and deciding what can be counted as an "obstacle"?  If that is the case, what is fair game?  Obviously water and sand, but what about grass bunkers, severe green slope, large elevation changes, etc?  Do these less penal features have any effect on the rating a course receives?

[THuckaby2]

Ben - in case John doesn't see this....

Note that what is and isn't an obstacle is set forth in PAINSTAKING detail in the manual we use for course rating.  That is, we have about 1% judgement involved in the process and the other 99% is just assessing how things fall as they are defined in the manual.

All the things you mention do play into the process... in fact everything that can possibly exist on a golf course counts in one form or another.

I don't have the manual here but I think it's somewhere on USGA.org...

TH

[Ben Voelker]

Thanks Tom, I'll check that out, I'd be curious to know how it all comes together.

[JohnV]

Ben, there are 10 obstacles that can exist and are rated on every hole.  These are:

1) Topography - Elevation change on the shot to the green, and an evaluation of the difficulty of the stance from the various landing zones that the player is supposed to play from.  Primary modification is if the green surface can not be seen from where the shot to the green is played.

2) Fairway - Primarily the width of the fairway vs the length of the hole.  Modified by things like the player laying up or a tilt of the fairway that would make it play narrower.

3) Green Target - The size of the green relative to the length of shot being hit to it.  Modified by things like visibility and if the green slopes to the back.

4) Recoverability and Rough - The length of the rough, the type of grass and the green target value are the primary factors.  Things like mounds, hollows or hills modify it.

5) Bunkers - The green target and the percentage of the green surrounded by bunkers give the basic number.  The depth and whether there are fairway bunkers are the primary modifiers.

6) Out of bounds - The distance from the landing zone and the length of the shot determine the value.

7) Water - The distance from the landing zone or the length of the carry and the length of the shot determine the value.

Trees - The nearness to landing zones and the difficulty of recovery are determined.

9) Green Surface - Speed and slope.

10) Psychological - A value that is determined by the number of high numbers given on the first 9.  Also the first and last holes get some points.

Each of these gets a value between 0 and 10 (some such as Green Surface and Target always have a value above 0).

Each is evaluated for both the scratch and bogey golfers based on their shot distances and landing zones.

Once all the holes are evaluated, the numbers for one obstacle get added, multiplied by a weighting factor (different factors for scratch and bogey) and added together to come up with the Obstacle Value which is added to the base length value and the rating is determined.

[James Bennett]

Ben - in case John doesn't see this....

Note that what is and isn't an obstacle is set forth in PAINSTAKING detail in the manual we use for course rating.  That is, we have about 1% judgement involved in the process and the other 99% is just assessing how things fall as they are defined in the manual.

All the things you mention do play into the process... in fact everything that can possibly exist on a golf course counts in one form or another.

I don't have the manual here but I think it's somewhere on USGA.org...

TH

Tom

the USGA website does give much of the information presented here, but it doesn't include the manual.  These must be accessed through the regional organisations.  I'm not sure, I think you can buy a copy through the USGA.

However, the comments here give a good insight into reviewing a course difficulty for a bogey golfer.  As I said earlier, in Australia we just have a scratch golfer ACR.

James B

[THuckaby2]

James - you seem to be correct - the manual isn't available on-line.  I'm not sure if one can get a copy... they give us ours as part of the course rating deal.

In any case the manual is not really needed for the discussion here after all; we have John V.   His post anove detailing the criteria assessed is all one really needs to know.

 

[Scott Seward]

The manual can only be obtained through a regional association. The last thing any regional association needs is members buying a manual and then questioning every detail of its course and slope rating. Though that happens enough anyway.

After researching a bunch of courses around Las Vegas, I found several at 7000+ yards but only a 120-124 slope which tells me that there is no trouble close to the green. In other words, the bogey golfer would never reach a par 4 in two shots at these courses but is not punished for his lack of length...ergo a low slope.

[peter_p]

Huck, John
I heard that there is a change in measuring yardage. Any truth to this? That previously yardage was measured on the digaonal whenever there was an elevation change.  That now the radar/surveying equipment factors in the elevation change and gives a horizontal measurement.

If this is true club selection and course knowledge may include finding when the course was measured.

[Doug Siebert]

Peter,

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)  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!

I know that one local golf course apparently remeasured everything last fall and almost every yardage was increased by 4-8 yards.  There was one par 3 where I was always short and a couple years ago I'd stepped off the distance about a half dozen times during the summer and decided the sprinkler heads were off by 7 yards and damned if they didn't add 7 yards there.  But they added some yardage pretty much everywhere else, including the other par 3s where I wasn't constantly short so now I don't trust any sprinkler heads there except those on the #13 tee

[peter_p]

Doug,
Thanks, your answer was better than my question.    But we still need Huck or John to chime in.    And we've just added more uncertainty into the games of those who read this thread.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Huckaby

"a new course out here is running adds based on course slope 141.  It has insured that i'll never pay to play it".

Should we call and tell them you are a rater and want a free round?  Should the quality of the course be penalized because of the ad?  Please they deserve to be rated, the world needs to know also.