Bandon Trails Slope

[Dub_ONeill]

I noticed that Bandon Trails has a lower slope from the back tees than it does from the middle tees.  I cannot recall seeing this for any other course.  Does it happen often?  What features of the course cause this to occur?

[Bill_McBride]

There was a discussion about relatively low rating / high slope recently -- actually a thread I initiated because I had no clue how that could be!

The consensus seems to be that higher slope means the course is a lot tougher for the bogey play, relatively speaking, than for the low handicap guy.  The meaning of lower slope for tips most likely means, hopefully, that few practitioners of mediocre bogey golf will go back there.

 

But of course I could be wrong, very wrong.    I've actually played courses where the holes can be easier from the back tees, IF you can handle the length requirement, because the fairways widen the farther you go.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think Trails is the hardest of the 3 courses. How doe sthe slope complare with BD and PD? Also I have never heard of a course having a stronger slope from the middle than the back.

[Jin Kim]

It simply means that the delta between the course rating and bogey rating is less from the back tees.

Slope equals bogey rating minus course rating multiplied by 5.381.

[Bill_McBride]

There you go!  But like Dub, I don't think I've ever seen a slope lower from the back tees than from the middle.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jin gives the formulation and the math involved.

So... why might this occur?

I'm guessing that hazards exist that are out of play for the scratch from the back tees... making those tees play effectively easier for the scratch relative to the bogey... because hazards anywhere along the line of play generally count for rating purposes for the bogey.  So bogey's rating for back tees goes up MORE than it does for the scratch - whose rating won't go up as much because he will add the distance, but will lose some of the hazard value.  So the delta is greater at the middle tees than the back, and thus the slope is greater.

As you can guess this doesn't happen very often.  And reviewing BT quickly in my mind, I'm not coming up with concrete examples.  But I'd bet a lot that they do exist.

For those very familiar with the course - are there many bunkers 250-270+ off the tee from the back tees?  Water?  Extreme rough or OB?

TH

[Bill_McBride]

For those very familiar with the course - are there many bunkers 250-270+ off the tee from the back tees?  Water?  Extreme rough or OB?

Oh hell no, it was a piece of cake!  

[Dan Herrmann]

Folks - slope is only one part the equation.  Course Rating is the key part.

[John Kirk]

Pumpkin Ridge private (Witch Hollow) has a lower slope rating from the blue tees (~6500 yards) than the white tees (~6100 yards).  This is a recent change, only 2-3 years old.

[Jim Nugent]

Bill, the way I read it, lower slope from the tips doesn't discourage bogey golfers to play from there.  It encourages them to do so.

Huck, not sure I understand what you are saying.  Slope fell from the tips.  So course rating went up more than bogey did.  i.e. the course got tougher for scratch players than it did for bogey players.  Maybe hazards come into play from the tips for the scratch player, that don't from the middle tees, but don't change bogey play much one way or the other.  

[Mike Erdmann]

Illahe Hills CC also has a lower slope from the tips than the middle tees.  With Bandon Trails and Pumpkin Ridge-Witch Hollow, that makes three recent slope ratings (either new or re-ratings) in Oregon resulting in lower slopes off the back tees.  Is this an anomaly, or are there other examples around the country of lower slope ratings off the tips?

[Jeff Taylor]

I may ramble so beware. Several years ago I rated golf courses for the Maryland State Golf Association. My recollection is that course rating is a scratch golfer measure and slope measures the degree of difficulty of the course for the bogey golfer relative to the course rating. My first thought is that moving a bogey golfer back to the tips takes landing area hazards out of play. It may also mean that they have an opportunity to run the ball onto the green from back there (i.e. no obstruction to the front of the green). Topography may have an impact as well. Downhill lies that increase carry or roll for the bogey golfer can also affect slope ratings. All other measurements would remain the same. Those measures include speed of green, depth of bunkers, depth and character of rough, closness of trees to the fairway.

[Tom Huckaby]

CAVEAT:  I've been doing course ratings and slopes for only five years.  The true expert on this in our group here is John VanderBorght.  Hopefully he will chime in.

Now with that out of the way...

Jim/Jeff:

This is a weird situation without a doubt, and not knowing the course all that well, I can only guess how the lower slope from the tips works out.  Keeping in mind that slope is measured based on the difference between course rating and bogey rating, well... for whatever reason it must have come out smaller/b] from the tips for the slope to be lower.

Since distance adds rating points for both golfers, and hazards matter for the bogey no matter where they are as long as they are somewhere on the line of play, we can throw out part of what Jeff said (sorry Jeff) - it won't make any difference if obstacles and hazards are out of reach off the tee for the bogey.  

So the bottom line is that from the tips, either course rating is lower relative to bogey rating than it is from the middle tees, or bogey rating is higher relative to course rating than it is from middle tees.  The difference somehow got smaller.

Jim - I don't think you have this right in your post above.  I think it works as I am saying here.

So what are the possibilities?

Keeping in mind that bogey's ratings will increase at a relatively constant rate (with one small possible exception I'll get into later) this has to turn on how the scratch is effected.

Thus my guess: from the middle tees, all hazards are in play for the scratch - and thus for both golfers given they always matter for bogey.  From the back tees, hazards are not in play for scratch.  The bogey rating remains high, the scratch rating doesn't increase as much (given his obstacle factors are lower) - so the difference is LESS, and the slope is less.

To make this work, a large number of hazards must be pretty much exactly at the 225-250 range from the middle tees, and then the back tees are all more than 25 yards further back, putting these out of play.

Now the exception:  as Jeff notes, it's possible that from the tips, you could have situations where a series of long shots into greens exist for the bogey (giving very high target ratings) with hazards in play that are simply unreachable from the tips, leaving him short shots into greens (giving very low target ratings) and negating the larger effect of the hazards.  Meanwhile the holes remain reachable from both sets of tees for the scratch, giving him high target ratings from both sets of tees.  We need John V. to work this through, however... as I'm not sure if this would work out for a lower slope rating from the tips in the balance - I'm not sure the net effect overall of low target ratings on a 3rd shot approach v. high target ratings on a 2nd shot approach.  But it is possible also that this causes a lesser increase in rating points for the bogey than the scratch in the move from the middles to the tips, thus a smaller difference, thus a smaller slope.

WHEW!  This does get confusing. Thankfully when we do course ratings, we just create the raw data and it's the home office that works all of this out.

 

[JohnV]

Ok, since Tom wants me to chime in, how can I refuse?

Disclaimers: First, I have not seen Bandon Trails yet.  Second, I have no access to the rating sheets of the OGA.  Third, I have no knowledge of any adjustments made to the yardages off the card for things such as elevation changes, doglegs or the like.

Yardage ratings are the rating based strictly on the effective playing length (EPL) of the course.  EPL is the measured yardage modified for thing like elevation change from tee to green, forced layups, doglegs, roll etc.  It may be different between for the scratch golfer than the bogey because one or the other might have to layup or play around a dogleg vs over it.  The obstacle ratings are the difference between the yardage rating and the course rating.  They reflect the amount of points added for the 10 obstacle types on the course.  These values have been calculated by working backwards from the published numbers.

First the back tees

Yardage: 6765
Course Rating: 73.4
Slope 130

Bogey Course Rating: 97.6
Scratch Yardage Rating: 71.7
Bogey Yardage Rating: 94.0
Scratch Obstacle Rating: 1.7
Bogey Obstacle Rating: 3.6

Now the middle tees

Yardage: 6260
Course Rating: 70.9
Slope: 135

Bogey Course Rating: 96.0
Scratch Yardage Rating: 69.4
Bogey Yardage Rating: 89.8
Scratch Obstacle Rating: 1.5
Bogey Obstacle Rating: 6.7

The reason the slope went down was that the Bogey Course Rating didn’t increase as quickly as the Course Rating did (CR + 2.5, BCR +1.6).  The reason for this is that the obstacle ratings actually went down for the bogey golfer.  Notice that the overall Bogey Rating did go up, just not as fast.

The primary obstacle is the Green Target.  Green Target is based on the length of shot to the green and the size of the green.  Obviously the size of the green doesn’t change, but the length of the shot can.  A bogey golfer hits the ball 200 yards on his drive and 170 on all other shots.  If there are holes that are just under 200, 370 or 540 yards, his green target will be large.  If there are holes that are between 201-210, 371-390 or 541-560, his green target will be an average of the high and low values to reflect that he might make it 50% of the time.  If they are just over 210, 390 or 560, the Green Target numbers will be quite small (2 points) because he has a short shot to a green that he can’t reach in regulation.  Since Green Target also affects the Rough and Recoverability and Bunker numbers, a low value will also lower those values while a high value will raise them.  So, if there are a lot of holes that cross these boundaries between the back and middle tees, it can have a big effect in lowering the Obstacle Rating and therefore lowering the slope.  There are similar transition points for the scratch golfer.

The other factors could be that landing areas are wider from the back tees, topography is less of a factor, water hazards, OB or extreme rough are further from the landing areas, carries are shorter because the bogey golfer can't carry them from the back might have to layup etc.

[Garland Bayley]

Surprised Cary didn't chime in here.

He has written he scores better from the back tees at TPC than the forward ones, because the hazards are taken out of play then. In JVB's terms "the obstacle ratings went down"

[Tom Huckaby]

Whew!

Thankfully the master did arrive.  Many thanks, JV.

So it would seem in the instance of Bandon Trails, it was the "exception" I noted that carried the day.  That is, target ratings were effectively lower enough for the bogey from the tips that his rating didn't rise as much as the scratches, the delta was lower, thus lower slope.  I get that.

What I don't get - and I've never gotten a straight answer about from the NCGA guys, but then again, I haven't pressed the issue because it doesn't matter to the job I do - is why 3rd shot approaches with lower target ratings would make for an effectively "easier" course than high target ratings on 2nd shot approaches.

Does that question even make sense?

In the Bandon instance, it would seem they have a lot of 170 yard approaches from middles, giving high target ratings.  Back them up to 200+, those become unreachable, the target is done from app. 30, target is very low.  But that's a THIRD shot... doesn't that in the net still mean for a higher bogey rating?

Or is it that the constant increase of yardage just takes this into account, and the GAIN on that for obtacles is thus negated?  So it's a higher bogey rating, but not as much higher as it might be if the targets remain reachable?

This is all pretty esoteric, but hey, I find it interesting.

 

[JohnV]

Tom, that the green target ratings are lower is just a guess on my part.  I have no knowledge of the actual numbers.

As for why this lowers the number, it is a lot easier to hit a green from 30 yards than from 170 yards.  Therefore the lower green target.  It is also a lot easier to miss the greenside bunkers and avoid any other trouble around the green.  It doesn't make the course "easier", just that shot.  The added length makes up for it.  The Bogey rating went up 1.6 shots because the length made it a few shots harder while the easier obstacles took back some of that, but not all.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV:

Understood that you don't have actual target ratings.  And of course the target rating is lower from 30 than 170 - that was not my question.  

But I think you answered it... my question does remain why in the end does a course come out with a relatively lower bogey rating (that is, less increase than might otherwise occur due to distance + obstacles) in instances like this, when they are approaching on THIRD SHOTS rather than SECOND SHOTS?  That is, as hard as a shot is from 170, well... wouldn't they still take effectively less strokes than coming in from 200, even if that distance does mean they miss the hazards?

And I think you answered it, in saying

"It is also a lot easier to miss the greenside bunkers and avoid any other trouble around the green.  It doesn't make the course "easier", just that shot.  The added length makes up for it.  The Bogey rating went up 1.6 shots because the length made it a few shots harder while the easier obstacles took back some of that, but not all."

In the end, the distance is going to add value... enough to make it a net gain (ie 1.6 shots at BT)... but not as much as if they obtacles remained in play.

It just still cause me some puzzlement, as I think of what his total score is likely to be from each distance... But that's OK, I think I get the gist of things now.  Less disasters will occur from 200+.

TH

[Jim Nugent]

So the bottom line is that from the tips, either course rating is lower relative to bogey rating than it is from the middle tees, or bogey rating is higher relative to course rating than it is from middle tees.  The difference somehow got smaller.

Jim - I don't think you have this right in your post above.  I think it works as I am saying here.

Sorry, Tom, you have it backwards.  

Slope = Bogey - Course Rating, times the multiplier.  Slope fell, which means Bogey - Course Rating fell.  We know both numbers went up.  Course rating had to go up more than Bogey.  The course got harder, relatively speaking, for scratch players than it did for bogey players.  Either more hazards come into play for scratch players from the tips...or they don't come into play as much for bogey golfers.  John said it was the latter.  

Either way, a lower slope from the tips encourages bogey golfers to play there.  IMO, they should drop slope, and give bogey and course ratings instead.  Slope covers up an important fact here: that the course is harder for bogey golfers from the tips.  

BTW, without ever seeing the course, it surprises me that slope fell from the tips.  I would usually think the extra distance plays into the hands of the scratch golfer, and really punishes the higher handicapper.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim - aha!  You are correct.  My bad.  As I say, this is confusing.    

Luckily when we do course ratings in the field, we don't have to consider these esoteric concepts.  We just gather the data and make a few assessments.

In any case, you did sum it up perfectly -thanks.  I still find this to be a very odd situation, and my questions to JV remain.  But you summed up perfectly how a lower slope from the back tees would happen.  In any case I agree with you that it is weird still that slope would be lower from the tips - we have to chalk this up to a strange confluence of factors, making this course very much an outlier.  This doesn't happen very often, that's for sure.

As for the concepts, well... do NOT get me started.  I've been lobbying for years for slope to be hidden and bogey rating to be published.  GHIN does this now, which is great.  But the sooner we get that on scorecards, the better.  Slope is a concept that is positive far more than negative in its effect - it's just the misunderstanding of it - too many people thinking it's a measure of raw difficulty and thus something to be praised and sought out - that is the negative.

TH

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom, you're absolutely correct.  I'm amazed at how many folks brag about their course's slope rating.  To them, higer is better, of course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, you're absolutely correct.  I'm amazed at how many folks brag about their course's slope rating.  To them, higer is better, of course.

Dan - right on brother!  It kills me when I see ads - like I do here in the Bay Area - touting "come play our slope 152 monster - are you man enough?" or words to that effect.  Since slope really measures only how much harder the course is for the bogey than the scratch... and since the really best courses would have high course ratings and low slopes (challenge the scratch while giving the bogey a chance)... high slopes should be something a course is ASHAMED of, not proud of!

But it's all in the incorrect perception.  Ask 100 golfers these days what tells them how hard a course is, and I'd bet at least 85 say slope.  Sigh....

TH

[JohnV]

Dan, when I first got started in course rating back in '93, we would have all the old-timers sitting around when we showed up and they would say, "This course is a lot harder than the slope rating.  It should be higher."  We would then explain that if the ratings went up, their handicap would go down (80 on a hard course makes you a better player than 80 on an easy one.)  Eventually that word got around so that most of the time we get complaints that the rating is too high these days.

There are still a few ego driven courses where they want the biggest numbers they can get.

I got a call from a pro at one club wanting to know why there slope was lower than Pine Valley's.  I pointed out that their course rating was higher and that the bogey rating was higher so that even though the slope was lower, their course was harder.  It made him happy.

[Tom Huckaby]

But JV - doesn't it get tiring to keep having to preach this?  That is, said pro should have know that himself - you shouldn't have had to teach him.

Maybe it's just me... the incorrect perceptions about slope do bug me.

 

[Jeff Taylor]

A bogey golfer has to chip onto the green if his initial approach is more than 170. He is still going to make bogey. Does he have a proportionally greater chance of making bogey or double? Probably not. Especially if you have very deep rough and very deep bunkers. Chipping from a wider fairway may is an easier shot than from around the green.

[Tags:]

Tags: