[Dennis_Harwood]

The thread of Chivas points out there still exists some myths surrouding the meaning of "slope" in the course rating system--  Some still equate "slope" with overall difficulty of the course--

Just to be clear, an architect could, in theory, design two courses (with the USGA course rating guide in hand)-

Course #1 could have a course rating of 78.1 and a slope of 67(the lowest possible slope).

Course #2 could have a course rating of 65.1 and a slope of 155(the highest possible).

On course #1 the scratch golfer could be expected to shoot approximately 78 and the player with an 18 index shoots 89.

On course #2 the scratch could be expected to shoot approximately 65 while the 18 index player shoots a 90.

(I say approximately since I avoid factoring in the minor adjustments factors -- low 10 out of 20, etc-- which does adjust indexes).

What would Course #1 look like?  Lots of trouble in the landing area of the scratch player, wide flat areas for the bogey golfer, alternate line of play for the bogey golfer, forcing the scratch to lay up all the time, being extremely penal for any shots hit over 200 yds, green complexs with no front bunkering but only to the rear and side.

What would course #2 look like?  Narrow driving areas out 200 yards with lots of trouble and hazards in those areas, wide driving areas without trouble starting about 225 from the tees, rewarding distance on all holes, creating forced carries over water and bunkers on all holes but little trouble to the side or behind green complexes, etc.

Could land be found to build such courses and would anyone want to play such courses?  Not sure.

But it does point out the myth that high slope means a more difficult course-- that concept only applies to the "defined" bogey golfer.

[John Moore II]

Could land be found to build such courses and would anyone want to play such courses?  Not sure.

Certainly land could be found to build such a course, given enough money combined with bulldozers, backhoes, and treespades. But its doubtful anyone would want to play there, unless it had just unbelievable views of something.

[Tom_Doak]

Dennis:  "In theory," maybe.  But in practice I have never seen a course with a high course rating and a slope below about 125.  A high course rating is generally the product of length, and length adds to slope ... I don't think there is any way you could plug in the numbers to come up with a course rating of 78 and a low slope.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Tom--

Questions for you. 

Do you believe a higher slope equates to a course being considered a "championship" layout? 

And have you ever used slope rating guides in your course design to attempt to achieve a higher slope rating when the USGA team arrives?

[Garland Bayley]

...Just to be clear, an architect could, in theory, design two courses (with the USGA course rating guide in hand)-

Course #1 could have a course rating of 78.1 and a slope of 67(the lowest possible slope).

Course #2 could have a course rating of 65.1 and a slope of 155(the highest possible).

On course #1 the scratch golfer could be expected to shoot approximately 78 and the player with an 18 index shoots 89.

On course #2 the scratch could be expected to shoot approximately 65 while the 18 index player shoots a 90.
...

I strongly suspect that this is no theory, but rather an impossibility. If you had the formulae in hand you could probably easily prove it is not possible.

Both course rating and slope are going to highly correlate to length. So if you make it long to raise the course rating, then you substantially raise the slope.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dennis,

I can say I have never considered slope ratings in my design. I think the questions were asked in a thread a while back, and none of the gcas here did.

In truth, thinking about the course rating in design is putting the cart well before the horse.  And, a moderate course rating for everyday play - lets say the committee visits when rough is at typical 2" height - doesn't mean a course can't be made tougher for a tournament by growing that rough to 4". 

[David Mulle]

I am probably out of line here since I am not sure how the course rating works, but I'm going to chime in anyway. 

The combination of the slope thread and the thread about the second shots on par 4s lead me to conclude that the best way to design that would have a relatively high course rating (relative to par) and a low slope would be an executive course. 

The high number of par 3s and lack of par 5s would keep the scratch golfers from racking up the birdies while giving the bogey-golfers fewer places to screw up.

One of the courses I played growing up was a par 60 executive course.  The CR was 58.9 and the slope was 95.

[JohnV]

Below are some ideas for high slope or course rating

How to get the Course Rating high:
Par 3s at 230-240
Par 4s at 440-460
Par 5s at 660-670  (that will be tough for all players).
With small greens and lots of trouble in front of them

How to get the Slope high
Par 3s at 180-190
Par 4s at 340-360
Par 5s at 510-520
With small greens with lots of trouble front of them

High Course Rating:
Carries at 210 from the tee
Narrow fairways at 220-250 with OB or Water on both sides

High Slope:
Carries at 160 from the tee or 170 yards or longer with no layup possible
Narrow fairways at 170-200 with OB or Water on both sides

Basically to get a high course rating, put the greens 20 yards short of the maximum distances for the scratch golfer.  To get a high slope, put the greens about 20 yards short of the maximum for the bogey golfer.  This will leave them about a full shot into the green while the other player will have a much shorter shot in which will increase the difference between them. 

Then put carries at distances that the player can just make and make the hole long enough that he will try rather than layup. 

Take your choice as to which one you want to punish while giving the other an easier road.

[Dennis_Harwood]

...Just to be clear, an architect could, in theory, design two courses (with the USGA course rating guide in hand)-

Course #1 could have a course rating of 78.1 and a slope of 67(the lowest possible slope).

Course #2 could have a course rating of 65.1 and a slope of 155(the highest possible).

On course #1 the scratch golfer could be expected to shoot approximately 78 and the player with an 18 index shoots 89.

On course #2 the scratch could be expected to shoot approximately 65 while the 18 index player shoots a 90.
...

I strongly suspect that this is no theory, but rather an impossibility. If you had the formulae in hand you could probably easily prove it is not possible.

Both course rating and slope are going to highly correlate to length. So if you make it long to raise the course rating, then you substantially raise the slope.

Garland-- You are undoubtly correct on Course #1 (78 rating and 67 slope)-- I too can not visualize what such a course would or could look like--since distance would be necessary to have a high course rating and that would drag slope up.

On the other hand, couse #2 would be easy to visualize (65 rating and 155 slope)-- One way to get there is require the bogey golfer to a forced lay up at 75 yards on every hole, while creating landing areas at 225 over the hazards for scratch golfers.  This alone would add effective length of almost 3000 yards for the bogey golfer--

But I can not imagine anyone wanting to play such a course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()