[John Chilver-Stainer]

If the R&A claim the average Tee shot for Golf Pro's is effectively frozen at 287 yards corresponding to 2002 then how will this effect the Course Measurement rules of the USGA.

Does this mean a Driver from the Tee of 250 yards for a Scratch Player and 200 yards for a Bogey Player as specified by the USGA for Course Rating and Bogey Rating, which go towards establishing the Slope Rating, will also be adjusted?

I’m not sure which years these figures were established but I believe pre 2002.

That’s nearly 40 yards or about 15% difference.

That's a fat can of proverbial worms for the USGA to open and who may not have the appetite to adjust the measurements and condemn dozens of “Championship” courses to the dreaded sub 70 Course Rating.

What think you dear readers?

[Bob Harris]

The next version of the rating manual is due out in 2012 and I understand that the scratch/bogey distances of 250/200 will not be changed. 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Thanks for the insight, Bob.

If that’s the case then it makes all the complex measuring and computing of the Course Rating and Slope Rating very hollow.

How can anybody really take the USGA Course Rating seriously with such an obvious flaw?

[Dale Jackson]

John, the yardages are for amateur players, not professionals and are based on actual measurements taken during the US Men's and Women's Amateurs.

Having said that it does seem that the yardages are due to be increased.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

A good point Dale.

I have an extract from a USGA Publication from the 90’s I believe.
Then the description of a Scratch Player was as follows:-

“A male scratch player is an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke play qualifiers in the US Amateur Championship. He can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots. His better half scoring average will equal the USGA Course Rating for men”

On the USGA Web Site the current description is:-

“Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level.”

Could the USGA be conceived to have downgraded their description of an Amateur Scratch Golfer? Even if the distance remains the same or even BECAUSE the distance remains the same.

Hold a deep breath for the next description of the “Scratch Golfer” - after Homo Balata and  Homo Pro VI will Cave Man make a return?

[JohnV]

The USGA recognized that players at the US Amateur are usually "+" handicaps so using their driving distance and scoring ability as a measure of the 0 handicap player was incorrect so the definition was changed in 2004.  Before 2004, they would have a team of "master" raters (say that fast) come out and rate the US Am course before the championship.  They would then take the scores and compare them.  It worked well until the last couple of years, especially in 2003, the players started to trend lower than the rating which is what led to the change.

The definition is really a kind of circular firing squad in my opinion.  A scratch golfer is someone who averages the Course Rating.   The Course Rating is what the Scratch Golfer averages.

I know many of us can name scratch golfers who hit it more than 250, but there are others who don't.  I've played with guys who only hit it 220-230 and have incredible short games so it is intended to average out, but is probably a little low for today.

[Sean Leary]

If it were changed to 270 (seems about right I think) how much of an impact would it have?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I’ve had a go at making a comparison between the current USGA system and the JCS 2010 modified Course Rating System.

As you may or may not know the following factors go into ascertaining the Course Rating.

a) Measured Length of the Golf Course (MCL)

b) Ten obstacle factors (SOSV)
1. Topography
2. Fairway
3. Recoverability and Rough
4. Out of Bounds
5. Water
6. Trees
7. Bunkers
8. Green Target
9. Green Surface
10. Psychological

c) Calculation
Effective Playing Length (EPL) is then calculated by adding the following to the measured course length (MCL):
We’ll call this the REDWA
•   Roll         = 190 - (Roll Total * 3.5)
•   Elevation = Elevation Total * .23
•   Dogleg    = Dogleg Total * 2.6
•   Wind       = Wind Total * 6
•   Altitude   = 250 * # of Par 4/5 holes * 0.07 * Altitude / 5000 feet.
The Scratch Yardage Rating is (SYR): EPL/220 + 40.9
The USGA Course Rating then is: CR = SOSV + (EPL / 220) + 40.9

COMPARISON
For the comparison we shall take the SOSV and REWA as unchanged.

Now here I apothesise

The formular for the Scratch Yardage Rating and USGA Course Rating have in their formular a value of 220 - which is in yards (since the EPL is in yards)
But WHY?  Don’t know but this value has been around a long time.

In which case let’s take the 2010 Version as 240 yards (that’s corresponds to an approximate 10% increase in Shot Length)

The Factor of 40.9 is a mystery and only known to the USGA boffins, however let’s assume it is constant for the USGA Course Rating 2002 and the JCS 2010 Comparison.

So taking an MCL of 6850 yards the Scratch Yardage Rating (SYR) :-

USGA       SYR    = 6850/220 + 40.9 = 72.04

JCS 2010  SYR    = 6850/240 + 40.9 = 69.44

So that goes someway to explaining why the scores have dropped over the years at the US Amateur Open.

So why are the Course Ratings not adjusted to realistically reflect the actual difficulty of the course - especially if one goes into the miniscule detail involved in evaluating the effects of the obstacles, etc.

QED

[Brent Hutto]

A circular definition suffices because the purpose of a handicap has to do with providing fair competition at a given point in time between golfers of varying abilities. There is no requirement that a player with a 4.3 Handicap Index in 2010 be equally matched against an opponent with a 4.3 Handicap Index in 1985.

[John Moore II]

The USGA recognized that players at the US Amateur are usually "+" handicaps so using their driving distance and scoring ability as a measure of the 0 handicap player was incorrect so the definition was changed in 2004.  Before 2004, they would have a team of "master" raters (say that fast) come out and rate the US Am course before the championship.  They would then take the scores and compare them.  It worked well until the last couple of years, especially in 2003, the players started to trend lower than the rating which is what led to the change.

The definition is really a kind of circular firing squad in my opinion.  A scratch golfer is someone who averages the Course Rating.   The Course Rating is what the Scratch Golfer averages.

I know many of us can name scratch golfers who hit it more than 250, but there are others who don't.  I've played with guys who only hit it 220-230 and have incredible short games so it is intended to average out, but is probably a little low for today.

I don't know of a player that I would really consider a scratch player who CAN'T hit the ball more than 250 yards. I would say a 275 average drive would be well suited for today when determining hole distances. Then again, that gives us max 275 par 3's, 525-530 max par 4's and 775+ max par 5's. Joyful I say.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Brent, you’re probably closer to the reality of the situation in that the Course Rating is really arbitrary and a relative comparison between golf courses.  The SYR Formular is too “contrived” to really be meaningful as far as exact lengths are concerned.

John K., I'm with you on 275m. Interestingly the English Golf Union(EGU) rate their courses with the SSS System, using a very similar Formular for SYR as the USGA. The EGU  define a male amateur golfer as hitting a Tee Shot 260 yards and a Fairway Wood 240 yards.

[John Moore II]

Brent, you’re probably closer to the reality of the situation in that the Course Rating is really arbitrary and a relative comparison between golf courses.  The SYR Formular is too “contrived” to really be meaningful as far as exact lengths are concerned.

John K., I'm with you on 275m. Interestingly the English Golf Union(EGU) rate their courses with the SSS System, using a very similar Formular for SYR as the USGA. The EGU  define a male amateur golfer as hitting a Tee Shot 260 yards and a Fairway Wood 240 yards.

260-240 is closer to the reality of today than 250-220. I Just really don't think you'll find a truly scratch golfer, one who can shoot par at least half the time (sorry, the course rating), and not be able to hit the ball at least 260 yards.  Had a member at Mid South who hit the ball only 230-240. He was probably a 3 handicap. But that was from the 1-up and 2-up sets of tees. He never played the back tees where the course stretched to like 7100 yards. No way he'd have been a 3 handicap from back there.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Yes, there are a lot of non sequitors when it comes to the rating system.

If the Course Rating can be judged as purely a comparison and not totally dependant on the exact Driving Length then what about the Slope Rating?

The miniscule analysis of the obstacle factors is carried out by a team of “Measuring Raters” , who mark out the landing point at the 250 yard mark (Scratch) and the 200 yard mark (Bogey), then measure all the distances to the obstacles and record them on an input sheet for the computer to evaluate.

Now if in reality the landing point is at 275 yards and 225 yards say, then the distances to the obstacles would alter and in turn the Slope Rating.

So it is clear the  current Slope Rating Values around the USGA Course Rated Golf Courses are flawed !!!!   

[Brent Hutto]

So it is clear the  current Slope Rating Values around the USGA Course Rated Golf Courses are flawed !!!!  

You're imagining a single player of each type and a single arrangement of landing areas, hazards and obstacles and supposing that if they don't line up then somehow the system fails to function as intended. There's a whole continuum of driving distances at every level of handicap and a near-infinite set of possible landing area, hazard and obstacle combinations. If the center of that continuum is a few yards off from your supposed Reality it matters not at all for the purposes of computing a useful handicap.

Keep in mind that the entire, sole purpose of the rating process is to produce a repeatable evaluation of a golf course such that on average across golfers of a wide range of individual handicaps and specific skills within a given handicap the resulting rating will allow computation of a handicap differentials that correctly register the player's performance in a given round. It works just fine for a scratch golfer who drives it 193.673 yards or a bogey golfer who drives it 281.9732432 yards or any other combination you might imagine. Not a problem at all.

No possible course rating system will correctly (by your reasoning) match up with the particular characteristics of any specific golfer. Just not possible to encode that in two parameters. You seem to be objecting to the fact that the process has very detailed measurements and coding formulas when there are underlying parameters which are set at somewhat arbitrary round numbers. Here's the thing. You have no choice at all but to have underlying parameters that are arbitrary constants like "250 yards". The only choice available is whether to measure the things that can be exact in an exact manner or not.

What would you rather them do, just have the course raters eyeball it and say "That bunker's pretty damned far from the landing area but that hazard line is too close for comfort"? Of course not. They identify the specified point, apply the specified adjustments, measure as closely as practical the distance to various nearby features and plug it all into a highly specific formula. They could easily change "250 yards" to "275 yards" or "275 meters" or "the average driving distance in the second round of the 2004 U.S. Amateur, exact to eleven decimal places" and do the whole process on that basis.

The end result in any case is some guy with a "2.3 index" and another guy with a "14.6 index" are going to play a match and the low-marker will end up giving the other guy fourteen strokes or whatever the formula says. If all the courses they had ever played had been rated with something other than "200 yards" or "250 yards" as the landing-area measurement he'd still end up giving fourteen strokes. Or maybe by some obscure alignment of the numbers he'd end up giving thirteen strokes or fifteen. So what?

The whole thing is a stab in the dark. Quit trying to lawyer every arbitrary number that was written into the rating protocol. It has nothing to do with getting or giving strokes. There is no objective, exact, universal Reality out there that those numbers need to comport with.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Hallo Brent

Allow me to nit pic your reply in Mucci Style with the colours

“You're imagining a single player of each type and a single arrangement of landing areas, hazards and obstacles and supposing that if they don't line up then somehow the system fails to function as intended. There's a whole continuum of driving distances at every level of handicap and a near-infinite set of possible landing area, hazard and obstacle combinations..”

I’m not imagining it -  this is how it is stated and carried out by the USGA Course Rating System. They don’t mention anything about a  “whole continuum of driving distances” - they are very specific. Now if they did change the wording to suit your interpretation I might agree with you.

If the center of that continuum is a few yards off from your supposed Reality it matters not at all for the purposes of computing a useful handicap
 
Take the Bunkers at 225 yards:
          With the landing point at 250 / 200 yards
                          Bogey Rating difficulty Factor would be zero
                          Scratch Rating difficulty Factor would be high

          With the landing point at 275 / 225 yards
                          Bogey Rating difficulty Factor would be high
                          Scratch Rating difficulty Factor would be zero

In the first case the Slope Rating will reflect the Scratch Player is disadvantaged compared to the Bogey Player -
 
In the second case the Slope Rating will reflect the complete opposite.


Keep in mind that the entire, sole purpose of the rating process is to produce a repeatable evaluation of a golf course such that on average across golfers of a wide range of individual handicaps and specific skills within a given handicap the resulting rating will allow computation of a handicap differentials that correctly register the player's performance in a given round.

I agree you with you entirely.

It works just fine for a scratch golfer who drives it 193.673 yards or a bogey golfer who drives it 281.9732432 yards or any other combination you might imagine. Not a problem at all.

I don’t have the same infallible belief in the system as you have.

No possible course rating system will correctly (by your reasoning) match up with the particular characteristics of any specific golfer. Just not possible to encode that in two parameters. You seem to be objecting to the fact that the process has very detailed measurements and coding formulas when there are underlying parameters which are set at somewhat arbitrary round numbers. Here's the thing. You have no choice at all but to have underlying parameters that are arbitrary constants like "250 yards".

I think I agree with you here. As you’ve correctly observed I object to the mixture of very detailed measurements and arbitrary constants.

The only choice available is whether to measure the things that can be exact in an exact manner or not.

Exactly

What would you rather them do, just have the course raters eyeball it and say "That bunker's pretty damned far from the landing area but that hazard line is too close for comfort"? Of course not.

Did I imply that?  Of course not.

They identify the specified point, apply the specified adjustments, measure as closely as practical the distance to various nearby features and plug it all into a highly specific formula. They could easily change "250 yards" to "275 yards" or "275 meters" or "the average driving distance in the second round of the 2004 U.S. Amateur, exact to eleven decimal places" and do the whole process on that basis.

This is the BIG question - obviously they could but WILL they?

The end result in any case is some guy with a "2.3 index" and another guy with a "14.6 index" are going to play a match and the low-marker will end up giving the other guy fourteen strokes or whatever the formula says. If all the courses they had ever played had been rated with something other than "200 yards" or "250 yards" as the landing-area measurement he'd still end up giving fourteen strokes. Or maybe by some obscure alignment of the numbers he'd end up giving thirteen strokes or fifteen. So what?

Well here I disagree. If the course rating system did reflect this everything would be fine - but in reality, because of the inherent flaws it’s not fine.

The whole thing is a stab in the dark. Quit trying to lawyer every arbitrary number that was written into the rating protocol. It has nothing to do with getting or giving strokes. There is no objective, exact, universal Reality out there that those numbers need to comport with.

Sorry, I lost you here

[JohnV]

John,

The entire length of the hole is considered for the bogey golfer.  For the scratch golfer, the area from where the ball lands to where it ends after rolling is considered (currently 230 carry with 20 yard roll).

Also, fairway bunkers have a very, very small effect on a rating.  If there is a fairway bunker in play, the bunker rating starts at what is found in the bunker table.  If there is no fairway bunker, one point is subtracted from the table value before adjusting for things like green side bunker depth.

There might be occasional times when a bunker rating was raised a point for a very deep fairway bunker right in the landing area.

A bigger effect a bunker might have is if it cross the fairway and forces the player to layup.  In that case it effectively lengthens the hole.  Or, if it narrows the landing area sufficiently, it might change the fairway rating by a point or two.

But, all things consider, these are very small factors in the rating of the hole, let alone the entire course.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

John VB, a fair observation -
I would agree if it was just an isolated bunker than there wouldn't be much effect - however if because of the inherent distance flaw the scratch player consistently avoid the hazards (bunkers, water, tree, pinched fairways, out of bounds,dog legs and elevation changes)  and the bogey player is confronted with the difficulty then all those small difficulties will add up. The possible differences are apparent where Slope Ratings from one Tee to another can vary by 4 or 5 points.

This could easily be the case in an older course where the hazards were originally placed to make life difficult for the scratch player and easier for the bogey player. With the increased distance the ball flies, the opposite is true - the scratch player clears the hazards and the bogey player is confronted with them - however - and this is the thrust of my argument - if the course rating system faced reality and adjusted their figures, particularly for the scratch player, the slope rating would also be closer to reality.

[Jim Nugent]

The USGA recognized that players at the US Amateur are usually "+" handicaps ...

I remember the US Am at Merion several years back.  The field averaged over 78 there, IIRC.  Yet the course rating was in the 72's, again IIRC.  Either the players were not + handicaps, or the CR was far too low.  My guess is the CR was too low.  Also, that this is true of many courses that hold U.S. Opens or Amateurs.   

[TEPaul]

John C-S:

I've never been directly involved in course rating (in that I've never been on a course rating team) even though I sure could've been in my years with GAP, but I sure have been involved in some of the fallout with various course ratings and slope ratings.

I'm also not naturally all that mathematical, but it has always occured to me that something odd goes on with some course ratings and particularly with some course slope ratings in that I have always been told that raw distance accounts for approximately 80-85% of a course's "Course Rating" with the remainder (Obstacle Rating) accounting for the rest.

If that is true I just can't imagine how some courses have gotten the massively high "Slope Ratings" they have when they just aren't very long.

The only thing I can think of is their "Obstacle Ratings" must be completely off the charts or somebody is just fudging something with the "Course Rating" and "Slope Rating" formulae.

Perhaps the most interesting, and controversial, course rating and particularly Slope Rating I was ever involved with was Aronimink. It came in with a really high "Course Rating" and quite a low "Slope Rating" and the club was pretty pissed to say the least. They demanded it be re-rated and it was and it came in about the same thing. The way we finally convinced them to look at it and accept it was one of the most interesting rating situations of my memory!

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP:

I am a "Measuring Rater" as John C-S calls us (and I can't wait to tell my wife my new title) and have been doing this for 6 years now.  John Vander Borght is an expert on it all as well.  So JV is a great authority, and can give you any and all math you want on how it's done.  I am just posting to say this:  I can't imagine any "fudging" goes on in course ratings.  For one, there's very little subjectivity we have... one thing John C-S is right about is that it's pretty much all distances and math... even in assessing obstacles.  So courses are what we are and there's little we can do one way or the other to effect their course ratings.  But more importantly, why would any association do it?

If some CRs seem high or low or "wrong", it's likely just some oddity of the system....

As for slope, remember that's a measure of the difference between CR and Bogey Rating (as you know)... so if some are crazy high, it might just mean ONE of CR or BR was either very high or very low, making the difference large, and thus the Slope high.

In any case, Obstacle Ratings can indeed get very high at courses that merit such.  Still, a high CR on a short course would remain very strange indeed. Think of tough short courses and they might work... Pasatiempo, Merion.. the numbers don't seem out of whack at either of those to me.

TH

[Bob Harris]

John C-S:

I've never been directly involved in course rating (in that I've never been on a course rating team) even though I sure could've been in my years with GAP, but I sure have been involved in some of the fallout with various course ratings and slope ratings.

I'm also not naturally all that mathematical, but it has always occured to me that something odd goes on with some course ratings and particularly with some course slope ratings in that I have always been told that raw distance accounts for approximately 80-85% of a course's "Course Rating" with the remainder (Obstacle Rating) accounting for the rest.

If that is true I just can't imagine how some courses have gotten the massively high "Slope Ratings" they have when they just aren't very long.

The only thing I can think of is their "Obstacle Ratings" must be completely off the charts or somebody is just fudging something with the "Course Rating" and "Slope Rating" formulae.

Perhaps the most interesting, and controversial, course rating and particularly Slope Rating I was ever involved with was Aronimink. It came in with a really high "Course Rating" and quite a low "Slope Rating" and the club was pretty pissed to say the least. They demanded it be re-rated and it was and it came in about the same thing. The way we finally convinced them to look at it and accept it was one of the most interesting rating situations of my memory!

Tom,

Anytime you like to join us for a rating, let me know.  We'll be doing a course in your neighborhood in June.

Bob

[TEPaul]

BobH:

Thank you, I would love to even though I sure did watch very carefully on the ground when they last did my course. I was impressed with the process and the team. Let me know when you'll be rating that course. I'll be out of this area for about two to two and a half weeks right in the middle of June.

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP - regarding your late add/edit re Aronimink - talk to the NCGA guys about dealing with... CALIFORNIA GC.  To say they were not pleased with their rating post-renovation is rather an understatement, and our management there has had many meetings with them about the situation.  It's always been strange to me... take out massive numbers of trees, make fairways massively wider... and you expect the ratings NOT to go down?

Things do get interesting at some courses, for sure.

Bob H. - all hail and hearty hellos to a fellow "Measuring Rater."

 

[Bob Harris]

BobH:

Thank you, I would love to even though I sure did watch very carefully on the ground when they last did my course. I was impressed with the process and the team. Let me know when you'll be rating that course. I'll be out of this area for about two to two and a half weeks right in the middle of June.

Tom,

White Manor, June 16th. 

Bob

[Matthew Petersen]

The USGA recognized that players at the US Amateur are usually "+" handicaps ...

I remember the US Am at Merion several years back.  The field averaged over 78 there, IIRC.  Yet the course rating was in the 72's, again IIRC.  Either the players were not + handicaps, or the CR was far too low.  My guess is the CR was too low.  Also, that this is true of many courses that hold U.S. Opens or Amateurs.   

Are USGA championship conditions a fair way to measure a course against it's rating/slope value? I ask that as an honest question because I'm quite unfamiliar with these USGA standards.

My assumption would be, however, that since most clubs don't typically play nearly as difficult for members as they do during a championship, that higher scores vs. slope/rating would be expected.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()