[Garland Bayley]

The USGA publishes a table for slope modification due to playing from unrated tees. Just calculate the yardage you played, find the difference between that and the closest rated tees, look it up in the table, and viola, you have your new slope rating.

[Bob Harris]

Length of a course constitutes at least 85% of slope and course rating.

Actually, for most courses, playing length accounts for 97% and obstacle values account for 3%  There may be others that are higher, but the course with highest obstacle value I found was 7%.  

[Jud_T]

So you can play a different box on every hole and post a valid score?

[Jason Topp]

Tom's method works fine.  If you want to be really precise without doing the full formula.

Adjust 1 stroke for every 220 yards for the course rating.  

Slope will not matter much and can be eyeballed based on the slopes of the nearby tees.  Alternately, you can adjust by 1 for every hundred yards and be accurate up to 500.  http://www.usga.org/bookrule.aspx?id=14379#5-2

[Bob Harris]

So you can play a different box on every hole and post a valid score?

Yes, the local Golf Association should be able to provide a club with a course rating/slope for any combination of tees.

[JESII]

Not a rated so no risk of a knock...but I've always thought the idea of a course with no tee markers was a cop-out by the designer. I understand all of the defenses for those few courses that do this and no big deal but I believe a clear part of the architects job is to set the table and let the conditions and hole locations provide the variety. I can make up cross country holes on my own...and love to!

[Tom_Doak]

Not a rated so no risk of a knock...but I've always thought the idea of a course with no tee markers was a cop-out by the designer. I understand all of the defenses for those few courses that do this and no big deal but I believe a clear part of the architects job is to set the table and let the conditions and hole locations provide the variety. I can make up cross country holes on my own...and love to!

Jim:  I understand that point of view ... it's exactly what I said about Nicklaus' original course at Desert Mountain when it was built, with the two greens or two very different flags on every hole.  There were ways you could mix and match the tee markers and the harder or easier pins to come up with a good course, but I couldn't figure out why he hadn't done the mixing and matching for us.

But, every golfer is different, and today they all want to be catered to individually, and I'm not sure just how the architect [or the poor guys who have to set up the course] can accomplish that to the degree it's demanded anymore.  I build a variety of tees on most courses, but it doesn't matter to me which of them people choose to play, as long as they enjoy it.

I would feel differently if I were setting up a course for a championship, but I don't get those kinds of jobs.

[Tim Gavrich]

I try to evaluate courses primarily through my own eyes and experience because I figure the rest of the spectrum is going to be represented well enough over time by other raters' visits and assessments. I certainly don't actively try to ignore the presentation of the course to other players, but at the same time I don't want my own impressions to be muddled by overly universal thinking. I am generally playing off of the back tees at courses and I figure that over time, there will be enough of a distribution across all tee sets and skill levels to put my rating into context.

[Charlie Gallagher]

I note that I attempted to put in a Ballyneal score after play there in September and the USGA GHIN System would not take it. If allowed to put in yardage, I could have approximated fairly closely, as I had a decent memory of where we played each hole from at the time.

Wolf Point has no tee boxes and I'm with you Tom and MWP on the joys of adjusting length to increase variety. At Boston Golf Club many members play the composite tees where hole length can vary alot from day to day. It really let's the player experience how each hole plays in different conditions and with different clubs.

[Jason Topp]

On courses with no tee markers do regular players generally play from the same spot all of the time?  

I have played some courses late in the season when no tee markers existed and we generally default to the applicable plates.  I suspect that many people would do the same thing on a course with no markers and the result would be less, rather than more variety.

[Angela Moser]

First of all: There should be more women get included into rating a golf course. There must be more than myself being interested in GCA and driving it down the middle. I am playing a lot of golf courses all over the world and I find the Members Tee the most challenging and interesting ones. If the tees were untouched, I am playing the holes how the MacKenzies, Colts and Rosses inteded them to play. So why is everything rated from the extended back tee again? I know this only counts for Classic Course layouts...

A tee is a starting point. From there it might be a longer or a shorter journey to the green, but you choose your strategy here.

In Germany we still have lots of golf courses with only two, gender specific tees. Do you think it is fair that a 50year old guy is competing against a 17 year old girl, driving it miles past his ball and still tees of first? I am not asking for more yardage for females... it is more about the free your mind and have the balls to move up to the front tee if he or she makes themselves unhappy. Have the tee that fits you, don't choose it because you play the Men's Champions Tee, play it because you think honestly, fair and self-criticly that this flat piece of ground seems to be the perfect teeing ground for this hole today. This way you explore the hole and get more challenge out of holes. You don't fall in a routine of: "I always hit a 5-iron into this par3."

Unfortunately a lot of golf courses are not built this way. They are very strict in how to play the hole and don't make you use your mind and imagination.

[Tom_Doak]

First of all: There should be more women get included into rating a golf course. There must be more than myself being interested in GCA and driving it down the middle. I am playing a lot of golf courses all over the world and I find the Members Tee the most challenging and interesting ones. If the tees were untouched, I am playing the holes how the MacKenzies, Colts and Rosses inteded them to play. So why is everything rated from the extended back tee again? I know this only counts for Classic Course layouts...

Angela:

The only problem is, you hit the ball like a 12-handicap guy does.  I'll agree that your perspective is different from the average 12-handicap guy, but there are way too many raters whose games are similar to yours.

It would be good to have some women to rate courses who are 25-handicaps, but does that mean we knock Pine Valley way down the list because they couldn't get past the 5th tee?

[Jason Topp]

Golfweek's panel includes a lot of couples.  I am not sure how many but they formed a sizeable portion of the group on the one retreat I attended.

[Dwight Phelps]

It would be good to have some women to rate courses who are 25-handicaps, but does that mean we knock Pine Valley way down the list because they couldn't get past the 5th tee?

I'd be very curious to see this type of ranking.  I'd suspect PV would slide down the list.  For what it's worth, I did find this 2011 list of best courses for women from GD.  Top 3 are: Pine Needles, The Boulders Resort, and Old Mac at Bandon.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-06/top-50-courses-for-women

[Tom_Doak]

I'd be very curious to see this type of ranking.  I'd suspect PV would slide down the list.  For what it's worth, I did find this 2011 list of best courses for women from GD.  Top 3 are: Pine Needles, The Boulders Resort, and Old Mac at Bandon.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-06/top-50-courses-for-women

I remember that list, because Old Macdonald finished third.  I looked hard for the methodology, and did not find any -- I don't think they actually just polled women panelists to come up with it.  Instead, it seems to be a nod to courses (including advertisers) that had made good p.r. strides toward welcoming women golfers.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Angela,

things are looking up in Germany, more and more courses are rating all their tees for both sexes. So I think we're on the right path here, because that will enable us to avoid a proliferation of tee boxes. Where we are definitely not on the right path is to match up raters with tees. A rater in my mind should play off the tee suited to his game and rate that tee and nothing else.

Ulrich

[Dwight Phelps]

I'd be very curious to see this type of ranking.  I'd suspect PV would slide down the list.  For what it's worth, I did find this 2011 list of best courses for women from GD.  Top 3 are: Pine Needles, The Boulders Resort, and Old Mac at Bandon.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-06/top-50-courses-for-women

I remember that list, because Old Macdonald finished third.  I looked hard for the methodology, and did not find any -- I don't think they actually just polled women panelists to come up with it.  Instead, it seems to be a nod to courses (including advertisers) that had made good p.r. strides toward welcoming women golfers.

I figure you'd probably know more just how much to trust a blurb that accompanies a piece like this, but the few statements regarding methodology are below.  It seems like they at least polled women panelists, though any rubric for subjective rating is missing and certain aspects mentioned do appear to have more to do with advertising that playability. (bold is my emphasis)

"Ask Golf Digest's panel of more than 100 female course raters, and they'll tell you it's a design that puts strong players to the test yet offers an enjoyable outing for shorter hitters. In considering candidates for our 2011 ranking of America's best public and resort courses for women, we emphasized course layout the most -- which is why Old Macdonald Golf Links at Bandon Dunes in Oregon debuts at No. 3. Its investment in designing a set of significantly shorter tees might shake up an industry that tends to think longer is better. But it doesn't take a Bandon-size budget to put women-friendly practices in place. Family programs, leagues and merchandise are all low-cost, high-impact ways to say: "We want you here." Each course in our Top 50 has at least one set of tees shorter than 5,300 yards, two sets of tees with USGA Course and Slope ratings for women, and few or no forced carries."

[Ted Sturges]

Quote from: Ulrich Mayring on October 30, 2013, 01:12:38 PM

How do they do that at Ballyneal? The members simply don't keep a handicap? Or do they have occasional medal competitions with fixed, USGA rated tees? Or is Ballyneal a "second course" for most members, so they will keep their handicap at their first course?

BTW, I suspect that modifying the slope value is not so easy, because hazard placement and other factors besides length are taken into account.

Ulrich


I don't think they post scores from Ballyneal, Ulrich.

Modifying the slope value is probably much easier than you think.  The USGA tried to make it really complicated so that it would be their property, and not easily ripped off ... but most of us who have seen a lot of courses can estimate the rating and slope of a course within a handful of points.  

If the rating/slope are 71.6/131 from the back tees and 70.2/126 from the white tees, 71.0/128 is a pretty fair guess at the combo tees.  All that mumbo-jumbo about the length of the bogey players' drive is ridiculous  ... as if bogey players all hit driver 200 yards.  And, as Ed says, most of the rating and slope are about the length of the course.   -T. Doak





This is off the topic, but the obsession with getting a medal score on a paper score card is why it takes 4-5 hours to play 18 holes in the US.  I love the fact that they choose not to set out tee markers.  Just play the hole you wish to play.  And match play makes a game so much faster!  Whether a singles match or a four ball, why not play at match and concede putts that don't matter.  Then, you're off to the next hole.  A game can be enjoyed in 3 hours under those conditions, and everyone (except the guy who is obsessed with getting a number on a scorecard) is happier.

On the premise of Tom's original question, I think it's tragic that the question even needs to be asked.  I understand why he wants to know, because how a bunch of "raters" score his courses can affect his career.  I just wish there was a better way of getting constructive feedback than a process and a universe of panelists that has so many deficiencies built into it.  Many people who achieve rater status are deficient in experience and/or methodology (hence Tom's original question).  Some raters excel at both.  It's pot luck at best and the published results prove this.

TS

[Ken Moum]

Another snippet from the original thread that seems relevant here:

I don't know a single male golfer who finds pleasure in playing a series of unreachable par fives... yet people consistently suggest that changing par makes everything alright for women who hit it barely over half as far as they do.

although it might not have been one of her better days, you've seen my wife play so you know she's good enough to play most courses. But Royal Dornoch makes her crazy.  She's only played it twice, and she very much wants more opportunities...because she thinks she should do better.

Royal Dornoch not even a Scotland Top 100 course from the forward tees? Which ranking reflects that? Are the established rankings all-male?

Ulrich

I didn't say that, but it might be true.  Playing at ~6,000 yards, and studded with DEEP bunkers surrounding very firm greens there are damned few women who see enough successful shots to make the game interesting.

Of course there aren't very many courses with tees in the 5,000-yard range that my wife enjoys, so RDC's overall quality as a golf course might give it a higher ranking.

FWIW, I think it's almost impossible for a legitimate back-tee golfer to rate a course through the eyes of a 10-15 handicapper. I've played a fair amount of golf with guys who hit it 70+ yards more than me off the tee, and I can't think of one who has a clue about what being "average" is like.

I'm not even sure that's harder for a 10-handicap short hitter to imagine what it's like to be a low handicapper.

K

[jeffwarne]

Wht do "raters" produce "rankings"
Shouldn't "rankers" produce "rankings",
and raters produce ratings?

quite confusing To the average member, who then confuses a course rating , with a ranking

 

[Bart Bradley]

Wht do "raters" produce "rankings"
Shouldn't "rankers" produce "rankings",
and raters produce ratings?

quite confusing To the average member, who then confuses a course rating , with a ranking

 

Raters DO produce ratings which magazines then turn into rankings.

Bart

[Angela Moser]

First of all: There should be more women get included into rating a golf course. There must be more than myself being interested in GCA and driving it down the middle. I am playing a lot of golf courses all over the world and I find the Members Tee the most challenging and interesting ones. If the tees were untouched, I am playing the holes how the MacKenzies, Colts and Rosses inteded them to play. So why is everything rated from the extended back tee again? I know this only counts for Classic Course layouts...

Angela:

The only problem is, you hit the ball like a 12-handicap guy does.  I'll agree that your perspective is different from the average 12-handicap guy, but there are way too many raters whose games are similar to yours.

It would be good to have some women to rate courses who are 25-handicaps, but does that mean we knock Pine Valley way down the list because they couldn't get past the 5th tee?

Tom,

I agree that having more 25 HCPs women to rate courses would change the ranking drasticly. I even know women with a 12HCP who hit a fairway wood from 140yards. It doesn't really matter if it is men or women, but if you get this kind of golfer to rate a course you get a completely different perspective.

Having a seperate women ranking, i don't think is the solution. If you say I am hitting it like a 12HCP golfer, why not getting a ranking for this type of golfers. That way golf digest can keep ranking golf courses from the back tee, there will be a more diverse ranking for golfers like myself and something (propably excluding Pine Valley) different for 25 HCP golfers.

When I first played Royal Dornoch with Sara, we got flight partners from Texas who couldn't get to the Fairway at all. They picked up the ball every hole and got depressed after 8 holes driving back to the clubhouse. There was no way they enjoyed this course. My point is, give the average and worse player a seperate ranking.


Ulrich: It is correct that the courses change the tees more and more.

[Bill Brightly]

I am a rater and must admit that I rate each course from the tee I play, with a look back at the tips, where I used to play more frequently. But I probably should be looking at the forward tees as well. When I play with my wife (about 10% of the time) the playability of the course for a 25 handicap woman becomes so much more apparent to me. And only then do I notice how many courses (including my home course) have some fairly ridiculous forward tees that are either too far back or have obviously been added as an afterthought.

I'm pleased that part of the renovation work at hackensack includes a few very sensible new forward tees, even though some low handicap women object!  

[Jud_T]

Angela,

The problem is that most male golfers, and apparently Digest editors, see difficulty as a measure of one's manhood.  As such,  they play tees that are too long for them and courses that are too difficult for them.  I'm afraid many would see such a ranking as second rate and turn up their noses at it, even if these were exactly the courses they'd enjoy most. There's a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality to a certain segment of upwardly mobile golfers.  As Tom mentioned elsewhere, tournament history is as good a rankings predictor as anything.  While I agree wholeheartedly that women and mid-handicap men are woefully underrepresented on certain ratings panels, isn't it the criteria they're given and the culture of self-reinforcement that's equally at fault?

[Angela Moser]

Jud T,

can you please explain your last sentence? I don't understand what you mean and couldn't find a good enough translation. Thx

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()