Raters , do they get it ?

[archie_struthers]

  ::

My home course , Greate Bay was originally designed by Willie Park Jr in the mid 1920's . Many of Parks holes remain fairly intact even after a few redo's over the years.  It is located close to the Atlantic Ocean near the southern tip of NJ  and  actually sits east of the Great Egg Harbor Bay in  some spots . It is often breezy , has  an excellent sand base that drains well and is right now almost as firm and fast as Pinehurst was  last week .

Greate Bay has historically been resilient to scoring , with small greens and some subtle false fronts . It isn't overly long at 6780 from the tips, but at par 70 isn't short either. Both par fives play long and aren't gimme birdies by any stretch of the imagination. We have a regular game on monday at 3 pm from  the tips (black tee Monday) where some of the best players in Philly show up. Rarely does anyone break par  .

In last years  philladelphia mid am qualifier on a breezy spring day 77 was low . Yep 77 !

Yet the raters just left town and cut our slope to 127 from the tips due to the lack of water and OB . I just don't get how,they do it . Their formulaic approach to difficulty leaves much to be desired.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

In many cases a course's rating is more reflective of the quality of the rater than the quality of the course.

I've often been puzzled by course ratings.

In a particular case, a rater indicated that a par 5 was particullarly challenging, when I asked about the previous hole, a really good, challenging par 4, that played into the prevailing wind, they said it was not much of a hole, pretty easy.

It was then and there that I knew that this rater clearly didn't get it.

"Raters" are like a box of chocolates. 

[David_Elvins]

Archie,

I know this has been said many times, but high slope has nothing to do with a course being difficult for tournament players, good amateurs or the best players in state. 

High slope is the relative difficulty between these players and poorer golfers. 

If the course defends par against good players whilst allowing poor players to get around without much difficulty, then the slope will be relatively low. Surely this is a good thing.  Be proud of your relatively low slope rating. 

PS I hate slope ratings and wish they did not exist.

[mike_beene]

What is the course rating?

[cary lichtenstein]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

[Matthew Sander]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

[Nigel Islam]

What is the course rating?

Course rating is the score a scratch player in theory should be able to shoot from those tees. Slope is the term from the graph coordinates that indicates how quickly the score escalates relative to this for the handicap golfer. Thus a course with little water will likely not have as high a slope as say TPC Sawgrass. Course rating is the better number to look at to get a gauge for how hard the course was. I too wish they would do away with slope.

[Matthew Petersen]

Nigel, I think Mike may have been asking what the rating was for this course.

If what I'm finding online if right, the tips were formerly 71.6 / 130, but are now rated at 72.0 / 127.

In which case the relative difficulty of the course for a scratch golfer was revised higher. A 72 rating on a 6700 yd par 70 is definitely no pushover.

[Nigel Islam]

Oops sorry

[mike_beene]

Nigel, my fault. A poorly worded sentence!

[Nigel Islam]

No, I just read it too quick. I do think the rating of a course is a better indication of how tough the course is than slope. Slope is essentially  how many balls you can lose if you are not playing well.

[Jim Nugent]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

Right, and that's also why par 3's are usually handicapped in the high teens.  Fewer full shots = fewer chances to go wrong. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

The slope number is in fact highly correlating to water, out of bounds and other opportunities to lose a ball. This is where average players struggle, whereas firm and fast fairways are a boon to them because of the added roll.

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where's the Water and OB at WFW ?

[Michael Felton]

Where's the Water and OB at WFW ?

There's not a lot of it, but the West from the blue tees is rated about 75.7 and 142 I think. Bethpage Black from the blue tees (it's a couple of hundred yards longer) is 78.1 and 152. There is no earthly way that those courses actually fall that way. WFW is much harder.

Only water is at the bottom of the hill on 15 and behind the 6th green. Only OB that could be in play is left of the 15th green and maybe right on 4. There is also very little water and OB on Bethpage Black though. Only water is in front of the 8th green and there isn't really any OB close to play.

[Michael Goldstein]

My grandfather was part of this process in NZ a couple of decades ago whereby he rated a number of courses.  
He said that the course rating was measured 95% on the length of the course.  That seems to reflect the situation in New Zealand, the longer the golf course the greater the difference between a scratch and bogey golfer.
 
The 95% number does not, however, align with my experiences in the USA where, from memory, some of the very highly rated courses weren't necessarily the longest.

The outcome of this rating system is that new courses or renovations will pay undue attention to it.  In fact the same grandfather was just part of a committee that oversaw a major renovation at my childhood course and I saw that exact thing happen to the detriment of the overall result.

The only positive story to tell out of all of this is that mid-process of renovation my grandfather read the Spirit of St Andrews and started to talk less about slope rating and more about strategy and thinking golf.  Unfortunately by then it was too late (and I doubt many of the others on the committee would have had much interest).        

 

[SL_Solow]

Course ratings are largely formula driven.  The USGA publishes a handbook.  At the CDGA, we rate in groups.  All are trained and we have team leaders who have significant experience.  Additional points are given or subtracted depending on placement and severity of hazards, difficulty of greens, width, topography etc., but these are secondary to distance as the USGA has determined that for the vast majority of players, length plays the greatest factor (hence different sets of tees and different ratings).  This is not an exercise where architectural merit is the issue, unlike the magazine ratings, and there is considerably less discretion as the idea is to create handicaps that will "travel".  While experience and judgment can make a difference, in all candor, if the system is applied "by the book", the differences among raters should be minimal

[Dave Doxey]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

Allocation of strokes to specific holes is not done by hole length or par - it's done by analysis of actual scores.  Holes are ranked based on difference in average scores of two groups - high and low handicappers.

http://www.usga.org/handicapfaq/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

How many courses actually take the time to do this is another question...

[Carl Johnson]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

Allocation of strokes to specific holes is not done by hole length or par - it's done by analysis of actual scores.  Holes are ranked based on difference in average scores of two groups - high and low handicappers.

http://www.usga.org/handicapfaq/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

How many courses actually take the time to do this is another question...

Section 17 of the USGA Handicap Manual is a worthwhile read, although I agree that it's uncertain if the club committees who assign strokes actually read and follow it.  I belong to a "golf" club where you'd think the process of assigning strokes would be "open," but it's not, so who knows what the committee is doing.

Analysis of actual scores and rankings based on differences in average scores, as Dave points out, may be the most important part of the allocation process.  I'd say it's certainly the starting point.  However, other factors come into play as well.  Any time you hear someone say, "Well, we've come to the number one handicap hole, the toughest on the course," you can make a reasonable assumption this person has no idea what he's talking about.

It could be the toughest, but that's certainly not indicated by the fact that the committee has allocated the first handicap stroke to it.  Toughest for what players?  The scratch?  The high handicapper?  The 15th handicap hole (a 3 par) at my home course is generally plays the most difficult in relation to par in competition for professionals and scratch or near scratch amateurs.  I don't know how it ranks in differential for the lower vs. higher handicap players, but my guess is that 15 is about right.

Of course, this process is entirely separate from the assignment of ratings and slopes - it's not the same thing at all - it's not the raters' responsibility, but the club's responsibility.

[Bob Harris]

::

My home course , Greate Bay was originally designed by Willie Park Jr in the mid 1920's . Many of Parks holes remain fairly intact even after a few redo's over the years.  It is located close to the Atlantic Ocean near the southern tip of NJ  and  actually sits east of the Great Egg Harbor Bay in  some spots . It is often breezy , has  an excellent sand base that drains well and is right now almost as firm and fast as Pinehurst was  last week .

Greate Bay has historically been resilient to scoring , with small greens and some subtle false fronts . It isn't overly long at 6780 from the tips, but at par 70 isn't short either. Both par fives play long and aren't gimme birdies by any stretch of the imagination. We have a regular game on monday at 3 pm from  the tips (black tee Monday) where some of the best players in Philly show up. Rarely does anyone break par  .

In last years  philladelphia mid am qualifier on a breezy spring day 77 was low . Yep 77 !

Yet the raters just left town and cut our slope to 127 from the tips due to the lack of water and OB . I just don't get how,they do it . Their formulaic approach to difficulty leaves much to be desired.  

Archie,
Yes we do get it, but you omitted the fact that while the slope dropped by 2, the course rating went from 71.2 to 71.9.
You need to include both the course rating and slope to determine the difficulty of a golf course
I was the Captain of the team that rated Greate Bay two weeks ago. Also included was the Director of CR for GAP.
The Black Tees that we rated were measured at 6,530 yards, not 6,780.  The Course Rating at 6,780 would be 73.0
We were told by the pro shop staff that for member play, the greens usually stimp at 9'5''.  What was the stimp for the tournament?
For comparison:

Hidden Creek             6795           CR  73.1          Slope  133
Galloway                   6638           CR  73.0          Slope  142
Atlantic City               6577           CR  72.3          Slope  133
Greate Bay               6531           CR  71.9          Slope  127
Greate Bay  (est)       6780           CR  73.0          Slope  130

BTW, we had a "greate" time at the the club and would be happy to come back to rate the course at 6780.

[Paul Gray]

Possible going off at a tangent, since I'm referring to the UK system, but the guidelines are heavily based on what I'll dare to call 'target golf.' For example, short grass making bunkers play large, bunkers placed so as to cause a running shot to flirt with danger or simply wide fairways on a firm and fast course are never viewed in context in the rating criteria.

[David Bartman]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

Right, and that's also why par 3's are usually handicapped in the high teens.  Fewer full shots = fewer chances to go wrong. 

You are mixing up hole handicap, course rating and slope rating.  The former has nothing to do with the later two.  If the USGA method of handicapping holes is used , I refuse to let me course use it; I will explain why later, they simply take the largest differential between the A players (0-8 handicap)  at the club and C players (18-24) at the club and those with the largest differential are handicapped the lowest.  This theory would be fine if A's ever played against C's in matches.  I am am member of  a few clubs and every single tournament we have is flighted so that A's play A's with an occasional B player and C's play C's with an occasional B player, but extremely rarely do A's play against C's.  Due to the nature of flighted events, I make sure my clubs take the data from A,B,and C players to find out which holes A) play the hardest across the board, as well as making sure that the all the lowest handicapped holes, (the ones you get or give the shots on first) happen at reasonable times.  It would suck to get 6 shots , lose 3-2 and and never get 2 of your 6 shots. 

[Ed Brzezowski]

::

My home course , Greate Bay was originally designed by Willie Park Jr in the mid 1920's . Many of Parks holes remain fairly intact even after a few redo's over the years.  It is located close to the Atlantic Ocean near the southern tip of NJ  and  actually sits east of the Great Egg Harbor Bay in  some spots . It is often breezy , has  an excellent sand base that drains well and is right now almost as firm and fast as Pinehurst was  last week .

Greate Bay has historically been resilient to scoring , with small greens and some subtle false fronts . It isn't overly long at 6780 from the tips, but at par 70 isn't short either. Both par fives play long and aren't gimme birdies by any stretch of the imagination. We have a regular game on monday at 3 pm from  the tips (black tee Monday) where some of the best players in Philly show up. Rarely does anyone break par  .

In last years  philladelphia mid am qualifier on a breezy spring day 77 was low . Yep 77 !

Yet the raters just left town and cut our slope to 127 from the tips due to the lack of water and OB . I just don't get how,they do it . Their formulaic approach to difficulty leaves much to be desired.  

Archie,
Yes we do get it, but you omitted the fact that while the slope dropped by 2, the course rating went from 71.2 to 71.9.
You need to include both the course rating and slope to determine the difficulty of a golf course
I was the Captain of the team that rated Greate Bay two weeks ago. Also included was the Director of CR for GAP.
The Black Tees that we rated were measured at 6,530 yards, not 6,780.  The Course Rating at 6,780 would be 73.0
We were told by the pro shop staff that for member play, the greens usually stimp at 9'5''.  What was the stimp for the tournament?
For comparison:

Hidden Creek             6795           CR  73.1          Slope  133
Galloway                   6638           CR  73.0          Slope  142
Atlantic City               6577           CR  72.3          Slope  133
Greate Bay               6531           CR  71.9          Slope  127
Greate Bay  (est)       6780           CR  73.0          Slope  130

BTW, we had a "greate" time at the the club and would be happy to come back to rate the course at 6780.

Well done Bob, greate explanation. If you going back and need help please call me. We just did Walnut Lane, fun course.

[Carl Johnson]

All the par 5's usually r rated the toughest when in fact they r the easiest.

That may be the case for good players, but for higher handicappers it is not so. They are asked to hit at least 2, and often times 3 long shots on one hole. All kinds of things can go wrong...

Right, and that's also why par 3's are usually handicapped in the high teens.  Fewer full shots = fewer chances to go wrong. 

You are mixing up hole handicap, course rating and slope rating.  The former has nothing to do with the later two.  If the USGA method of handicapping holes is used , I refuse to let me course use it; I will explain why later, they simply take the largest differential between the A players (0-8 handicap)  at the club and C players (18-24) at the club and those with the largest differential are handicapped the lowest.  This theory would be fine if A's ever played against C's in matches.  I am am member of  a few clubs and every single tournament we have is flighted so that A's play A's with an occasional B player and C's play C's with an occasional B player, but extremely rarely do A's play against C's.  Due to the nature of flighted events, I make sure my clubs take the data from A,B,and C players to find out which holes A) play the hardest across the board, as well as making sure that the all the lowest handicapped holes, (the ones you get or give the shots on first) happen at reasonable times.  It would suck to get 6 shots , lose 3-2 and and never get 2 of your 6 shots.  

That principle is in fact part of the USGA recommendations - which ultimately leave it up to the committee's discretion to allocate strokes.  See the last paragraph of 17.1b(ii).

[Mark Steffey]

archie wants his course to rate/slope higher?!?!!!?

i want my course to be 67.2/112 ( and then carry a higher cap on the road  )