The evil side of course rating and slope

[Ken Moum]

In case you ever doubted that many American golfers have an unhealthy obsession with hard golf courses, reads this thread.

http://www.4gea.com.php5-2.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/forum/index.php?webtag=GEAFORUM&msg=57235.1

When club members believe that when remodeling a golf course results in a slightly lower rating and slope can "hurt" their club, we might all be domed.

One sample quote, " the renovated course was better from a player's enhancement point of view; longer; as well as simply much harder to play. They thought it made the course more appealing - but were annoyed with the rating committee's rating didn't seem as impressed."

Yikes!

[Carl Johnson]

More like the stupid side.

[Jon Cavalier]

"All of our members are thrilled with the course and love the changes, but we're all pissed off that it got rated easier."

[Carl Johnson]

More like the stupid side.

Beyond that, some of the members at my club think our ratings/slopes are too high, the result being that handicaps are lower than they should be and don't seem to work well against other clubs in inter-club competition.  I could agree with that, but truth be told I don't know enough about the process to say for sure.

[Ed Homsey]

I course rated for many years, up throuigh the first year of the latest guide for course raters.  For the most part, the course rating procedures are fairly objective.  But, there are those factors where subjective judtgment (hopefully based on experience as a rater) play a part, e.g. contours of green, recoverability from errant shots, etc.  I think its a very good procedure, if the raters have been properly trained and supervised (as they are in the Rochester area, and others, I'm sure.).

On of the interesting observations I've had, over the years, are the tendencies of narratives, i.e. someone from the club/course who accompanies the rating team to answer questions, to make sure you, the rater, pays sufficient attention to those factors that you (the narrator) believes adds to the difficulties of a hole.  From my experience, it is very hard for a narrator to resist his/her belief that the course is more difficult than the rater recognizes.

I have never heard the complaint from golfers who stop us out on the course, or afterwards, that the ratings are to high.

It falls into the same category as the chest-thumping claims about fast greens.  Have you ever heard of anyone bragging about their slow, but puttable greens??

[Kerry Gray]

I think we all know members of courses who take pride in the difficulty of their home course, regardless if it's good or not.
I think a classic example is tree removal or "severe trimming" as some might call it. So many older courses have had the trees mature to the point where they impede the best lines to the hole. Yet when anyone suggests trimming trees, the members become environmentalists.
When you finally get members to agree to a cut back, the end result is often a lower slope rating. Not to mention a more enjoyable experience.
In my hometown there is one club with multiple tree issues on too many holes. Some have been planted, some just grew the wrong way. After a severe storm one year an old willow tree on the 7th hole finally fell. It had grown out into the fairway and blocked the line of charm to the green for years. I could not believe my ears when some members advocated a new tree be planted there because the hole would become too easy.  That hole already needed a drive over a creek with OB on the right.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Let's see they made the greens bigger , doesn't that move the column for green target rating? Yes it may move a bunker closer but once inside 10 yards it makes no difference.

Always love hearing guys go off about " slope " but they cannot tell you how the number is calculated. The death of common sense?

[Bill Brightly]

To be fair, the guy later clarified his post to say that he was just trying to understand how the rating system works...

[Sean_A]

Ken

The exact same thing happens in the UK.  Holes get lengthened to add yards and boost the SSS.  Kington is a great example of this with its stupid new tee for#8. 

Ciao

[Ken Moum]

To be fair, the guy later clarified his post to say that he was just trying to understand how the rating system works...

True.  I was more interested in the followup comments about devaluing a golf membership based on lower slope and rating.

I really wish that the Dean Knuth had never started using slope to to describe golf courses.  Since it's really only a reflection of the difference between the course rating and the bogey rating, he could have simply published the bogey rating for each course.  If he wanted to used the slope number in the handicap formula, that would be fine.

The bogey golfers I play with have no clue what slope means, and as a result often talk about it like it's a measure of quality.  Of course quality in their minds means difficulty.  What they simply can't get through their heads is that a high slope doesn't mean the course is hard, it means the course is hard FOR BOGEY GOLFERS.

Publishing the bogey rating MIGHT help them understand that a short course with lots of hazards and trouble can have a relatively low course rating but a high slope.  Maybe, maybe, if they saw that it rated 70.5 with a bogey rating of 102, they'd understand that it was going to bash their heads in.

Of course that still woudn't do anything about the sham that is our rating system.  The next three days I'm working as a volunteer in real-time scoring for the Symetra Tour at Jeff Brauer's Firekeeper Golf Course north of Topeka.  I've played it a few times, and was a scorer for one of our State High School Championships, so I've seen the course.

From the 5,800-yards tees it's rated 69.6 with a slope of 122.  That slope is completely ludicrous.

I play with a group that has indexes in the 15-35 range, and not one of them could play Firekeeper in any wind at all, by the Rules of Golf, unless they brought a shag bag of balls with them.

Hell, our City Stroke Play was held there earlier this year and with the best players going off first it took SIX AND A HALF hours to get around.  I texted a friend's son at 9:30 p.m. to see how he did in the wind that day and his message back was, "If I par 18 I think I'll have a 93."

This from a kid with a legit 2.1 index.

[Dave McCollum]

We got re-rated last year and, like the thread, our rating and slope went down.   I have no idea if it hurts us as far as outside play is concerned.  My personal comment at the time was that our traveling tournament golfers just got a slight advantage with theoretically higher handicaps.  I don’t play tournaments, care much about my handicap, and generally think our course is a bit more challenging than the ratings suggest, particularly for the occasional golfer.  So, I don’t much care what the ratings are.  Like any course, if we want to set it up to be more difficult, more resistant to scoring, it’s easy to do.  For example, our back tees are rated at around 6800 yards.  If we put the markers all the way back, it would play 7000.  I can think of only one time we deliberately set up the course for difficulty instead of fun and that was for a state amateur.  Nobody went really low and only a couple of rounds in the high 60’s (par 72).

[Ed Homsey]

Would the world be worse off if there were no course rating and slopes?  Would we really miss it? 

[Brent Hutto]

Millions of golfers would have no reason to show up to play if they could not get a handicap index, precise to the tenth of a stroke, updated every few rounds, to quantify their "progress". It's a very sad fact but true for a whole lot if people

[Andrew Buck]

It's unfortunate that is such a psychological bond between difficulty and quality in golf, but it certainly exists, and while I think we are seeing a trend in the other direction, it will likely always exist.

I just think there is such variability in golfers that course ratings and slopes are really only effective when comparing golfers who play at the same club, or similar clubs (in terms of consequence of errant drives, bunker/rough types) etc.  For example, I think course rating/slope does a reasonable job of measuring potential between handicaps of players at Olympia Fields, Medinah, Beverly, Bull Valley, Cog Hill ... and it does a good job of comparing golfers at similar less demanding courses, but there is too much variability in how someone could come to a handicap at different courses to provide a lot of consistency between players on vastly different types of courses.

[Dave McCollum]

Brent,

I certainly know my share of golfers that enjoy the game for the score they shoot.  However, at our club the vast majority of players are not obsessed with their handicaps and play for other reasons.  I have to think that would the case elsewhere.   I suppose that might mean there are millions of pencil and card types, but still a small percentage of all golfers.

[cary lichtenstein]

I used to laugh at the chairman of the green's committee, who designated the rough be 3-4". In the spring, when it was wet in Chicago, it was a joke.

In August, when the rough burnt out, it was fun cuz we could hit 2 irons in the trees and slice and hook them and we got some run on the dry fairways. I complained...

[Chris Kurzner]

Interesting. 

We're 2 days away from our club's re-opening (Lakewood CC, Dallas TX) after a year-long renovation by Coore-Crenshaw.  Their stated objective in the changes that were made (beyond improving the irrigation system and re-doing all of the bunkers) was to make the course more challenging for the better player and more playable for the weaker player.  The result is (as I understand slope and stroke ratings to work) that while the stroke rating went up for the men's and championship tees, the slope went down.

Before:
Gold 73.3/139
Blue 71.4/136

New:
Gold 73.5/135
Blue 71.9/134

After months of walking around watching the progress I can't wait to get out there on Saturday to finally play it.

I've heard nothing but positive reaction from the members about the changes, but it will be interesting to see if any gripe about the fact that the slope has dropped.

[Brent Hutto]

Before:
Gold 73.3/139
Blue 71.4/136

New:
Gold 73.5/135
Blue 71.9/134

Chris,

The 25th percentile scores for a scratch (Hcp Index=0) and bogey (Hcp index=18) golfer from the Gold tees changed as follows:

Scratch 73.3 to 73.5 (very slightly higher)
Bogey 95.4 to 95.0 (about half a stroke lower)

From the Blue tees:

Scratch 71.4 to 71.9 (half a stroke higher)
Bogey 93.1 to 93.2 (virtually unchanged)

Looks to me like they made both the Gold and Blue tees easier for the high handicapper and harder for the scratch but we're talking fractions of a stroke on average. If you believe the ratings.

[Chris Kurzner]

That's my understanding as well.  Visually the changes would appear more significant.  For example, on several holes fairway bunkering was changed to come into play more for longer hitters while landing areas for typical bogey golfers have been widened in spots (some tree thinning as well).  Biggest change in that regard is on our 11th hole.  There was a pond that ran completely in front of the green with a narrow strip of a levee on one side.  That levee has been lowered and widened with the pond shifted to the right to create a "runway" for players to bail out or play on the ground to approach the green.

[Bob Harris]

That's my understanding as well.  Visually the changes would appear more significant.  For example, on several holes fairway bunkering was changed to come into play more for longer hitters while landing areas for typical bogey golfers have been widened in spots (some tree thinning as well).  Biggest change in that regard is on our 11th hole.  There was a pond that ran completely in front of the green with a narrow strip of a levee on one side.  That levee has been lowered and widened with the pond shifted to the right to create a "runway" for players to bail out or play on the ground to approach the green.

Changes in fairway bunkers would have a minimal effect on the slope rating.  However, widening the Bogey landing are by 10 yards on each hole would bring the slope down about 3 points and the Course rating would be unchanged.

[Mark Johnson]

I agree.    my biggest pet peeve of GCA are hazards that make a huge impact for a 20 handicap and virtually none for a better player.   (usually because they can fly them).    would love to see a course that does that opposite

Here is a question for the team.   Can anyone find a course with a course rating of at least 3 more than par, BUT a slope of 130 or lower.   That in many ways is an ideal course.

[SL_Solow]

Carey;
Are you sure it was the Greens' Chair?  Yours sounds like the typical complaint I have heard for years from members at clubs where the rough is not irrigated, a practice which is fine with me.  in the spring, when there is a lot of rain and the grass grows quickly because it is cool, the superintendents have trouble keeping ahead of it, particularly since they have a lot of other work to do in order to get the course in shape after the winter.  As a result, the rough gets long, thick and wet.  in the summer heat, the grass grows more slowly and often will thin out.  even if the super lets it grow, in a hot summer, it may not offer much resistance.  Funny how Mother Nature tends to impact on a game played outdoors on grass.  But I guess we have to blame those in charge if the conditions don't match our expectations.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree.    my biggest pet peeve of GCA are hazards that make a huge impact for a 20 handicap and virtually none for a better player.   (usually because they can fly them).    would love to see a course that does that opposite

Here is a question for the team.   Can anyone find a course with a course rating of at least 3 more than par, BUT a slope of 130 or lower.   That in many ways is an ideal course.

I think the only way you'd achieve that (or at least the most straightforward way) would be a very long course relative to its par. Somthing in the 7,000 yards, Par 70 with wide fairways, sparse bunkering and no water hazards maybe.

[cary lichtenstein]

I agree.    my biggest pet peeve of GCA are hazards that make a huge impact for a 20 handicap and virtually none for a better player.   (usually because they can fly them).    would love to see a course that does that opposite

Here is a question for the team.   Can anyone find a course with a course rating of at least 3 more than par, BUT a slope of 130 or lower.   That in many ways is an ideal course.

I think the only way you'd achieve that (or at least the most straightforward way) would be a very long course relative to its par. Somthing in the 7,000 yards, Par 70 with wide fairways, sparse bunkering and no water hazards maybe.

Yes, it was the Greens Chairman, I was on the committee, stubborn guy, it was torture for the members. Slowed up play.

When the tree limbs invaded our narrow fairways, he wouldn't allow those cut back either. Made me crazy

[Brent Hutto]

Mark,

There's a course I played years ago in Ohio called Clover Valley. From a quick online peek at the stats I believe it is 7,150 yards (Par 72) with a course rating of 74.0 and slope of 129. That's probably the closest of any course I've seen and it's still only two strokes higher than par rather than three. Guess they'd have to either build a 7,500 yard set of tees or call play one of the Par 5's from a shorter set of tees and ball it a Par 4!