WHS and hole rotation systems

[Pete_Pittock]

         Many courses rotate hole locations via a front/middle/back system or dividing greens into numbered sections of 3,4,5,6,7 segments.Resort or high end public course likely won't present golfers with the same general set-up, as most golfers will not play to the point where the course restarts the rotation. But at a private or low cost public course this may lead to finite course setups for an infinite game.

          The WHS may change a handicap rating where the day's scoring is unnaturally high or low.
         With this change in handicapping, does it open the path for the greenkeeping staff to freelance hole locations in a more random fashion. Do they really have to present a balanced course on a daily basis?    

[Kyle Harris]

I wish we could just forego the governing bodies' attempts to turn all amateur golf into a controlled experiment.


Self-promotion, I wrote it ten years ago but it still reflects my opinions:
https://kylewharris.com/2011/02/21/golf-course-setup-aims-and-methods/

[Pete_Pittock]

K

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No. IMO far too much is being made of the PCC. It’s highly unlikely to have any effect here. Most rotations feature a mix of easier and harder locations.


PCC is intentionally conservative in the first year(s) as well.

[Pete_Pittock]

PCC?
Another way to explain my suggestion is bringing randomness to hole locations, sort of mimicking the rest of the course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have designed a few holes with 100 yard long tees.  One ranged from 300-400 yards.  Another ranged from 300 to 450, so a hole could be reachable or a bear, depending on set up.  It seems most PGA pros are fluxomed by this, perhaps overly worried (IMHO) about the handicap effects.  To me, variations should work themselves out over a season (or two, maybe) at private clubs.  Statistically, yes a player is more likely to miss a longer shot/back pin green than front of green, but not by much, its too random.


A bigger problem developing with the WHS is the course ratings.  With so many courses going to shorter two forward sets of tees, which place many holes below the yardage limits for par 4 and 5 (mostly senior men and women) and they seem to be pretty stringent on reducing par on those holes, despite some guidance in Appendix F that the intent is for par to match the design of the hole.


I saw two cases where par for women was reduced by 17 strokes, and several where the par 72 course for men now plays as par 68-70 for women from the forward tees.  I think most prefer par to be the same for both men and women unless absolutely required by tee splits.


There are always unintended consequences.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

         The WHS may change a handicap rating where the day's scoring is unnaturally high or low.

PCC?

I took the above as you asking about whether the PCC would come into play. PCC is the Playing Conditions Correction.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what "randomness" has to do with the WHS and "change a handicap rating where the scoring is unnaturally high or low."

I saw two cases where par for women was reduced by 17 strokes

What?!?! Which courses are these? That's nuts. 17? Over 18 holes? What was the par before - 89? 88?

[Rick Lane]

Seems to me that our Super would generally have six six and six, with tees being short, middle or long, and pins being same.  6 cases of each, that over 18 holes gave him lots of combinations, but over the course of two weeks, which was the old handicap system timing the course would average the same for everyone, making the old adjustments fair.
I have now noticed wildly random combinations of things, not working toward averages, but daily having a very different course than the day before.   Could be super long, or super short.   Might have very short tees on shorter par 4s.   Etc.   Since the hcp system updates daily, AND there is PCC, I think it has given him much more flexibility and creativity, which our members are already having more fun with.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I saw two cases where par for women was reduced by 17 strokes

What?!?! Which courses are these? That's nuts. 17? Over 18 holes? What was the par before - 89? 88?

Whoops, stubby finger syndrome, it was 13 strokes at Bandon Dunes from their short Royal Blue Tees.  Men went from par 72 to 59 and women went from 72 to par 65 with the new ratings.  Still a lot. I think most people would prefer to play at all tees the same par, with a few exceptions.  Those holes are obviously designed to play as par 5 or 4, not 4 or 3, and the shorter tees simply give short hitters a chance to play them in regulation figures.


I am not a handicap guru, but it just seems a bit extreme to me.


Cheers.


 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Whoops, stubby finger syndrome, it was 13 strokes at Bandon Dunes from their short Royal Blue Tees.  Men went from par 72 to 59 and women went from 72 to par 65 with the new ratings.  Still a lot. I think most people would prefer to play at all tees the same par, with a few exceptions.  Those holes are obviously designed to play as par 5 or 4, not 4 or 3, and the shorter tees simply give short hitters a chance to play them in regulation figures.

I am not a handicap guru, but it just seems a bit extreme to me.

For handicapping, except the "net double bogey" stuff, this won't matter at all, as par isn't really a factor in:

(Score - Course Rating) * (113/Slope)

The course rating remained the same, thus, the differentials remained the same.

What did change was how many strokes someone would get. Let's say it's par 59, and the rating is 61.2 with the slope at 131. A 10.3 index:

Old Way: 10.3 * 131/113 = 12 course handicap
New Way: 10.3 * 131/113 + 61.2 - 59 = 14 course handicap

In the old way, shooting net par off a 12 course handicap (an 84) would have resulted in a differential of 19.7. Well above the 10.3. In the new way, shooting net par (a 73) off the 14 course handicap would have resulted in a differential of 10.2.

Of course, under the old system, the course rating would have to be used to adjust players playing from different tees, if that was the case.

I think you all knew this, but I typed it out in case, and for my own practice/benefit. I'm not seeing the real "issue" here. Par is generally maintained across sets of tees, but if the course has a 330-yard par five because the tees are that short (say, family tees or something), a scratch golfer might still play those, and even if it's not a scratch golfer, it's not a par five. It's a par four.

P.S. The slope is 101. Not 131. But you can plug in the numbers and the math will still work out that shooting net par generates a differential that's pretty much your index. http://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=5776

[Dan Gallaway]

I got to experience this in action at my usual course yesterday (Course regularly hosts significant amateur competitions).  Maintenance worker on the first tee was blowing debris off the boxes when we reached the first tee.  I brought up the topic of this thread to my playing partner as we thought about where we would tee up as the markers weren’t there.  He came over and offered to replace the markers for us.  “Sure”.  He looked to the back, looked to the front, and laid them down near the middle.  I can assure you he hadn’t thought about where the pin was or what the plan on #2-18 was.


I’m also amazed at the pin locations chosen on a regular basis as they rarely, if ever, seem to fall in what seems like a planned pinable portion of the green.  They do seem to fall in the 6 front, 6 middle, 6 back.  But without a predictable pattern.


Anecdotal evidence at best.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,

[/size]"I think you all knew this, but I typed it out in case, and for my own practice/benefit. I'm not seeing the real "issue" here. Par is generally maintained across sets of tees, but if the course has a 330-yard par five because the tees are that short (say, family tees or something), a scratch golfer might still play those, and even if it's not a scratch golfer, it's not a par five. It's a par four."[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Well, that is the perspective difference we are talking about.  For those club members who play those tees, they prefer a hole that can be reached in 3 shots by the players normally using them should be called a par 5.  In every day play, and even in club competitions, par should be what they want it to be.  And why should we presume a scratch player would be using 4,000 yard tees in competitions?  Lastly, if it doesn't matter to the handicap differentials, why have the local committees been so aggressive in reducing par in several cases?[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Just bringing it up for a friend or two.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Besides the philosophical issues, there may be the question of who pays to change all the scorecards, etc.?[/color]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]

[Pete_Pittock]

I got to experience this in action at my usual course yesterday (Course regularly hosts significant amateur competitions).  Maintenance worker on the first tee was blowing debris off the boxes when we reached the first tee.  I brought up the topic of this thread to my playing partner as we thought about where we would tee up as the markers weren’t there.  He came over and offered to replace the markers for us.  “Sure”.  He looked to the back, looked to the front, and laid them down near the middle.  I can assure you he hadn’t thought about where the pin was or what the plan on #2-18 was.


I’m also amazed at the pin locations chosen on a regular basis as they rarely, if ever, seem to fall in what seems like a planned pinable portion of the green.  They do seem to fall in the 6 front, 6 middle, 6 back.  But without a predictable pattern.


Anecdotal evidence at best.

Dan,
It seems your course gets it.
Consider this course - hole locations are front, middle, back, repeat, then the next day it is middle, back front, repeat and continues this pattern. Tees seems to be front, middle, back. Depending on the synching of the rotations there are either three or nine general courses. If you play the course once a month, or once a year, not a problem. But if you are retired and play nearly every day the course presentation becomes very stale and is severely under-achieving in its potential.


That's why I posited that more random hole system is more vital, and the current WHS can handle any fluky days, while GHIN could not.


On an design point, should architects suggest a standard hole rotation system for a golf course that expects to cater to the same person playing nearly every day?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete, as near as I can tell, gca's rarely do that.  And, pros and supers seem to like to have fun with it.

[Lou_Duran]

Course setup is a big thing for me and one of my biggest pet peeves because it seems to be rarely done with much thought.  I suppose that there are much bigger fish to fry at this time, but it has been an ongoing problem for as long as I remember.  Setting the tees at the back of a 230 yard par 3 over water with the wind blowing 25 mph from behind, the hole cut in the front and the green having very little back to front tilt is something I encountered at a Brauer renovated club for many years.  Another favorite was a cup on the right third of #17 on a 4°+ side slope.  The pros used to get so many complaints that they just tuned it out.  Nothing wrong with the design, just really bad course setup.  Whether this impacts the handicap system, who knows, especially if tees and hole locations are chosen randomly, often in the dark. 

[JohnVDB]

A couple of thoughts.


1) many courses just go with the front/middle/back constant rotation and it drives me nuts. One example is/was Pacific Dunes. The par 5s are 3, 12, 15 and 18. So all of them play with the holes in the front of the green or all in the middle or all in the back. I don’t know if they still do this as I haven’t been there in years, but I bugged me when I was there. It’s lazy, come up with a different rotation if you don’t want to take the time to actually do daily hole locations.


2j a lot of the courses had their information in the GHIN score posting system added by program and it assigned par based on the basic rules. Associations or clubs can get that changed. For example, a local muni I play has an 18h hole that measures 452 from the second longest tees.  It was listed as a par 4, but it has a sharp dogleg with big trees that require a hook and plays straight uphill. I’ve only reached the green twice in about 15 plays. The problem with that was that the handicap assignment had been made as a par 5 and is the number 11 handicap hole.  As a par 4 it probably would have been the 4 or 6 handicap hole.  It was quite easy to make a 7 on the hole for a 8-9 handicap player like me. But, when I did hole-by-hole scoring it reduced it to a 6 based on the net double bogey max.  About 4 weeks ago, the par got changed to 5 in the program.  I assume that either the NJSGA or the club got it changed.

[Sean_A]

         Many courses rotate hole locations via a front/middle/back system or dividing greens into numbered sections of 3,4,5,6,7 segments.Resort or high end public course likely won't present golfers with the same general set-up, as most golfers will not play to the point where the course restarts the rotation. But at a private or low cost public course this may lead to finite course setups for an infinite game.

          The WHS may change a handicap rating where the day's scoring is unnaturally high or low.
         With this change in handicapping, does it open the path for the greenkeeping staff to freelance hole locations in a more random fashion. Do they really have to present a balanced course on a daily basis?

The way I see it is all combinations should be used eventually and that includes the weather.  Sure, once in a while there will be a very harsh hole location given the tee and weather,  but thats part of the game.  The green exists as is, the tee exists as is and the weather exists...so why not use all combinations?  This sort of thing happens sometimes for approach shots from perfect positions in fairways....sometimes only an awesome shot deserves to get near the hole.  As you say, if there are enough of these situations on any given day, the course difficulty should reflect this so it doesn't effect the handicap much at all.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Pete, as near as I can tell, gca's rarely do that.  And, pros and supers seem to like to have fun with it.

I have tried to do it for a couple of my courses, as at some places it has been a frustration to see how they are set up. 


I agree totally with Sean's last post.  The idea that the tee should be moved up when the hole is at the back of the green, or when the hole is playing into the wind, is a gross oversimplification.  I DO NOT WANT the course to play the same way every day, and I can't imagine why the members would want that, either.


Much of the daily setup is more about functional issues rather than golf strategy.  If you've got a big outing, use the easier hole locations, and the parts of the tees the members don't like as much.  If it's a slow day, or the greens are slower in the spring, use the hole locations you can't use when the greens get faster.  Avoid hot spots and damaged turf.


Several of the clubs where we consult have gone to a computer app to plot hole locations for each day, and swear by it.  The locations appear more random as you are playing the course, but they are programmed to spread out wear and tear and give an approximate balance of F/M/B, L/C/R locations.  If the superintendent sees an area of the green that's struggling, he can tell the program not to use that area until further notice; if the greens are slower or faster than normal, the computer will adjust where it can put the holes accordingly!  And the same map that the assistant superintendent uses to cut the holes, becomes the pin sheet for golfers that day.

[Pete_Pittock]

Tom,
What computer app does that?

[Pete_Pittock]

A couple of thoughts.


1) many courses just go with the front/middle/back constant rotation and it drives me nuts. One example is/was Pacific Dunes. The par 5s are 3, 12, 15 and 18. So all of them play with the holes in the front of the green or all in the middle or all in the back. I don’t know if they still do this as I haven’t been there in years, but I bugged me when I was there. It’s lazy, come up with a different rotation if you don’t want to take the time to actually do daily hole locations.


2j a lot of the courses had their information in the GHIN score posting system added by program and it assigned par based on the basic rules. Associations or clubs can get that changed. For example, a local muni I play has an 18h hole that measures 452 from the second longest tees.  It was listed as a par 4, but it has a sharp dogleg with big trees that require a hook and plays straight uphill. I’ve only reached the green twice in about 15 plays. The problem with that was that the handicap assignment had been made as a par 5 and is the number 11 handicap hole.  As a par 4 it probably would have been the 4 or 6 handicap hole.  It was quite easy to make a 7 on the hole for a 8-9 handicap player like me. But, when I did hole-by-hole scoring it reduced it to a 6 based on the net double bogey max.  About 4 weeks ago, the par got changed to 5 in the program.  I assume that either the NJSGA or the club got it changed.

And most of the par 3s also align (5, 11, 14, 17). 10 is the outlier.

[JMEvensky]

Tom,
What computer app does that?

I too would like to know.

[Lou_Duran]

https://www.ezlocator.com/ ?

Unfortunately, as far as I know, it doesn't locate the exact spot and dig the holes.  The hole location sheet it produces is nice and compact, but the information in practice is ball park at best.

Poor course setup, IMO, can greatly undermine the enjoyment of the round and could very well affect how some golfers evaluate the architecture.  I'd much rather that the club spends its money on the daily setup as opposed to things like blowing the cart paths and bunkers, flower rotation, cart assistants, etc. 

[Thomas Dai]

Not much wrong with a few quirky pin positions every now and then. Challenge can be fun.
Be great I reckon, others may disagree, to have an occasional game/competition where every pin position is placed in the hardest, most awkward spot on every green. I somehow doubt if many would beat or get close to their hcp even if the tees were pushed way up at the same time.
atb

[Lou_Duran]

Not much wrong with a few quirky pin positions every now and then. Challenge can be fun.
Be great I reckon, others may disagree, to have an occasional game/competition where every pin position is placed in the hardest, most awkward spot on every green. I somehow doubt if many would beat or get close to their hcp even if the tees were pushed way up at the same time.
atb

At the aforementioned Brauer remodel, we had a four-man "monster" scramble each year where the hole locations would be set on steep slopes and some tees tucked where you were forced to cut or hook the drives.  There was a four-putt limit for each player on each hole, and the winning team usually avoided one of these. We have "Kyle's Revenge" at my current club, a similar version, but not quite as extreme in course setup.

What should be avoided is the Saturday and Sunday hole locations and setups which make a member's once or twice a month round a test of endurance instead of pleasure.  For most of us, golf is hard enough that we don't need a hole cut on a slope where the only way to get it close is from a single angle, or for approach shots that in order to carry fronting hazards you can't hold the green.  We are not talking about the quirk found on the links where the ball at times bounces unexpectedly.     

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,


One thing I recall about that renovation was the regional agronomist believed that if we had more contour, the members would be okay with slower green speeds.  As we found out and is typical, once one of those tournaments occurred, and green speeds went from 9 to 11, golfers wanted them to stay that way, which they did off and on.


Surprised by your comment on 17, although the last ten feet on the right were intended as a bit of a kickplate, as the most complaints I heard were about 11, purposely built with some cross slope as sort of a reverse Redan.


Based on my admittedly non universal experience, I suppose supers are split about 10-80-10 on how carefully they set up courses, with only 10% really being cognizant of how setup affects play, especially considering the wind, most concerned with other matters, like wear around the cup, and 10% who really don't care at all.