[Mike_Trenham]

The vast majority of a USGA Course Rating is based on effective length of the course and how a scratch player is expected to score on a course.


The USGA also define a scratch player having an average drive of 250 yards including roll.  I am surprised this was not updated to 285+ with rolling out the world handicap system.


At a USGA seminar I attended the presenter stated the USGA’s idea of a scratch is a person that could qualify for the USGA Mid-Amateur Championship.


They also need to reduce the handicap Max’s for their qualifying events:


US Open - 1.4
US Amateur - 2.4
US Mid-Amateur - 3.4
US Senior Open - 3.4
US Fourball - 5.4
US Senior Amateur - 7.4


I’ve only posted max handicaps for the male events as the vast majority of posters on here are men.  Plus the numbers of qualifiers for USGA women’s events are a fraction of the numbers that attempt to qualify for the men’s events.

[JESII]

Hi Mike,


I think I'd agree about the distance expectation for scratch players to develop handicapping and course rating.


I disagree with your handicap max for tournaments though as these are primarily revenue generators so the more the better. Also, once you increase the expected distance a scratch hits it, everyone's handicap will go up considerably. I'd bet a scratch becomes a 2 or 3.

[Peter Flory]

Handicaps are relative.  It seems like the only thing that should matter is if courses are appropriately measured against each other in terms of difficulty so that a __ handicap from one course is about as good as a __ handicap from a different course. 

[Jim Sherma]

I guess that's the real question - what does a "scratch" player (handicap 0.0) really supposed to indicate. If it is the expectation that the player is a national level amateur then the current math does not produce outcomes that identify that. Back in the 1950's my dad qualified for the NCAA finals as well as two NJ State Am's match plays (16 man field). His lowest handicap was 2.1 back then. A 2.1 today would never be at that competitive level.

[Jeff Schley]

The course rating of a course is so dependent on the distance, but I don't believe they factor in the conditions of a course. For example a links that plays hard and fast at 7000 yards isn't intimidating when your drives roll for  50-70 yards and then you are hitting shorter clubs in to bounce onto the green. So a course rating on a links or hard and fast wind tunnels aren't a measure. We recall Tiger hitting like 1 driver the entire week at Hoylake in 05. During drought years (which seem the norm now) courses can't irrigate every fairway generously and in some cases at all (California during water shortage). In those cases even us hacks don't need driver.

I agree with Jim as there are so many good players now a 2.1 handicap will be getting strokes from most guys in the field.

[JohnVDB]

The course rating of a course is so dependent on the distance, but I don't believe they factor in the conditions of a course. For example a links that plays hard and fast at 7000 yards isn't intimidating when your drives roll for  50-70 yards and then you are hitting shorter clubs in to bounce onto the green. So a course rating on a links or hard and fast wind tunnels aren't a measure. We recall Tiger hitting like 1 driver the entire week at Hoylake in 05. During drought years (which seem the norm now) courses can't irrigate every fairway generously and in some cases at all (California during water shortage). In those cases even us hacks don't need driver.

I agree with Jim as there are so many good players now a 2.1 handicap will be getting strokes from most guys in the field.

Jeff,


Roll is a factor and a firm course can have adjustments to the Effective Playing Length of any par 4 or 5 or even a par 3 for the bogey golfer if he can’t reach the green that effectively shorten the hole’s playing distance.  These should be applied for any tee shot or subsequent shot that will usually roll more (or less) than the usual 15-25 distances build in.  It is also applied for uphill and downhill holes.

[John Kavanaugh]

The same people will still win the same tournaments. An update is a huge waste of resources.

[Jim Sherma]

Agree wholly with this. Grade inflation is rampant, why not with handicaps as well.


As the equipment has improved along with the agronomy it's no surprise that handicaps have gotten lower, especially at the low end of the distribution.


Unless the term "scratch" is meant to denote some objective level of play then there is no need for a change. If we did go there and "defend scratch" we would likely end up chasing a similar same rabbit hole to that of "defending par".

The same people will still win the same tournaments. An update is a huge waste of resources.

[Alex Miller]

Agree with the course ratings, but why change the handicap requirements if you're already making an adjustment to course ratings that makes it harder to produce a low net score? Seems like one or the other works, but both is overkill.

[Peter Flory]

Couldn't they just have the computers do a big ongoing regression analysis from the actual scores posted?  That is what happens in the video game courses for handicapping purposes. 

People travel and play away from their home course, so the algorithm could constantly evaluate the relative difficulty of courses.  That would take into account weather, turf conditions, pin placements, length, and everything else.  With this system, the course rating could be adjusted on an annual basis, or it could even be floating. 

[SL_Solow]

Relative difficulty due to daily conditions is built into the revised handicapping program.  That is why emphasis is placed on timely posting

[Jeff Schley]

The course rating of a course is so dependent on the distance, but I don't believe they factor in the conditions of a course. For example a links that plays hard and fast at 7000 yards isn't intimidating when your drives roll for  50-70 yards and then you are hitting shorter clubs in to bounce onto the green. So a course rating on a links or hard and fast wind tunnels aren't a measure. We recall Tiger hitting like 1 driver the entire week at Hoylake in 05. During drought years (which seem the norm now) courses can't irrigate every fairway generously and in some cases at all (California during water shortage). In those cases even us hacks don't need driver.

I agree with Jim as there are so many good players now a 2.1 handicap will be getting strokes from most guys in the field.

Jeff,


Roll is a factor and a firm course can have adjustments to the Effective Playing Length of any par 4 or 5 or even a par 3 for the bogey golfer if he can’t reach the green that effectively shorten the hole’s playing distance.  These should be applied for any tee shot or subsequent shot that will usually roll more (or less) than the usual 15-25 distances build in.  It is also applied for uphill and downhill holes.

Thanks John good to know this is considered. BTW is wind a factor and if so how?

[JohnVDB]

Jeff,  yes, there is the ability to factor in prevailing winds.  It is recommended to get real weather data from services or local airports.  It doesn’t change the locations of landing zones but is a number added in on a 9-hole basis.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,  yes, there is the ability to factor in prevailing winds.  It is recommended to get real weather data from services or local airports.  It doesn’t change the locations of landing zones but is a number added in on a 9-hole basis.

There is a factor, but it's still just an average so it doesn't really help much.  I played the past two days in a 15-25 mph wind and the course in question was much much harder than other days when I've played it in calm conditions.  If you were posting all of your scores there, then using the average day would be okay.  But if a guest posts one day when it's calm and a different guest posts the next week when it's blowing, those scores are not comparable.




To Mike's original question, yes, it's kind of crazy that the Slope Rating is still calculated as if players were driving the ball 250 yards.  None of those bunkers are in play for a scratch player, and none of the bunkers that are in play for them are factored into the Slope.

[SL_Solow]

Tom,  That is why the committee added an algorithm to adjust scores for days when conditions made scoring more or less difficult

[Mark Chaplin]

The St Andrew Links trophy one of the top amateur events in Europe used to ballot on handicap, several times +2.4 didn’t make the field.


Anyone who has played Whisper Rock will know a) they’ve lots of tour pros who are dues paying members and b) the pro shop keeps their handicaps based on competitive rounds. Remembering tour set up is probably 3 or 4 shots harder than daily set up the average WR tour pro is around a +6.5, many are +8.0. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rahm hasn’t touched +9.0.

[archie_struthers]

 


The Senior Amateur of 7.4 is really ridiculous. You will be bumped out of our local Philly (GAP)  events as a senior unless you have a handicap of 5 or less in most events. They have a 7.0 threshold but the demand for limited spots makes that moot.

[Mike_Trenham]

Jeff,  yes, there is the ability to factor in prevailing winds.  It is recommended to get real weather data from services or local airports.  It doesn’t change the locations of landing zones but is a number added in on a 9-hole basis.

To Mike's original question, yes, it's kind of crazy that the Slope Rating is still calculated as if players were driving the ball 250 yards.  None of those bunkers are in play for a scratch player, and none of the bunkers that are in play for them are factored into the Slope.

Tom - I am curious as to how you think about placing bunkers for the long hitting scratch player of today and their impact on the bogey golfer.  My thought is if you bunker a course “perfectly” for the scratch player you’ve now created cross bunkers for the rest of the golfers.

[Mike_Trenham]

The Senior Amateur of 7.4 is really ridiculous. You will be bumped out of our local Philly (GAP)  events as a senior unless you have a handicap of 5 or less in most events. They have a 7.0 threshold but the demand for limited spots makes that moot.

Agree Archie GAP is better run than the USGA.


The USGA would be better off selling lottery tickets to these players than allowing them in the qualifiers. 


I will not accept the need for revenue excuse, because if revenue falls we know the USGA has the option to just require the championship venue to contribute more to the cause.


The competitors in the qualifier fields should not be subject to delays caused by people with no hope of being competitive.  These events are disasters when there is a rain delay.


If they have one of the higher handicaps and are competitive than they are a sandbagger, shouldn’t the USGA be doing everything it can to not encourage sandbagging one’s handicap.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - I am curious as to how you think about placing bunkers for the long hitting scratch player of today and their impact on the bogey golfer.  My thought is if you bunker a course “perfectly” for the scratch player you’ve now created cross bunkers for the rest of the golfers.

Mike:


That was part of our thinking behind having so few bunkers at Memorial Park.  They are a problem for average golfers, but Brooks Koepka is only worried about bunkers when he's in the UK.  If you put a bunker 325 yards from the tee to catch him, he doesn't really care unless the hole is more than 500 yards, otherwise he's hitting 9-iron out of the bunker and NBD.


But I don't really worry about guys who hit it 300+ for most of my projects.  They are not the customer base.


* If I did want to worry about them, I'd probably build 3-4 holes that restrict their drives.  I was always taught not to "take away the driver," and usually I haven't, but if the ruling bodies are going to let drives continue to get longer, that principle cannot hold.


I was surprised at reading the new book on Herbert Fowler to read his essay "Is Golf Becoming Too Easy?" written December 24, 1913 in reaction to changes in equipment.  At the end he talks about the need for more cross hazards:


"Every course should have several holes where either natural or artificial hazards curtail the long drivers from getting nearer the putting green than a certain distance.  Given a course where the ground runs well at a hole of 440 yards, a hazard placed across the fairway at 240 yards will entail an approach shot of 200 and odd yards.  Such a hole will always prove interesting, and it is not too much to ask that the very long hitters should at times (as in the case of short holes) be asked to approach a putting green on more or less equal terms with those who cannot hit so far."

[Matt_Cohn]

I suppose it makes sense that a scratch is someone who would shoot around even par at a normal golf course, which probably means the regular men's tees around 6,300-6,500 yards or so. A plus is someone who would shoot under par there, or would shoot even par from "championship" tees, that sort of thing.


It's true that a scratch has no chance, for example, of qualifying for a US Amateur. But it's probably better to have qualifiers open to more people...until you get paired with the 5 who claims to be a 1, who then gets nervous and shoots 87. Oh well.

[Mike_Trenham]

I suppose it makes sense that a scratch is someone who would shoot around even par at a normal golf course, which probably means the regular men's tees around 6,300-6,500 yards or so. A plus is someone who would shoot under par there, or would shoot even par from "championship" tees, that sort of thing.


It's true that a scratch has no chance, for example, of qualifying for a US Amateur. But it's probably better to have qualifiers open to more people...until you get paired with the 5 who claims to be a 1, who then gets nervous and shoots 87. Oh well.

“Oh well” is a response I don’t like.  The window of opportunity is so small now in the US Amateur (say age 18 -26 to be competitive) the the USGA needs to set THEIR events up to generate the best fields not the most revenue.  A talented player paired with a competitive player is a disaster.


In the senior events the window is even smaller.

[JESII]

Mike - why do you see that window for a US Am?

[Mike_Trenham]

Mike - why do you see that window for a US Am?

Jim - I think it’s because


1) how hard the young guys hit the ball to day it’s a different game.


2) when our friend Brian Gillespie made match play at Winged Foot at the dinner a USGA official asked for a show of hands of players that had no intention of turning pro and less than five were raised.


3) In contrary my father went to the US AM at Brookline in 1957 hoping to get in as an alternate.  Later in the week he was in the locker room commiserating with a Gator teammate who had lost a match.  Chick Evan’s rolled by and said “why the sad faces boys, l’ve played in this event for 40 years you’ll have your day someday”.

[Carl Johnson]

Handicaps are relative.  It seems like the only thing that should matter is if courses are appropriately measured against each other in terms of difficulty so that a __ handicap from one course is about as good as a __ handicap from a different course.

I second that motion.  During my very short "career" as a rater/sloper I was shocked at the inconsistencies of the raters I worked with.  It's about relativity.  If the same standards aren't consistently applied to all courses, why bother?  Only one of the reasons I decided not to pursue it seriously.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()