Slope Rating Lower From the Back Tees

[Ian_L]

Preparing for a Bandon Dunes trip, I noticed that the courses have been re-rated since I was last there in 2022. From memory, most seem to be rated harder than before, which does not surprise me given the net scores on our annual trip.


What caught my eye is that Bandon Trails' men's slope rating is actually lower from the back (black) tees than from the next set up (green):


Bandon Trails Scorecard


The difference is minimal (137 vs. 136) but got me thinking as to how this could be the case. If I understand slope rating correctly, this means that a bogey golfer would actually be expected to score slightly closer to a scratch golfer when playing the tips than the green tees. Maybe 20 strokes worse instead of 21 strokes worse.


I then noticed the same phenomenon between the green and gold tees for women: 140 vs. 143.


This must be a rare occurrence, since a longer course furthers the scratch golfer's advantage. My only thought as to how this might come about is that from the tips, the longer "typical" scratch golfer happens to face more trouble at his/her driving distance, and that the bogey golfer stays short of most of the trouble. I could see this in certain fairways that pinch (like #1) and some cross-bunkers that shorter golfers might not reach from the tips (9? 15? 3 maybe?). That said, I do have a hard time believing that the tips at Bandon Trails (which I admit I have never played) would give the less skilled golfer a better chance against a more skilled golfer, however slight the difference.


Is this more common than I think? Please feel free to mention other courses in a similar situation. Maybe I have not been paying attention.


Does anybody have better theories for why this might be the case at Bandon Trails?


Ian

[Matt Schoolfield]

My first suspicion would be that there are distinct obstacles that are out of play for the bogey player from the back tees.

I encountered this myself at Harding Park (though it doesn't actually have a lower slope), where, when playing the back tees, effectively none the fairway bunkers are in range for me off the tee, so I am able to just swing away with a driver without a care in the world. Meanwhile the scratch players are occasionally ending up in them.

From the middle tees, the scratch players should be able clear those same bunkers, when I'm occasionally ending up in them. Thus, comparatively, I'll probably score worse from the back tees, but when the scratch player has do deal with bunkers, they might just score worser.

It's just one factor, and serendipitous I'll actually be reading the rating guide soon, so I should have better information for you, but that is just my suspicion right now.

[JohnVDB]

Matt, I think suspicion is spot on.


Take the third hole as an example. There are some center line bunkers that might be reachable from a shorter tee, effecnarrowing rhe fairway width while the bogey golfer comes up short of them from the back tee. At the same time the scratch golfer does reach them thereby narrowing his fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Yeah, the flaw in Slope ratings is that they assume the "scratch" golfer is always going to pull driver and hit it 250 yards, and the "bogey" golfer is always going to pull driver and hit it 200 yards, and they only rate the obstacles at those distances, taking no account of strategy or differences in players of similar overall ability.


I don't know why anyone pays any attention to it.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I suppose people pay attention to it because it’s how handicaps are determined, and most of us play golf using handicaps as a way of making matches enjoyable.
   Not to beat a dead horse, but maybe it’s an architectural flaw if a course is deemed relatively more difficult for the higher handicapper. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Or, put another way, shouldn’t the hazards challenge the better golfers, not the weaker ones?

[Ben Malach]

I have a real question.


Who cares?


Like one of my biggest personal luxuries for me as someone that has worked in the field of GCA for almost a decade.


Is the fact that all my friends growing up play but don't care about any of this stuff.


Yeah, they like a lot of the same golf courses. I do but their answers are eye opening as an shaper and designer. As consistent access to beer/liquor, ability to find their ball, and views matter in that order.


Stuff like slope rating and HCP's don't matter as in their mind everyone is equally as bad as them.


I think this is more the norm than anyone on this board would like to admit. As I got to work behind the counter a bit last spring at a GCA cult classic. It was maybe 3 times over that 2 month period of me being there someone. Came in to talk about the quality of the course in even the most basic terms.


I never once got a question about slope. However I did get a lot of questions about the beer cart, how nice it was that the fairways were wide so they could keep playing and then how pretty it looked in the evenings or mornings.


I point this out as a majority of bogey golfers probably lean more to thinking in this direction rather than navel gazing about the difference in slope rating.

[Bob Harris]

Yeah, the flaw in Slope ratings is that they assume the "scratch" golfer is always going to pull driver and hit it 250 yards, and the "bogey" golfer is always going to pull driver and hit it 200 yards, and they only rate the obstacles at those distances, taking no account of strategy or differences in players of similar overall ability.


I don't know why anyone pays any attention to it.

The USGA Course Rating System does give the rater the ability to account for both forced layups and layups by choice.


Regarding a higher slope rating from shorter tees, in 25 years, I've seen this occur maybe 5 times.


The primary reason this happens is when there are crossings hazards from the shorter tees that can't be reached from the back tees.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I don’t understand the “who cares” attitude. Pretty much every time I play golf, the golfers share their indices on the first tee, then handicaps for the match are determined by obtaining each golfer’s course handicap. This is why slope and course rating matter. No?

[Matt Schoolfield]

   I don’t understand the “who cares” attitude. Pretty much every time I play golf, the golfers share their indices on the first tee, then handicaps for the match are determined by obtaining each golfer’s course handicap. This is why slope and course rating matter. No?

I think the "who cares" attitude is perfectly reasonable. People come to golf for different reasons, and some people just aren't into handicapping, or direct competition in general, and I think that's fine. I'm just a nerd at heart, so I really want to learn about the systems we use, but I do think that a more simple, and ultimately better handicapping system is achievable by the USGA right now using big data.

I'm more interested, however, about how verbose course rating systems and data could create better descriptive language for us to talk about courses, and would we really benefit the generally golfing public, but that's a long and nuanced conversation.

[Ken Moum]

Since virtually no one I know has a clue what slope actually is, often equating it with how "good" a course is, I think we should just publish the bogey rating.


At least then they'd understand why high slope courses beat them to death.

[Bryan Izatt]

I've never seen a slope rating go down with an increase in distance  Maybe the following will help with understanding it. 

The slope is the difference between the scratch course rating and the bogey course rating multiplied by a constant.  The scratch and bogey ratings have two components - yardage and obstacles.  Although most of us focus on the obstacles - bunkers, trees, rough, width, green contours etc - the main factor is the yardage.
 
Here are the numbers for Bandon Trails' Black and Green tees.

                                       Black Tee                       Green Tee
Yardage                           6788                                 6249
Course Rating                  74.9                                  72.0
    (Yardage)                     (71.8 )                                (69.3
    (Obstacles)                    (3.1)                                  (2.7
Bogey Rating                  100.1                                  97.4
    (Yardage)                     (93.1)                                (89.7)
    (Obstacles)                    (7.0)                                  (7.7)
Slope                                 136                                    137

Not surprisingly the extra 539 yards from the Black tees increases the scratch course rating by 2.9.  Also, not surprising, the bogey rating increases 2.7.  Surprising is that the increase for bogey golfers is less than for scratch golfers.  The reason is that the obstacle rating for the bogey golfers actually goes down from 7.7 to 7.0.  The likely explanation for this is that the longer Black tees must either reduce or eliminate some of the obstacles where the bogey golfers hit the ball.  Perhaps there are bunkers that are out of play, or landing areas are larger, or par 4's that can't be reached in two shots from the green tees result in just a bit longer 3rd shots from the Black tees, or .....................

This set of circumstances seems to occur infrequently.  One wonders if it results from conscious design decisions or just sort of happens.  Do architects design with course ratings for scratch and bogey  golfers as defined in the USGA rating methodology in mind?  I suspect not.

[JohnVDB]

A prime example of this may be where a stream crosses the fairway about 170 yards from the green tees (to use the previous example) making a long carry for the bogey golfer, but it might be 230 yards from the black tees leaving only a 30 yard carry from there.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben is spot on here.

In all my years of playing golf with strangers, friends, and even fellow GCA'ers, I don't recall a discussion on slope coming up even once.  I think there is real value in the methodology, but just like those of us who love to talk golf course architecture is a very small group, so it is for slope and rating. 

P.S. For that matter, despite multiple attempts to engage my non-GCA buddies in architecture related discussion, that failed as well.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I totally understand the "who cares" attitude. It is the "I don't care so I'm going to get onto a forum to tell everyone how much I don't care" attitude that is particularly baffling to me. There's a lot that I don't care about that is posted, and I just barely manage to keep it to myself.


To the point, I would imagine if a course has several holes with forced layups, that would also contribute. On particular course, I noticed a few times off the tee that I would hit an iron, one guy would hit a fairway wood, and the other 2 would hit driver, and we all ended up in the same area. Not being able to take advantage of distance due to being forced to hit to a layup zone could make a course have a lower bogey rating to course rating. Just a guess.


Anecdotally, in the caddie shack we do sometimes get into discussions about course ratings and slope ratings, but caddies are not normal people, haha.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My first suspicion would be that there are distinct obstacles that are out of play for the bogey player from the back tees.

For the bogey golfer, we consider all the stuff along the entire route of the hole. We don't consider only "landing zones" and the stuff nearby. If there's a creek that's 100 yards to carry, it doesn't factor into the course rating (scratch), but it does into the bogey rating even though it's not within 20 yards of the 200-yard landing zone.

I'm not at home right now so I can't look at the actual book/manual… but…

they only rate the obstacles at those distances

For the bogey golfer, that's not true. For the scratch golfer, it's mostly the stuff within ± 20 yards of the landing zone(s).

Not to beat a dead horse, but maybe it’s an architectural flaw if a course is deemed relatively more difficult for the higher handicapper. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Or, put another way, shouldn’t the hazards challenge the better golfers, not the weaker ones?

If the hazard exists, it challenges the poorer player. You can't really create a hazard that challenges only the better player (unless you want to get into the idea of whether rough or something like that is worse than a sand bunker for better players or worse players).

The slope is the difference between the scratch course rating and the bogey course rating multiplied by a constant.

Right… it's effectively the slope of the line. So a course can play "harder" for a bogey golfer… but "more harder" for a scratch golfer, resulting in a drop in the slope.

Look at the math for the thing he posted: 74.9 -> 100.1 (25.2) versus 72.0 -> 97.4 (25.4). There you have it.


Thanks, Bryan.

[Ian_L]

Thanks all, helpful context and it seems we are in general agreement on the "why" here. If anyone has seen this same situation on other courses, I'd be interested to hear about it.


To Tom's point, as a long and wild 9 handicap, I would get the double whammy of all the trouble in play for me and fewer strokes vs. a better golfer!

[Jim_Coleman]

   Another example of less than ideal architecture - punish the poorer player with difficulties not challenging to the better player.

[Bryan Izatt]

The slope is the difference between the scratch course rating and the bogey course rating multiplied by a constant.

Right… it's effectively the slope of the line. So a course can play "harder" for a bogey golfer… but "more harder" for a scratch golfer, resulting in a drop in the slope.

Look at the math for the thing he posted: 74.9 -> 100.1 (25.2) versus 72.0 -> 97.4 (25.4). There you have it.


Thanks, Bryan.

I think the point is better demonstrated by the course being 2.9 harder from the Black tees for the scratch golfer (72.0 -> 74.9), while only being 2.7 harder for the bogey golfer (97.4 -> 100.1).


Re your comments about the rating methodology encompassing obstacles along the route of the hole for Bogey golfers, is that a recent change?  It's been a good number of years since I took the training and did ratings, but I don't recall that distinction between Bogey and Scratch rating.  If it is the case, then it must make the rating process even more time consuming and data intensive.  I'm not sure I see the benefit of the extra effort in evaluating obstacles along the way given that obstacle ratings only account for 3% to 8% of the total rating.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the point is better demonstrated by the course being 2.9 harder from the Black tees for the scratch golfer (72.0 -> 74.9), while only being 2.7 harder for the bogey golfer (97.4 -> 100.1).

That's why I said both ways. 

Re your comments about the rating methodology encompassing obstacles along the route of the hole for Bogey golfers, is that a recent change?  It's been a good number of years since I took the training and did ratings, but I don't recall that distinction between Bogey and Scratch rating.  If it is the case, then it must make the rating process even more time consuming and data intensive.  I'm not sure I see the benefit of the extra effort in evaluating obstacles along the way given that obstacle ratings only account for 3% to 8% of the total rating.

No. I'm not home so I can't look at my ratings books, but even at the national meeting a decade ago in FL, we talked about crossing hazards right in front of the tee, trees the whole playing corridor… etc. Heck, one pond was beside the tee… and given some weight. The inside (i.e. not funny) joke that week was "it exists," along with all of the existential/philosophical jokes that stemmed from it.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I spent 19 years as a Mid Atlantic USGA volunteer doing slope/ratings.  It's rare, but you do see the "lower from the back" phenomena on occasion.  Years ago I was actually a member of a little north Idaho courses (Avondale) where this was true.


The two main components of slope/rating are distance and obstacle-stroke factors.  We used to be surprised rating some old Eddie Ault regional courses, where the slope/rating was lower on the back tees, until we realized there was hardly any distance difference in the red/white/blue tees (to save costs Ault just jammed all three on a small teeing ground), which allowed, as pointed out above, the better players to hit beyond obstacles lesser players couldn't get over - effectively playing a longer but easier course.   

[JohnVDB]

I’ve been rating since 1992 and obstacles were always rated for the bogey golfer regardless of where they were on the hole, although they usually only get a 1 when they are a good distance from the landing areas.  There are some changes for 2024 regarding when things should be rated that are a significant distance from the primary areas. I just glanced through the new guide last week and am out of town right now, but as I recall there are some items that can be ignored if they are not “in play”. Also things like water right in front of the tee will be rated as a lateral penalty area rather than a crossing in some circumstances.


I remember that there was a rating of the Witch Hollow course at Pumpkin Ridge in the late 90s where the slope was higher for a forward set of tees.


I was on the first rating crew at Bandon Dunes in 1998 about 8 months before the course opened for play. It was a three day adventure which led to some fun stories.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Matt, I think suspicion is spot on.


Take the third hole as an example. There are some center line bunkers that might be reachable from a shorter tee, effecnarrowing rhe fairway width while the bogey golfer comes up short of them from the back tee. At the same time the scratch golfer does reach them thereby narrowing his fairway.

The thing is I had always assumed that the wind blew at Bandon?  For me this is where the whole concept falls to pieces. Some days those centre line bunkers are in play and on others they aren't- even for the longest hitters. The WHS really doesn't take account for the wind on links courses.


The WHS provides another justification for the current fashion for getting the Royal Engineers to add bunkers to famous links courses that played just fine for their members for the past hundred yeears. It must be possible to digiatally link to local annenometers and make daily adjustments, this would help. But rating a windy, fast running course based on set distances is not appropriate.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have a real question.


Who cares?


Like one of my biggest personal luxuries for me as someone that has worked in the field of GCA for almost a decade.


Is the fact that all my friends growing up play but don't care about any of this stuff.


Yeah, they like a lot of the same golf courses. I do but their answers are eye opening as an shaper and designer. As consistent access to beer/liquor, ability to find their ball, and views matter in that order.


Stuff like slope rating and HCP's don't matter as in their mind everyone is equally as bad as them.


I think this is more the norm than anyone on this board would like to admit. As I got to work behind the counter a bit last spring at a GCA cult classic. It was maybe 3 times over that 2 month period of me being there someone. Came in to talk about the quality of the course in even the most basic terms.


I never once got a question about slope. However I did get a lot of questions about the beer cart, how nice it was that the fairways were wide so they could keep playing and then how pretty it looked in the evenings or mornings.


I point this out as a majority of bogey golfers probably lean more to thinking in this direction rather than navel gazing about the difference in slope rating.

Spot on!!!!!!