Do you think the rating system accurately reflects your frequented courses ?

[rollin]

We often discuss handicaps which is tied to course ratings. The rating system is not perfect and I don't see how it would ever be. Unless the very same individuals actually visited every single course I just don't see how it could ever be even close to perfect. And even if they hypothetically did, it would still be left up to the opinions of individuals and how only they view things so still would have a lot of flaws and be left open to criticism. But its all that we have and is what it is. But I also wonder since many of you play different courses quite often, do you ever scratch your head wondering why course "x" or course "y" is rated at whatever vs when in comparison to others?

We have this issue at my local munis. Its not major issue at all but does exist where things seem flip flopped with the ratings/slope.
2 of the courses are rated easier than a third one and yet most all feel there is no way they are. Most feel for the average bogey player the easier rated courses offer much less forgiveness throughout than the one rated harder and that this is not correct.

Not to make this about my locals and its not something I lose sleep over but in general with so many of you playing different courses I wonder if you ever feel they got it very wrong when you compare different courses that you play often enough? Do you ever find it some places where you think it so off that its kind of ridiculous? perhaps not fair to the handicap system one way or the other? I think much of this can also offer different views based on ability. A single digit capper views a course much differently than a high capper. But any places where you just say hey, "they got this one dead wrong", or "what where they thinking" , or maybe a course has gone through many changes and is in need of getting a more accurate and recent evaluation. Whatever??

 

[tgtt]

Never think about it. My scores are basically the same wherever I play.

 

[SaskeyInWash]

There are a couple courses that I feel the slope rating is way out on. If you compare Bandon Dunes to Chambers Bay. Similar style courses and IMO Chambers is much harder but the slope at Bandon is much higher and from shorter tees.

I joined the Tacoma Country and Golf Club this year and I would like to meet the official that rated it. The Blue tees are 6348 with a 129 slope and the Black tees are 6906 with a 130 slope. Basically it is the same slope so you get the same number of strokes from both tees but have an extra 550 yards. It would be ok if that was spread out out evenly but from the black tees 3 of the par3's play 205/215/225 to greens this last weekend were rock hard and running 14+. I really don't understand the slope rating system.

 

[rollin]

Never think about it. My scores are basically the same wherever I play.

Yes but that's kind of where the problem lies isn't it? If the system is off by any significant amount then its not truly reflecting what your shooting at the different courses. It may not be bothersome to you and may only be minor at your courses but if those ratings (in some cases) are too far out of alignment then your actually playing better (or worse) than you think on that given course.

 

[ArmyGolf]

I frequent two courses more often than any others and I shoot basically the same scores on both. Course A has a 137 Slope from 6500 yards and course B has a 126 Slope from 6400 yards.
I find course A to be a tiny bit tougher I suppose but the difference shouldn't be that large. Basically if I play course A a lot my cap drops and if I play course B it goes up. That tells me there is a flaw in the system somewhere.

 

[Canadan]

I think there are two reasons the course rating concept is flawed.

1 - It does not consider the type of miss a player is prone to.

Example1: Someone with a terrible tee game and a great iron game can go way low on a links style course despite spraying the ball off the tee, but if you build a handicap from there, and then play a tighter tree lined course, that same player is probably 10 strokes worse or more.
Example2: A golfer who can only hit one way (draw or hook) would do well on a course that favours the draw or plays relatively straight, but taking them to a more established course that might be shorter with a lot of holes that turn to the right, and again they are likely to be 5-10 shots worse.

2 - How the course conditions are.

My home course plays 10x different between sopping wet and extremely dry with rolled/double cut greens. When they get to the Sunday round of the club championship, and everything is lightning on the greens to some of the hardest pin placements they can produce, it plays notably more difficult than the current rating suggests.


Overall I do think the rating system is a decent benchmark, but I don't think it's anywhere close to perfect.

 

[cpljohnst]

I think there are two reasons the course rating concept is flawed.

1 - It does not consider the type of miss a player is prone to.

Example1: Someone with a terrible tee game and a great iron game can go way low on a links style course despite spraying the ball off the tee, but if you build a handicap from there, and then play a tighter tree lined course, that same player is probably 10 strokes worse or more.
Example2: A golfer who can only hit one way (draw or hook) would do well on a course that favours the draw or plays relatively straight, but taking them to a more established course that might be shorter with a lot of holes that turn to the right, and again they are likely to be 5-10 shots worse.

2 - How the course conditions are.

My home course plays 10x different between sopping wet and extremely dry with rolled/double cut greens. When they get to the Sunday round of the club championship, and everything is lightning on the greens to some of the hardest pin placements they can produce, it plays notably more difficult than the current rating suggests.


Overall I do think the rating system is a decent benchmark, but I don't think it's anywhere close to perfect.

I totally agree with the course conditions issue above. I wish there was a way that it could factor in impactful weather. My 90 playing in a rain soaked, windy course might be just as good (or better) as my 84 under dry, no wind conditions.

 

[ArmyGolf]

Canadan hit the nail on the head. 6500 yards here in the winter feels like 8000 unless you carry the ball a mile because our fairways just turn to soup. I have never thought of a players miss impacting this but it's definitely true.

 

[rollin]

I just not sure what they base the finding on when they speak of average bogey player. To me that is not (for the most part) someone with a 10 HC. Most avid amateur golfers are not half that good. It may be possible that those doing the evaluations give too much credit to what an average bogey golfer is or what parts of the course plays a big factor for the average bogey golfer.

In the case of the 3 locals I mentioned. All at similar length and similar width fairways.
But on the 2 easier rated ones - Tall, thick fescue lined holes and very undulating fairways equates to a few and even several more strokes for the average player vs a course with flatter fairways and tree lined even at similar dimensions. The average bogey golfer is going to lose more balls when even jus a little errant and also find the better shots leaves less than desirable lies on undulating fairways. In addition to this the harder rated course also several years back had trees removed form the two shortest dogleg corners and also on a par 5. All of which made the course even easier. Yet still rated harder.

The ratings are not miles apart but still flip flopped and it just got me thinking that there must be very many courses that are just way off even much worse than mine when compared to others. Its all left up to human interpretation and only in the hands of the ones doing it. I'm not looking to change the world with this but just thought it interesting as to just how off and out of alignment the whole thing could get.

 

[majBC]

I think the course rating is primarily based on yardage and the slope is more, a difficulty of scoring rating for a bogey golfer. There are flaws in the system, but playing in extreme weather conditions would never be considered, in my opinion.

Honestly the rating system is the rating system and when most tour pro's are +4 and higher I think scratch should be adjusted to that. I think a scratch should be teetering on tour level and that's not the case at all.

 

[mpeterson]

I think there are two reasons the course rating concept is flawed.

1 - It does not consider the type of miss a player is prone to.

Example1: Someone with a terrible tee game and a great iron game can go way low on a links style course despite spraying the ball off the tee, but if you build a handicap from there, and then play a tighter tree lined course, that same player is probably 10 strokes worse or more.
Example2: A golfer who can only hit one way (draw or hook) would do well on a course that favours the draw or plays relatively straight, but taking them to a more established course that might be shorter with a lot of holes that turn to the right, and again they are likely to be 5-10 shots worse.

2 - How the course conditions are.

My home course plays 10x different between sopping wet and extremely dry with rolled/double cut greens. When they get to the Sunday round of the club championship, and everything is lightning on the greens to some of the hardest pin placements they can produce, it plays notably more difficult than the current rating suggests.


Overall I do think the rating system is a decent benchmark, but I don't think it's anywhere close to perfect.

Case #1 is something I've definitely run into. One of the courses I really like basically kills you if you miss right on probably 70 percent of the holes. As someone whose miss is a slice, I'm dead in the water there if my tee game isn't working.

 

[oiler3535]

On courses I play regularly I find that the rating is usually pretty reasonable, but slope can be off a fair bit. The course I was a member at the last 4 years had a rating of 68, mainly due to being shorter but having hard to putt greens. Scratch golfers I know regularly shot in the mid-high 60s. But the slope was only 113. And while the course was short, it has a ton of trees within 5 yards of fairway, a few forced carries, and severe doglegs where if you're not in a small window off the tee you're lucky to be putting for bogey. I've played with a lot of people with caps in the high teens who struggle to break 100 regularly. If you're not really straight off the tee you're in big trouble. While that is one example, thinking of other courses, it seems to me that distance and green speeds are the only 2 things that seem to really matter for slope. A course nearby has almost no trouble (I've played it not being within 20 yards of my fairway all day and still shot +2) is sloped much higher than my course, but is 400 yards longer and is probably about 2 ft faster on the stimp.

 

[dizzyg12]

I think for the most part yes....the ratings at most courses I play are accurate in that it's a good indicator of where I should be playing from. In some cases I will play back a box depending on how they are rated and some I may play up. For instance if a course recommends a 5-12 handicap from on set and a 13-18 from another, I may play from the 5-12 for the challenge as that's where my usual playing partner is hitting from. But there have been courses that say the back tees are only a stroke more difficult than the ones in front them but at 300 yards or so less we find more difficult than the tips because of where some tee boxes are located or hazards/water that needs to be carried.

Overall most do a good job but I think the system needs tweaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[v.man]

For those really interested in this topic, some interesting and informative info can be found here:

http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=25369

For those that are just curious, but not wanting to delve into how the ratings are developed, the following might be interesting:

USGA Course Rating: A USGA Course Rating is the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers under normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal place (72.5), and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the scratch golfer.

Slope Rating®: A Slope Rating is the USGA® mark that indicates the measurement of the relative playing difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers. It is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating times a constant factor and is expressed as a whole number from 55 to 155.

I had the opportunity to assist USGA representatives as they rated a course on two occasions. Although I didn't get into all the details of how the ratings are developed, I was very impressed with the amount of diligence these guys put in to collecting the required data with which the course will be rated. There were two different teams, and both were very, very particular. They don't develop the ratings, however; just collect the data. I agree it is not a perfect system, but IMO and experience, they try hard to get it right.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

Never think about it. My scores are basically the same wherever I play.

This ^^^^ is me as well.

 

[Vegan702]

Yes, all are rated well. Not sure why one would think using a different group of people or the same group for every course would alter the rating as they are all using the same criteria to rate a course and can't deviate from it. They submit their findings and the association issues the rating. It's not like they are just making stuff up and decide to rate one higher or lower.

 

[larryw]

Some additional information to follow up on what v.man listed above. This is taken from the Texas Golf Association web site - you can read it all if you are interested at this link:

http://www.txga.org/course-rating-FAQs.html

....
What do the numbers mean?
Question: Which golf course is more difficult?

	[h=6]Course Rating[/h]	[h=6]Slope[/h]
[h=6]Course A[/h]	71.3	121
[h=6]Course B[/h]	69.2	132

​

​

Answer: Easy… at every handicap level, the answer is Course A! Surprised? Many, if not most golfers probably would have guessed Course B. It just goes to illustrate the many myths and misunderstandings that abound regarding the subject of Slope.

Myth No. 1
Slope is the major indicator of the difficulty or, to put it another way the higher the Slope, the more difficult the course. Wrong! As the above example confirms, it is the Course Rating and not the Slope, which is the more dominant factor defining course difficulty.
As each score a golfer posts is broken down into a numeric value known as a “differential,” it is the Course Rating that is the more important factor in the calculation (Adjusted Score minus Course Rating multiplied by 113 divided by Slope Rating).
To put the Course Rating vs. Slope Rating debate into perspective, it takes more than 20 units of Slope to have the same impact as a single stroke of Course Rating on a 5-handicapper. As a golfer’s handicap increases, this ratio of the importance of the two values changes, but even for a 20-handicapper it takes five to six points of slope to have the same impact as one stroke in the Course Rating.
Myth No. 1a
Two Courses with the same Slope are of equal difficulty. Wrong! A course with a rating of 71.5/125 is about two strokes more difficult than a course with a rating of 69.6/125 at every handicap level.
Myth No. 2
Slope rating can be compared from one course to another. Wrong! There is nothing more dangerous than trying to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions by comparing Slope Rating from one course to another.
So, What is Slope?
Slope merely tells how “proportionately” more difficult that a golf course (by tee set up) plays for higher handicapped golfers as opposed to lower handicapped golfers. The more difficult the play proportionally for the higher handicappers, the greater the Slope.
That’s it! Slope doesn’t tell you how the course proportionally plays from any other set of tees, let alone tell you how it compares with other courses.
..........

 

[rollin]

Yes, all are rated well. Not sure why one would think using a different group of people or the same group for every course would alter the rating as they are all using the same criteria to rate a course and can't deviate from it. They submit their findings and the association issues the rating. It's not like they are just making stuff up and decide to rate one higher or lower.

As far as using measurements for certain things like width and distance etc, I'll agree that is simply black and white and stuff isn't made up.
But there is also a lot of rating also taking place that is based on human opinion and that can be very different and why its not just so black and white.
All of the following in green is taken from the usga rating description

All are called obstacles
Topography: , Fairway: , Green Target :, Recoverability and Rough:, Bunkers:, Out of Bounds/Extreme Rough:, Water Hazards:,
Trees:, Green Surface :, Psychological:
Then it says this - Each obstacle is assigned a value of 0 to 10, depending on its relation to how a scratch or bogey golfer would play the hole.

So with the info above in green there is clearly a lot of human opinion happening. Its not a matter of anyone making stuff up but is certainly a huge matter of how a specific crew assigned to evaluate a course ranks these obstacles on a scale of 0-10. That is all opinion. They look at the facts of all those obstacles but then rate them 0-10 via their "opinion". Those are not just simply black and white with no variation. They are opinion based and like any opinion is left open to question.

Those opinions can be very different from one rating team to another. They can also be very different depending on which courses a given team rates. They can only give obstacle assigned values based on opinion and also vs other courses that only they rated but not the ones rated by another team. You can potentially have 2 teams give very different obstacle ratings to the same golf course simply due to human factor of opinion and also because of influences that come from the other courses that team has rated.

We are bound to find very many courses with ratings that are way off vs other courses. There is no way imo it could be any other way unless the same crew evaluated every single golf course. And even if that were hypothetically possible then not everyone would be in agreement with the values they placed on the obstacles in relation to how they think a scratch or bogey golfer would play the hole.

When I see 2 courses of similar sizes and one doesn't allow the 20 handicapper not nearly the same forgiveness for his ability as the other course and yet that less forgiving course is rated harder in both slope and rating this then is just one small example how the opinion part plays a huge roll in the outcome and is far less than perfect. Its certainly not simply black and white with no room for great error. I'm not trying to kill the system here and I'm sure those responsible do the very best they can but there is simply a lot that is left up to human opinion and interpretation. They use the same criteria as you say but its the unavoidable opinion based ratings that can cause the deviation and where I think your incorrect. Just how off is this in a given place? who really knows. Perhaps those who play very many courses have a better feel for this if they pay it that much attention.

 

[Fourputt]

There are a couple courses that I feel the slope rating is way out on. If you compare Bandon Dunes to Chambers Bay. Similar style courses and IMO Chambers is much harder but the slope at Bandon is much higher and from shorter tees.

I joined the Tacoma Country and Golf Club this year and I would like to meet the official that rated it. The Blue tees are 6348 with a 129 slope and the Black tees are 6906 with a 130 slope. Basically it is the same slope so you get the same number of strokes from both tees but have an extra 550 yards. It would be ok if that was spread out out evenly but from the black tees 3 of the par3's play 205/215/225 to greens this last weekend were rock hard and running 14+. I really don't understand the slope rating system.

What is the difference in course rating between the two tees? That number is factored more heavily on length than slope is.

Since slope is based on difficulty for bogey golfer, the course may very well pose similar difficulty for a bogey golfer from either tee, but the course rating (based on a scratch golfer) should then be higher because of the 560 yards of additional length. Most courses have a higher rating for slope as the tees move back, but that isn't an absolute.

My home course brings some difficulty into play from the back tees which is less significant from the middle tee, so for a 430 yard increase the rating goes up from 69.4 to 71.5, and the slope also increases from 120 to 127. If it wasn't for that increased difficulty from the back tees (different hazards and bunkers come into play on a few holes), the slope numbers would be quite a bit closer.

If your course has similar difficulty regardless of tee, then the slope number will be closer, because a scratch golfer will face similar obstacles regardless of which tee he plays.

 

[ryebread]

USGA Course Rating: A USGA Course Rating is the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers under normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal place (72.5), and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the scratch golfer.

Slope Rating®: A Slope Rating is the USGA® mark that indicates the measurement of the relative playing difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers. It is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating times a constant factor and is expressed as a whole number from 55 to 155.

I'm a hack. I can't shoot par on mini-golf. I'm also short, so increases in yardage really hurt me.

For this reason, I have always felt like Slope was the rating that is important for me about a course. On a course of average difficultly (113 slope) and routine course conditions, then I know I'm going to shoot in the low to mid 90s. Put me on something (with tee position selected) of say 130, then I'm going to struggle and go over 100.

Now put me in something where the course is water logged, or there's a nasty wind, and all bets are off. That's not meant to be captured by either rating or slope though.

 

[grathan]

My home course seems underrated. There is small creeks crossing %30 of the fairways at really tough distances, you constantly lay up and take a stroke to play safe. There are trees on most holes which punish offline drives, also some that need a massive fade to get around just to be into approach range. There is hard clay in some spots and weird mushy wet areas in others. Every green is slightly elevated punishing anyone who rolls off or hits to the side of the green. Sand traps everywhere that are rock hard with weed growth. Thick lush rough that nearly breaks the wrists. Crabgrass fairways. Undulations and fast(some slow too,) titled, tiny greens that are covered with storm debris from the trees. Leaves Everywhere that make you lose your ball even just off the fairway. Loud lawnmowers doing circles around you on nearly every hole while you try to hit, they also ignore you if they are putting stripes on the fairway you want to hit into. There is a family of aggressive geese that wander freely on the course that you will intersect at some point. Tee boxes that have more dirt than grass. Groundskeepers who turn the sprinklers on every green and then off just before you reach soaking range (residual water slows your ball way down). The seem to plug aerate the tee boxes and greens twice a year so you'll be dealing with holes in the green all year except for like 2 months where they manage to heal.

 

[dhartmann34]

I know it's not correct on my home course....I bring guys out to play and their scores are always over their handicap by plenty. It's a fairly short course, but skinny with lots of trouble to get into. I've seen other local courses rated harder and I can easily shoot better scores there than at my home course. Of course I suppose it really can depend on the strength of certain parts of one's game, but I don't believe they have a truly fair system at the moment.

That being said, handicap doesn't matter all that much to me. It's the scores out on the course I"m more concerned with.

 

[mark blanchard]

This is a wonderful topic. We've all seen slopes and ratings we thought were goofy, just like the hole handicaps per side always seem to have a couple that seem "off". I have a beef with my home course that puts out four sets of tees with four slopes and ratings printed on the scorecards, but there is really one one forty yard long tee box and very little difference between red and black. Our back nine plays to a 35 for the men and a 37 for the ladies, but it's a fake 35 for the boys because of one 430 yard "par 5". However, I can't dispute that it's a legitimate tough 37 for the gals. So maybe the eye of the beholder makes more difference than we think.

Maybe the problem is not the ratings and slopes, maybe it's that round number they print on the card as "par". Maybe if they printed the true hole rating for every hole we'd have a better barometer of how well we did, like they do on TV with the hole scoring average. That would create a sense of half birdies and half bogies though, and be very clunky.

Oh well, I'd be happy if they just changed our one 430 yard fake five to a four!