USGA Course Rating Definitions - Need Refinement?

[Canadan]

I was having a conversation about this with my dad recently, who is trying to have the USGA come back out to my home course for an updated course rating (he's a part of a couple course committees). When it came to discussion about how the USGA defines golfers, I couldn't help but laugh at how ridiculous their definition of a 'scratch golfer' is;

Scratch Golfer - Is one who can play to a Course Handicap™ of zero on any and all rated golf courses. He (she) can hit tee shots an average of 250 (210) yards and reach a 470 (400)-yard hole in two shots.

Am I reading that right? Realistically they are talking about 'on average' rather than a guarantee, but how crazy flawed is that? They then talk about a bogey golfer:

Bogey Golfer - Is one with a Course Handicap of 20 (24). He (she) can hit tee shots an average of 200 (150) yards and can reach a 370 (280)-yard hole in two shots.

Which again I find absolutely amazing (and flawed). I presume again 'on average' but come on USGA, seriously? Finally, they refer to the logic behind course rating:

USGA Course Rating™ - The USGA® mark that indicates the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers. It is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the scratch golfer. Example: 68.5

Okay, fair enough, but they are relying on one incredibly flawed concept: Not ALL scratch golfers hit the 250 yards, and not ALL bogey golfers hit the ball 200 yards! They have been pushing this "Tee it forward" initiative for some time now, which I am STRONG proponent of, however it destroys handicaps for golfers who opt to play the correct set of tee boxes with regards to moving back a tee box.

We're missing a huge metric here. Take my dad for example. He's built his 15 handicap from a tee box too far back, and the differential between him playing our tournament tees and our 'green' or 'senior' tees, or even the new green/gold combination tees is not accurately adjusted in his improved results. Playing from the green tees, he's easily competing with the single digits, despite the course rating only removing one, maybe two strokes from his handicap.

Why then, can we factor our regular scores into our handicap definition, but not our regular carry distance with a driver? Sure, there's going to be a gap with people who genuinely don't know how far they hit the ball, but if we're talking about an OFFICIAL handicap, I see no reason to limit the definitions to something as ridiculous as making the claim that a scratch golfer hits it "X" yards - And even if that were the case, they have my dad nearly pegged as a bogey golfer (he might carry it 210) - Yet their defined logic claims he only needs an extra 1-2 strokes against a "scratch" golfer moving back nearly 1,000 yards. I feel like other examples are those who struggle to 'travel' with their handicap.

Is it really that impossible to create a functioning handicap system based on realistic score variance between tee boxes. Sure, it works just fine for me, but I've been told I'm in a rather small percentage of golfers in terms of carry distance. Why am I being catered to?

 

[tequila4kapp]

Yes, the system seems flawed to me Dan. I can't remember the exact answer or the thread it was in, but part of the overall answer about weird Course Ratings was something in the minutia of the system, like Course Ratings are not meant to compare courses to each other but are meant to compare a par to bogey golfer on that course only.

 

[McRock]

My home course isn't USGA rated, and hasn't been for probably 30+ years. Problem solved.

~Rock

 

[Canadan]

My home course isn't USGA rated, and hasn't been for probably 30+ years. Problem solved.

~Rock

haha what problem does that solve?

 

[McRock]

No USGA rating means no official handicap and no 'weird' definitions of scratch golfers.

Of course, it certainly does nothing to solve the problem I have of needing to get an official handicap this year.

But to throw a more serious wrench into this conversation, isn't the 'slope' rating somehow used to even things out or make them more logical? I'm not an expert, but I thought I read that once.

~Rock

 

[MWard]

A 470yd par 4 is a tough friggin par 4 scratch or not. What's changed though from when that was written is that now you can't run the ball up on a lot of greens when that happens. So from 220 out, you'll have to fly it at least front edge. It's frustrating to say the least.

 

[Wake]

I think I'm missing the point Dan, are you saying a scratch golfer hits the ball more or less than 250" Same for bogey golfer? Or are you saying distance should play no role into the rating?

 

[mikedean441]

Im for whatever system gives me the most strokes!

Definitely flawed and honestly just outdated logic more than anything it seems. Assumptions about distances people hit are just not correct more times than not

 

[Canadan]

A 470yd par 4 is a tough friggin par 4 scratch or not. What's changed though from when that was written is that now you can't run the ball up on a lot of greens when that happens. So from 220 out, you'll have to fly it at least front edge. It's frustrating to say the least.

I think I'm missing the point Dan, are you saying a scratch golfer hits the ball more or less than 250" Same for bogey golfer? Or are you saying distance should play no role into the rating?

The handicaps we create should be effective from every single tee box on the golf course, ladies to tips. It should change course to course based on difficulty, but it should also be unique to each golfer.

I hit the ball well over 250 in the air. I am at or around scratch (not quite but whatever, I'll throw away the stroke to make a point). If I am playing with a fellow scratch golfer who hits the ball 210 yards in the air, and he's built his handicap from a set of tees that are nearly 1,000 yards ahead of the tees I've built mine from, we should be able to go to any tee box and have a competitive game against one another based on the course rating/slope factoring into our handicaps.

If it isn't far (and of course it won't be in the current design), the concept is flawed and needs to be improved.

 

[captaincaution]

No USGA rating means no official handicap and no 'weird' definitions of scratch golfers.

Of course, it certainly does nothing to solve the problem I have of needing to get an official handicap this year.

But to throw a more serious wrench into this conversation, isn't the 'slope' rating somehow used to even things out or make them more logical? I'm not an expert, but I thought I read that once.

~Rock

The slope is related to the "bogey rating" of the course. When they rate the course, they rate it twice, one for your "scratch" golfer who hits it 250 off the tee total and once for the "bogey" golfer who can only hit it 200 off the tee.

Dan, one thing to keep in mind is that the course rating judges to difficulty of the course for a scratch golfer and represents the average score of the better half of all their scores. So, it really is a score that should be reached or bettered only 25% of the time.

Sure, the definitions of a scratch and bogey golfer may be arbitrary, but they had to start somewhere, and they applied uniformly on all courses.

 

[Canadan]

The slope is related to the "bogey rating" of the course. When they rate the course, they rate it twice, one for your "scratch" golfer who hits it 250 off the tee total and once for the "bogey" golfer who can only hit it 200 off the tee.

Dan, one thing to keep in mind is that the course rating judges to difficulty of the course for a scratch golfer and represents the average score of the better half of all their scores. So, it really is a score that should be reached or bettered only 25% of the time.

Sure, the definitions of a scratch and bogey golfer may be arbitrary, but they had to start somewhere, and they applied uniformly on all courses.

This is assumptive, and frankly I disagree. The last time I was at scratch I was consistently shooting somewhere between 71-73 every time I played. That immediately defies your logic when referencing an overly consistent, "boring" golfer.

 

[Wake]

I get the concept, I always felt I was at a competitive disadvantage when playing from forward tees. I was wild... but long and playing from the forward tees allowed me no length advantage over the guy with a similar handicap, who wasn't nearly as long but just kept the ball in front of him.

On a 425 yard par 4 I could hit a 275 yard drive and be left with a 8 or 9 iron in a perfect world. Meanwhile he hit his 220 and was either hitting a 3 wood or laying up, obviously he still had the advantage of knowing I could hit it OB or in the trees, but that evened things out. On a 350 yard par 4 I would probably hit 3 wood or hybrid and then hit wedge, meanwhile he would hit driver and then hit 8 iron. Since I was still more wild than him despite hitting less club he has a HUGE advantage.

I definitely didn't feel my handicap allowed for a fair competition from all tees. Of course I took care of that by knocking 30 yards off my drive, now I'm terrible from all tees.

 

[Hawk]

It is flawed, but I don't know if there's a solid answer.

That guy that plays 1000 yards shorter (assuming he's playing there for a reason) will still be at a disadvantage if you moved up to his tee boxes, even if you both play to the same course handicap, which I think you would have to. You'd be able to take less club off the tee and would have less club in hand on par 3's.

 

[Canadan]

It is flawed, but I don't know if there's a solid answer.

That guy that plays 1000 yards shorter (assuming he's playing there for a reason) will still be at a disadvantage if you moved up to his tee boxes, even if you both play to the same course handicap, which I think you would have to. You'd be able to take less club off the tee and would have less club in hand on par 3's.

But that's my point Hawkster. Why is my handicap identical to his with regards to distance hit? If you incorporate a distance metric into the individual handicap, you can obtain something far more realistic.

Also note my comments previously about the handicap system catering to golfers who CAN hit it 250+ -- As it relates to moving forward tee boxes. I think my personal handicap adjustments are perfectly fine.

 

[Hawk]

I think it's a pretty good concept Dan. It's never made sense to me, but I've always had to deal with it.

 

[mancest]

I definitely think the system is flawed as all of us know guys that are bogey golfers but have incredible distance, and guys near scratch who are not long, but hit it straight and get up and down more often than not.

That said, how do you fix it? We are all unique snowflakes in that we suck at this game in so many different ways, so what possible way is there to account for it while being equitable and easy to use for all? I really don't know but am really curious in what others on this board think.

 

[Canadan]

I think it's a pretty good concept Dan. It's never made sense to me, but I've always had to deal with it.

Right on. It's frustrating to me because I see guys deal with it locally. They refuse to move forward tees for their casual rounds because they know in tournament rounds, they'll have to move back -- And their handicap will be flawed in relation to their abilities. Therefore they have to select either the entire year worth of casual rounds from the tees that suit them, or they build their handicap on tees that are well beyond their capabilities.

It's awful to watch them struggle, but they love to compete in the 10+ tournaments my course puts on every year. Repairing this system to accommodate them would make the game 10x more fun.

 

[Canadan]

I definitely think the system is flawed as all of us know guys that are bogey golfers but have incredible distance, and guys near scratch who are not long, but hit it straight and get up and down more often than not.

That said, how do you fix it? We are all unique snowflakes in that we suck at this game in so many different ways, so what possible way is there to account for it while being equitable and easy to use for all? I really don't know but am really curious in what others on this board think.

You add an actual distance measurement to handicap systems. Courses can either opt to provide quick measurements when asked, or rely on players to offer their own. At least they can dictate how far they hit rather than having the USGA claim they hit it a certain distance.

People will talk about it being unfair, but it's super easy to police, considering the guys they are playing against are watching them hit the ball for 18 holes.

 

[Hawk]

Right on. It's frustrating to me because I see guys deal with it locally. They refuse to move forward tees for their casual rounds because they know in tournament rounds, they'll have to move back -- And their handicap will be flawed in relation to their abilities. Therefore they have to select either the entire year worth of casual rounds from the tees that suit them, or they build their handicap on tees that are well beyond their capabilities.

It's awful to watch them struggle, but they love to compete in the 10+ tournaments my course puts on every year. Repairing this system to accommodate them would make the game 10x more fun.

Basically what I did the last two years. I played 6500 yards at often as I could when I really don't enjoy the game nearly as much that far back. Right after the MC ended last year I went on a big tee it forward kick and I can't tell you how much more enjoyable that was for me.

 

[bigskyirish]

But that's my point Hawkster. Why is my handicap identical to his with regards to distance hit? If you incorporate a distance metric into the individual handicap, you can obtain something far more realistic.

Also note my comments previously about the handicap system catering to golfers who CAN hit it 250+ -- As it relates to moving forward tee boxes. I think my personal handicap adjustments are perfectly fine.

I'd never really thought of it this way before, but I think I see what you're saying. Tell me if this is right: you and John Doe are both scratch at the same course, but from different tee boxes. John Doe carries the ball only about 210 and plays tees 1,000 yards shorter than yours, but scores well enough from there to be scratch. You carry the ball well over 250 and score well enough from the back tees to be scratch. The current handicap system presumes that you could have a competitive, straight up match from any set of tees because you're both scratch. But that's not necessarily true. If you moved up to his tees, you'd have the advantages Hawk described (less club off the tee and/or less club into greens) and presumably would have established a + handicap if you played from his shorter tees. But even if, for whatever reason, you wouldn't have the advantage at John Doe's tees, he almost certainly could not play you straight up from 1,000 yards further back since he only carries it 210 and there is virtually no chance he would be scratch if he regularly played from the back tees.

 

[Canadan]

Basically what I did the last two years. I played 6500 yards at often as I could when I really don't enjoy the game nearly as much that far back. Right after the MC ended last year I went on a big tee it forward kick and I can't tell you how much more enjoyable that was for me.

I believe it!!! I push tee it forward ALL the time because I know how much more enjoyable the game is that way. Just wish the USGA would actually get on board with the concepts they preach.

 

[captaincaution]

This is assumptive, and frankly I disagree. The last time I was at scratch I was consistently shooting somewhere between 71-73 every time I played. That immediately defies your logic when referencing an overly consistent, "boring" golfer.

Even if you have a small standard deviation, you should only shoot better than your handicap 25% of the time.

Dan, I agree with you that the whole thing is flawed. I don't think handicaps as well as they should between sets of tees on the same course. Over the course of millions of rounds, I'm sure the math works out perfectly, but of course we can't ever play those millions of rounds ourselves to see it happen.

It is a flawed system, but uniformly applied, I think it is still fair. Higher handicaps have the potential to beat a lower handicap, but it is going to take a hell of a round to do it.

 

[Tadashi70]

I know it cost money, how much I have no clue. But I have been of the thought that the USGA needs to rate course every 5 years or so. Technology is making these older courses very easy if you kknow how to play. The ratings and holes handicaps need to reflect the changing times.

 

[captaincaution]

I know it cost money, how much I have no clue. But I have been of the thought that the USGA needs to rate course every 5 years or so. Technology is making these older courses very easy if you kknow how to play. The ratings and holes handicaps need to reflect the changing times.

They are supposed to re rate them every 10 years. If the resources are there, I would agree that they should be done every 5 years. Technology has changed a lot in the last 5 years and will continue to do so.

 

[Canadan]

I'd never really thought of it this way before, but I think I see what you're saying. Tell me if this is right: you and John Doe are both scratch at the same course, but from different tee boxes. John Doe carries the ball only about 210 and plays tees 1,000 yards shorter than yours, but scores well enough from there to be scratch. You carry the ball well over 250 and score well enough from the back tees to be scratch. The current handicap system presumes that you could have a competitive, straight up match from any set of tees because you're both scratch. But that's not necessarily true. If you moved up to his tees, you'd have the advantages Hawk described (less club off the tee and/or less club into greens) and presumably would have established a + handicap if you played from his shorter tees. But even if, for whatever reason, you wouldn't have the advantage at John Doe's tees, he almost certainly could not play you straight up from 1,000 yards further back since he only carries it 210 and there is virtually no chance he would be scratch if he regularly played from the back tees.

Right, his handicap would go through the roof if it was established from the tips. Mr 210 carry would have 234 yards left into the first hole after his drive. He also wouldn't be able to reach the 5th hole (par 3, 235 yards in one stroke) despite it being ranked as the 8th handicap. He certainly could from his tees, though (181 yards).

The simple fact, is that his handicap wouldn't translate by the mere entry of his index into the course handicap lookup on a program like GHIN.