USGA Course Rating Definitions - Need Refinement?

[arydolphin]

Because you're factoring age and skill level over distance hit. It leaves countless people screwed.

Plus, my concern isn't for tournament play, it's for the ability to move between tee boxes and have the handicap travel with said short hitter. Something that doesn't occur currently.

The 2 biggest things that correlate with driving distance are skill level and age. You posted a chart from Trackman earlier this year that showed that average driving distance is proportional to handicap. No one is going to try to argue that driving distance increases as one gets older. It does not leave "countless people" screwed, the current system works for the majority of players there. There is not a system that perfectly accounts for every player, just like every golf course doesn't suit every player.

In terms of having the ability to move between tee boxes, I think that most people choose to play the same tee box >90% of time that they play a course. Sometimes peer pressure or ego makes them move to a different box, but overall, most people aren't moving around to different tee boxes.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some things in here.

 

[Canadan]

The 2 biggest things that correlate with driving distance are skill level and age. You posted a chart from Trackman earlier this year that showed that average driving distance is proportional to handicap. No one is going to try to argue that driving distance increases as one gets older. It does not leave "countless people" screwed, the current system works for the majority of players there. There is not a system that perfectly accounts for every player, just like every golf course doesn't suit every player.

In terms of having the ability to move between tee boxes, I think that most people choose to play the same tee box >90% of time that they play a course. Sometimes peer pressure or ego makes them move to a different box, but overall, most people aren't moving around to different tee boxes.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some things in here.

I am happy to disagree with you that utilizing averages is a quality way to determine tee box selection. Funny thing about averages.. two guys hitting the ball 190, six guys hitting the ball 210, and two guys hitting the ball 230 is still going to create an average of 210. You can claim averages work great, I've got examples where they don't, and where i believe the USGA needs to improve in the way their measure individual golfers ability to play different courses from different tee boxes.

I also agree that most people play the same boxes a large chunk of their year, however if their handicap does not travel to other tee boxes, they are more or less handcuffed to that box in order to play in fair competition.

Yes, it leaves 'countless' people screwed. Call it 10% or call it 20% - that's still a notable number.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

opcorn:

 

[ryebread]

Great thread. All of this is why the only thing that really matters to me when determining the "winner" in golf, is the total number of strokes. Lowest wins. If someone is better than me, then so be it. I should be smart enough not to bet with them.

 

[Mulligan9111]

For them to play beyond their potential? Of course it's fair. The handicap system is designed on a 20-25% rules. I shot a couple 68's last year despite being a zero. That doesn't make my handicap unfair, it means I had an excellent day. In the countless times I've see the handicap system not work well with regards to moving tee boxes, I'm not sure I've ever seen someone play better than their actual handicap from a tee box back when distance becomes a factor though. Have you?

How is shooting their actual handicap shooting beyond their potential? You are making the assumption that these shorter hitters have absolutely no shot at hitting their adjusted handicap for longer courses.

 

[Canadan]

How is shooting their actual handicap shooting beyond their potential? You are making the assumption that these shorter hitters have absolutely no shot at hitting their adjusted handicap for longer courses.

I'm not making that 'assumption' I'm stating it as fact based on many experiences firsthand.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

You share a game ( stroke play, for a beer, a handshake, a roshambo) with someone else who also has a handicap, from the same tee box. Your index is what it is.

But the index isn't a thing--it doesn't have any relevance on its own. My USGA handicap index is 30.5. When I play True Blue in the Legacy, if we play off the white tees (6375yds) my handicap is 34. If we play from the tips (7126yds), it's 39. The 30.5 is irrelevant on its own.

If I was playing you there, your handicap is 1 from either sets of tees. So we'd expect that I'd score 33 higher than you from the whites, and 38 higher than you from the blacks. If you want to get down to actual scores, the course rating from the whites is 70.1 and from the blacks is 74.3. So you'd probably shoot a 71 from the whites and a 75 from the blacks--that's your "par". I'd probably shoot a 104 from the whites and a 113 from the blacks--that's my "par". If that's actually what we scored, we tied in stroke play and the handicap did its job. The fact that par for the course is 72 from both sets of tees is irrelevant.

I can understand why you feel the way you do though--the lower your index, the more closely it resembles your personal handicap from a set of tees. So it starts looking more like your index is what should matter, but it isn't. The higher your index, the more variable your personal handicap is when you move around tee boxes. If you used my 30.5 and said you're giving me 30 strokes when we play, you've already got me beat. I'd have to play 3 under my average from the whites or 8 under my average from the blacks just to tie your personal average game. That would be totally unfair--I could play an exceptional game and lose to your average game. If instead we calculate out our personal handicaps for those tee boxes correctly, my average game and your average game result in a tie. You play better, you beat me. I play better, I beat you. That's how it should be.

 

[Awkward silence]

I'm not making that 'assumption' I'm stating it as fact based on many experiences firsthand.

I think I have to agree here. Its hard enough to have a stellar day from your own tees so to ask a person to beat their handicap after moving back to the longer tee box just isnt going to happen very often.

 

[Awkward silence]

But the index isn't a thing--it doesn't have any relevance on its own. My USGA handicap index is 30.5. When I play True Blue in the Legacy, if we play off the white tees (6375yds) my handicap is 34. If we play from the tips (7126yds), it's 39. The 30.5 is irrelevant on its own.

If I was playing you there, your handicap is 1 from either sets of tees. So we'd expect that I'd score 33 higher than you from the whites, and 38 higher than you from the blacks. If you want to get down to actual scores, the course rating from the whites is 70.1 and from the blacks is 74.3. So you'd probably shoot a 71 from the whites and a 75 from the blacks--that's your "par". I'd probably shoot a 104 from the whites and a 113 from the blacks--that's my "par". If that's actually what we scored, we tied in stroke play and the handicap did its job. The fact that par for the course is 72 from both sets of tees is irrelevant.

I can understand why you feel the way you do though--the lower your index, the more closely it resembles your personal handicap from a set of tees. So it starts looking more like your index is what should matter, but it isn't. The higher your index, the more variable your personal handicap is when you move around tee boxes. If you used my 30.5 and said you're giving me 30 strokes when we play, you've already got me beat. I'd have to play 3 under my average from the whites or 8 under my average from the blacks just to tie your personal average game. That would be totally unfair--I could play an exceptional game and lose to your average game. If instead we calculate out our personal handicaps for those tee boxes correctly, my average game and your average game result in a tie. You play better, you beat me. I play better, I beat you. That's how it should be.

But this makes sense to me also... Hmm I am just going observe now I think opcorn:

 

[Mulligan9111]

I'm not making that 'assumption' I'm stating it as fact based on many experiences firsthand.

Sorry, but that's only factual for the players you have seen this happen to. I play regularly with a guy who is 30 yards shorter than me, and no matter what tee we play, we are always right around where we normally are in comparison to one another score wise. So does that mean I can state it as fact that distance doesn't matter based on my experiences firsthand? Of course not, there are simply no facts out there that say "if you are a shorter hitter you have no shot at shooting your adjusted handicap at a longer course". Maybe for some it will be true, but it's not going to be true for everyone.

 

[JB]

Your sample size is of 1 does little to inspire confidence. I can tell you after hosting hundreds upon hundreds of THPers at events both around the country and locally, Canadan is dead right. Its an ongoing issue and its something that has been addressed to the pope of slope himself. Everybody knows its an issue.

 

[Canadan]

But the index isn't a thing--it doesn't have any relevance on its own. My USGA handicap index is 30.5. When I play True Blue in the Legacy, if we play off the white tees (6375yds) my handicap is 34. If we play from the tips (7126yds), it's 39. The 30.5 is irrelevant on its own.

If I was playing you there, your handicap is 1 from either sets of tees. So we'd expect that I'd score 33 higher than you from the whites, and 38 higher than you from the blacks. If you want to get down to actual scores, the course rating from the whites is 70.1 and from the blacks is 74.3. So you'd probably shoot a 71 from the whites and a 75 from the blacks--that's your "par". I'd probably shoot a 104 from the whites and a 113 from the blacks--that's my "par". If that's actually what we scored, we tied in stroke play and the handicap did its job. The fact that par for the course is 72 from both sets of tees is irrelevant.

I can understand why you feel the way you do though--the lower your index, the more closely it resembles your personal handicap from a set of tees. So it starts looking more like your index is what should matter, but it isn't. The higher your index, the more variable your personal handicap is when you move around tee boxes. If you used my 30.5 and said you're giving me 30 strokes when we play, you've already got me beat. I'd have to play 3 under my average from the whites or 8 under my average from the blacks just to tie your personal average game. That would be totally unfair--I could play an exceptional game and lose to your average game. If instead we calculate out our personal handicaps for those tee boxes correctly, my average game and your average game result in a tie. You play better, you beat me. I play better, I beat you. That's how it should be.

I don't know how far you hit the ball, so I have no basis to go off....

But I'll tell you what, if you're playing True Blue from the tips, hell, if I play true blue from the tips, I'm going to need a lot more than a couple strokes to shoot par. Zero roll there.

 

[arydolphin]

So Dan, answer me this: if you want to fix the rating/slope system for shorter hitters, fix it for me. By the USGA's definition in terms of distance, I'm a scratch player: I can hit a drive 250 yards and hit a second shot 220 yards. I did that multiple times last week. But my handicap is above 9, well above a scratch player, because I'm not very accurate with my shots. How should the system be tweaked for a player like me? I want it to be more fair so that my handicap travels too. I shouldn't be left out because I'm not a shorter hitter. Isn't that the logic here?

 

[Canadan]

So Dan, answer me this: if you want to fix the rating/slope system for shorter hitters, fix it for me. By the USGA's definition in terms of distance, I'm a scratch player: I can hit a drive 250 yards and hit a second shot 220 yards. I did that multiple times last week. But my handicap is above 9, well above a scratch player, because I'm not very accurate with my shots. How should the system be tweaked for a player like me? I want it to be more fair so that my handicap travels too. I shouldn't be left out because I'm not a shorter hitter. Isn't that the logic here?

It would certainly factor in for you, once you surpass your tee it forward threshold for distance ability off the tee. Just as I've mentioned, this is about going backwards from ideal tee boxes, NOT forward. It's why I have zero issue on most courses I play, because my distance allows for the proper transfer of stroke + expectation.

 

[Mulligan9111]

Your sample size is of 1 does little to inspire confidence. I can tell you after hosting hundreds upon hundreds of THPers at events both around the country and locally, Canadan is dead right. Its an ongoing issue and its something that has been addressed to the pope of slope himself. Everybody knows its an issue.

That's cool for you guys. I have different experiences and it's not just a sample size of 1. I worked in the pro shop of a country club for 8 years and worked many different events (setting up the scorecards and scoring for the majority of the events) which were handicapped (Pro Ams, interclub events, weekly leagues, monthly stags and breakfast events, etc.) and never once did anybody complain about their handicap with relation to distance.

This doesn't make me any more right than anybody else, however I'm not just talking out my rear either. Sounds like we all have different experiences from one another.

 

[JB]

That's cool for you guys. I have different experiences and it's not just a sample size of 1. I worked in the pro shop of a country club for 8 years and worked many different events (setting up the scorecards and scoring for the majority of the events) which were handicapped (Pro Ams, interclub events, weekly leagues, monthly stags and breakfast events, etc.) and never once did anybody complain about their handicap with relation to distance.

This doesn't make me any more right than anybody else, however I'm not just talking out my rear either. Sounds like we all have different experiences from one another.

Wow. Not a single time in years a person ever complained about distance in relation to handicap? I work with courses all over the country and not a single time have I ever heard that. Never. I mean no disrespect here, but I find that unfathomable. Perhaps people just didnt share their feelings. Distance is the most talked about thing in golf and as it relates to tees is the most talked about thing after course conditions in tournaments.

Oh well, it is what it is...

 

[Dave Alvarado]

I don't know how far you hit the ball, so I have no basis to go off....

But I'll tell you what, if you're playing True Blue from the tips, hell, if I play true blue from the tips, I'm going to need a lot more than a couple strokes to shoot par. Zero roll there.

And that's fair, I've never been. If the course or slope rating is off for both of us, then I'm right with you to say something needs to be fixed. If it's more off for you because you hit longer than me, then definitely I'm right there with you. I just don't have the experience to know. But this guy...

Your sample size is of 1 does little to inspire confidence. I can tell you after hosting hundreds upon hundreds of THPers at events both around the country and locally, Canadan is dead right. Its an ongoing issue and its something that has been addressed to the pope of slope himself. Everybody knows its an issue.

...if he's seeing the same thing, I'll just shut up and agree with you all because you'd definitely know better than I would. I like the idea of the handicap system--it's a little complicated, but when I wrap my head around it I see how it's probably the best you can do. If the algorithm or ratings need to be tweaked, that's fine too. It seems like some of this could be fixed just on the back end--you don't necessarily need to re-rate all the courses, you maybe just need to change your assumptions when calculating personal handicaps for a given tee box on a given course. My hunch based on my whole one person's worth of experience being a crap golfer is that the distance averages may not be too far off, but I bet the standard deviation is much different than it was 50 years ago.

 

[Canadan]

And that's fair, I've never been. If the course or slope rating is off for both of us, then I'm right with you to say something needs to be fixed. If it's more off for you because you hit longer than me, then definitely I'm right there with you. I just don't have the experience to know. But this guy...

I think you're missing the point of why I'd need additional strokes. Based on tee it forward, that length is out of my capabilities. It strengthens my reasoning around supporting distance based handicaps.

No different is that experience that what I've explained in the thread already. You move past your tee it forward distance, and your handicap changes dramatically (if acquired from the longer tees).

 

[Dave Alvarado]

I think you're missing the point of why I'd need additional strokes. Based on tee it forward, that length is out of my capabilities. It strengthens my reasoning around supporting distance based handicaps.

No different is that experience that what I've explained in the thread already. You move past your tee it forward distance, and your handicap changes dramatically (if acquired from the longer tees).

The course rating is different by 4 strokes, with an additional distance of 751 yards. The USGA expectation for you is that if you moved from the white tees to the blacks, you'd shoot on average 4 strokes higher. Maybe that's where they've messed it up--I have no doubt that you can move a ball 751 yards with 4 shots if we were in a great big grassy field. But that seems like a way over-simplified way of looking at it. You're really making each hole 42 yards longer, and depending on the course layout that could add way more than 4 strokes over the course of a round.

 

[Mulligan9111]

Wow. Not a single time in years a person ever complained about distance in relation to handicap? I work with courses all over the country and not a single time have I ever heard that. Never. I mean no disrespect here, but I find that unfathomable. Perhaps people just didnt share their feelings. Distance is the most talked about thing in golf and as it relates to tees is the most talked about thing after course conditions in tournaments.

Oh well, it is what it is...

Not once. About the only thing that we ever got questioned on (outside of whether a golfer was truly a certain handicap) was why their handicap was higher/lower than their index. I stopped working at the golf course in 2009, so unless this a new thing from the past 6 years, it was never an issue at any of the events I was a part of (and it's well over 200). Although, even in my weekly games this issue never comes up and I play with guys of all sorts of distances.

Again, we must have very different experiences.

 

[tbanks5]

So I'm just going to jump in and pose this question/fix....I could be way off but I could see somewhat of a solution here in my mind. So distance is the issue and a handicap doesn't travel between tees moving backwards mainly because of the added distance if you are a short hitter. I think that is your overall argument.

My fix: (This is if you drive the ball 250 yards)

If you establish your handicap from tournament tees (gold) at 7000 yards: Your handicap would be official. For example a handicap of 10.

If you establish your handicap from (blue) forward tees at 6600 yards: Now you move back to gold. Your new handicap is 10 + 4 (due to the 400 yard increase)

If you establish your handicap from (white) forward tees at 6200 yards: Now you move back to gold. Your new handicap is 10 + 8 (due to the 800 yard increase)

This adds a 1 handicap increase per 100 yards (Only for 250 plus hitters)
Maybe add 1.5 handicap increase per 100 yards (Only for 230 yard hitters)
Maybe add a 2 handicap increase per 100 yards (Only for 210 and under yard hitters)

Is this where you are going? My mind sees this as a potential solution. I don't know how it would be enforced though

*Please feel free to throw this idea out the window if it doesn't make sense.

 

[Canadan]

I like it tbanks, but I think the system that would be implemented would have to be higher level than that to where it's not just "X" strokes per 100 yards.

Something to where you combine handicap + slope/rating + average driver distance, and the efforts by the golfer are no different than putting your current index into GHIN for a slope rating on a course you're unfamiliar with.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

Wow. Not a single time in years a person ever complained about distance in relation to handicap? I work with courses all over the country and not a single time have I ever heard that. Never. I mean no disrespect here, but I find that unfathomable. Perhaps people just didnt share their feelings. Distance is the most talked about thing in golf and as it relates to tees is the most talked about thing after course conditions in tournaments.

Oh well, it is what it is...

I agree JB. I work at my home course at times and have for years, and it is topic #1 with most major events. The biggie for us is that in the club championship, the men (50 years old and younger) have always played the longest setup possible, tees as far back as possible, and then the seniors (50 to age 70) have always played these same tees. Most seniors stop playing. The next forward set of tees were always saved for super senior's (Over 70) and then the ladies.

The past few years there has been a huge drop off in "senior's" playing because of the length. Course finally wised up and added a set of tees for the championships.

 

[golfinFF]

This thread has been fascinating to read and Dan I thank you for starting it and the rest for participating in it.

Here is my take- distance is an advantage weather it's off the tee or not- example my 9i will be more accurate on average than most hitting a 5i if that's the right club from X-yds.

We often see two ratings for the shorter tees a men's and a ladies tee and often even see a discrepancy in what par is on that hole 4vs5 this is based off distance on average each should hit the ball.

A course near me has recommended tees based on how far you drive the ball, which should be more like what club/distance can you keep in play 70-80% of the time then play X-tees.

So why not rate/slope tee boxes based off several averages of distance you can play off the tee and keep in play?

Example- 160-180 190-210yds, 220-240yds, 250-270, 290+

Those in the middle decide where they want to be placed so 215 says I want to be HC via the 190-210 slope/rating or the 220-240yds slope rating sure they'll have a slight advantage at 190-210 vs 220-240 but it's more fair than what we have now.

So if each tee box is evaluated and given a index based off yardage that is driven or can be controlled than when moving from tee to tee should the strokes should be adjusted more fairly.

Say my longest club I can control is a 5wd and I hit 210 then that's what my HC is based on even though my driver is 240 but is all over the place and gets me OB or in the crap often and cost me strokes. This factors in for those tight courses or and won't give too much away on more open courses.

My errant driver hinders my scores and artificially inflates my HC in my opinion cause if I wasn't a knucklehead and would play 4i or hybo off the tee I could shave and easy 8 strokes off my HC. I've played with a 4i only off the tee or hybo and the scores are dramatically different from the same yardage.

Just my thoughts

 

[McLovin]

are we trying to figure out whether the current usga rating system is flawed? i can't think of anybody who would be a higher handicap if they played more forward tees, and i know most people (myself included) post higher numbers when we move back a set of tees. so doesn't that logically mean that it's working the way it should? i guess i'm missing the point of why we're questioning whether the system is flawed.