Course Rating

[D-S]

I'd guess massively wide fairways, minimal rough and huge greens?

Huge greens yes, extreme rough in play yes, semi no.
Without measuring the landing zones , obviously, a lot were bordered by deep bunkers/was the areas (flights of steps down into the bunkers on some fairways), so tricky to quantify, however there was no semi; you were either on the fairway or in a deep bunker.

Interestingly I just checked Cleeve Hill which has wide fairways and minimal rough, albeit with quite small slow greens and their rating is 72.2, slope 128 length 6512. I remeber doing the rating last year, took us 3 tries due to fog coming in every time.

 

[clubchamp98]

One for the people who think that length is all in Course Rating and maybe for those who don’t believe in the universality of Course Ratings around the world in WHS.

I played Saadiyat Beach GC in Abu Dhabi today, I played from the Blue Tees, measuring 6,716 yards, the course is at sea level (the clue is in the name).
It has hundreds of bunkers and large waste areas all bordered by dense long clumps of local seaside grasses.
It has a lot of long carries, water is in play on many holes and there are some forced lay ups.
The greens are very fast and undulating.
The CR is 71.1 and the Slope is 126, very similar to my course at home off the 63 tees. Saadiyat is over350 yards longer and has way more trouble in strategic areas as well as far trickier greens than you will see at any/most UK courses.

If that was your home club, your handicap would be significantly higher.

If the rating team that I am a member of looked at it we would seriously question it.

What would be your best guess at this rating if done by your team.?

 

[D-S]

What would be your best guess at this rating if done by your team.?

Incredibly difficult to guess but given the length, amount of bunkering, green speeds, water in play etc. I would be amazed if it came in under 72 even given wide fairways.
Just another comparison another local course to me of a similar but slightly shorter length (6657 vs 6716) has a CR of 73.0 and a less relevant slope of 129.

Either way it does show that obviously, contrary to what many might say, length isn’t everything, in course rating terms at least.

 

[KenL]

Our course is due a re-rating in the summer. 6597 off the back tees. 100 bunkers, sea in play on several holes as is an oob wall on 6 holes.
Par 71. Current CR is 72.3. Slope is 128 or 129.
Very interested to see what will happen.

 

[cliveb]

Incredibly difficult to guess but given the length, amount of bunkering, green speeds, water in play etc. I would be amazed if it came in under 72 even given wide fairways.
Just another comparison another local course to me of a similar but slightly shorter length (6657 vs 6716) has a CR of 73.0 and a less relevant slope of 129.

Either way it does show that obviously, contrary to what many might say, length isn’t everything, in course rating terms at least.

Maybe, but in this case you say that this course has lots of hazardous features.
If they were being taken properly into account, you'd expect that to increase the CR.
And yet this course has a lower CR than you'd expect based only on the length.
The only explanation which seems to make sense is that whoever rated the course got something wrong.

 

[wjemather]

Maybe, but in this case you say that this course has lots of hazardous features.
If they were being taken properly into account, you'd expect that to increase the CR.
And yet this course has a lower CR than you'd expect based only on the length.
The only explanation which seems to make sense is that whoever rated the course got something wrong.

It's far from the only explanation.
A lower CR is to be expected on courses with massive fairways and greens as most of the obstacles are a long way from the target (the centre of the fairway/green) and much less of an issue for the scratch golfer as a result.

 

[cliveb]

It's far from the only explanation.
A lower CR is to be expected on courses with massive fairways and greens as most of the obstacles are a long way from the target (the centre of the fairway/green) and much less of an issue for the scratch golfer as a result.

Except that this is what D-S said about the course:

I played Saadiyat Beach GC in Abu Dhabi today, I played from the Blue Tees, measuring 6,716 yards, the course is at sea level (the clue is in the name).
It has hundreds of bunkers and large waste areas all bordered by dense long clumps of local seaside grasses.
It has a lot of long carries, water is in play on many holes and there are some forced lay ups.
The greens are very fast and undulating.
The CR is 71.1 and the Slope is 126, very similar to my course at home off the 63 tees. Saadiyat is over350 yards longer and has way more trouble in strategic areas as well as far trickier greens than you will see at any/most UK courses.

That sounds to me as if he's saying it's a difficult course.

 

[wjemather]

Except that this is what D-S said about the course:

That sounds to me as if he's saying it's a difficult course.

Perceptions vary greatly. Measured variables don't.

 

[IanM]

Ah, for the old days of, "my handicap travels well!"

Now we have, "our course rating is far too low!"

 

[D-S]

Played the course again today. Admittedly a bit windier, it is by the sea.
The greens are all either severely sloping or moderate sloping, none are relatively flat. In layman’s terms every green is 3 putt country.

If it was featureless, wide, no severe rough, no bunkers, no water, no long carries, large very flat, slow greens the 71.1 CR might just about be ok if low, but given the fact that none often above are true I still think there is something wrong.

Maybe there are a lot of 6700 yard plus courses out there with a 71.1 rating or less - I would be keen to hear about them.

 

[clubchamp98]

So to sum up.
A course rater goes to an away course and thinks it’s rated wrong.
Gives his reasons why he has got this opinion.
But the WHS boys think his opinion is wrong, without even seeing said course.

Couldn’t make it up.