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.

 

[rulefan]

A course rater goes to an away course and thinks it’s rated wrong.

Did he actually measure anything?

 

[D-S]

Did he actually measure anything?

Nope, the only measured element was the length, as it is a measured course. All the rest, including view on effective length were just opinions, although I have backed them with descriptions.

Still would like to know if there are many sea level flat golf courses at 6,716 yards with a rating of 71.1 or less in the UK.

 

[NearHull]

I asked Giggle.

Based on available course data, here are UK golf courses with a championship or white-tee length of 6,800 yards or more that have a course rating (CR) of approximately 71 or less, or are noted for playing "long but fair" with a moderate rating relative to their length:

• Spey Valley Golf Club (Aviemore, Scotland): A 7,153-yard course (white tees) designed by Dave Thomas that is highly regarded for its scenery but often rated as a manageable test despite its length, with a par of 72.
• Ladybank Golf Club (Fife, Scotland): Measures almost 6,800 yards from the championship tees. It is known for hosting Open Championship qualifiers and features a par-71 layout, often playing to a moderate, rather than extreme, rating due to its classic heathland design.
• Forest Park Golf Club (Old Foss Course, York): The 18-hole Old Foss Course is 6,673-6,800+ yards depending on specific competition set-ups, frequently featuring a Par 71 or 72. It is noted for long, flat fairways that are relatively forgiving, often resulting in a lower rating (around 71-72 SSS) relative to its length.
• Essendon Country Club (Old Course, Hertfordshire): Features a 6,800+ yard par-72 course that is described as a "picturesque, undulating parkland course".
• Wales National Course (Vale Resort, South Wales): Stretches to nearly 7,500 yards. While it is a monster in length, it is designed for a variety of golfers, meaning its rating often sits below 72/73 depending on tee placement.
• Hainault Golf Club (The London Course, Essex): Features a 6,480-yard course (par 72) with a Course Rating of 71.3. While slightly under the 6800 limit, it is frequently cited in the context of "long, open courses" that are not as difficult as their yardage might suggest

The response isn’t quite accurate to the question posed - but that’s Giggle for you. I have played Forest Park , it is wide open and a bit featureless.

 

[rulefan]

I have played Forest Park , it is wide open and a bit featureless.

I agree

 

[clubchamp98]

Did he actually measure anything?

He was playing golf.

That’s how you find out how hard a course is imo.
Not with a tape measure!

 

[wjemather]

He was playing golf.

That’s how you find out how hard a course is imo.
Not with a tape measure!

You are only going to find out how hard it is subjectively for YOU on that specific day.

You are not an indicator of difficulty for anyone other than yourself. Plus, course setup and conditions vary greatly, as does your ability.

The only objective measure of difficulty is through actual measurements and assigning values to all the various features.

 

[D-S]

I asked Giggle.

Based on available course data, here are UK golf courses with a championship or white-tee length of 6,800 yards or more that have a course rating (CR) of approximately 71 or less, or are noted for playing "long but fair" with a moderate rating relative to their length:

• Spey Valley Golf Club (Aviemore, Scotland): A 7,153-yard course (white tees) designed by Dave Thomas that is highly regarded for its scenery but often rated as a manageable test despite its length, with a par of 72.
• Ladybank Golf Club (Fife, Scotland): Measures almost 6,800 yards from the championship tees. It is known for hosting Open Championship qualifiers and features a par-71 layout, often playing to a moderate, rather than extreme, rating due to its classic heathland design.
• Forest Park Golf Club (Old Foss Course, York): The 18-hole Old Foss Course is 6,673-6,800+ yards depending on specific competition set-ups, frequently featuring a Par 71 or 72. It is noted for long, flat fairways that are relatively forgiving, often resulting in a lower rating (around 71-72 SSS) relative to its length.
• Essendon Country Club (Old Course, Hertfordshire): Features a 6,800+ yard par-72 course that is described as a "picturesque, undulating parkland course".
• Wales National Course (Vale Resort, South Wales): Stretches to nearly 7,500 yards. While it is a monster in length, it is designed for a variety of golfers, meaning its rating often sits below 72/73 depending on tee placement.
• Hainault Golf Club (The London Course, Essex): Features a 6,480-yard course (par 72) with a Course Rating of 71.3. While slightly under the 6800 limit, it is frequently cited in the context of "long, open courses" that are not as difficult as their yardage might suggest

The response isn’t quite accurate to the question posed - but that’s Giggle for you. I have played Forest Park , it is wide open and a bit featureless.

By a quick scan your post makes my point entirely.
Forest Park, CR 72.7 slope 136 is 40yards shorter than the course I described, CR is 1.7 more and 10 slope points more and it is featureless.
Essendon Park whites 200 yards shorter CR 0.4 shots higher, 2 slope points higher.
Ladybank medal tees 100 yards shorter, 2.5 shots higher CR, 7 slope points higher.
I could go on…
My question still stands “Still would like to know if there are many sea level flat golf courses at 6,716 yards with a rating of 71.1 or less in the UK.”

 

[D-S]

You are only going to find out how hard it is subjectively for YOU on that specific day.

You are not an indicator of difficulty for anyone other than yourself. Plus, course setup and conditions vary greatly, as does your ability.

The only objective measure of difficulty is through actual measurements and assigning values to all the various features.

Oddly enough and most importantly I never said how difficult I found the course.
My comments had nothing to do with my ability on given days. I was not using myself in any way as an indicator of difficulty.
My comments directly referred to elements that are key to the Course Rating process. The most important one being measured length (and effective length which I also commented on), as well as obstacles, green shape and speed.

 

[cliveb]

The only objective measure of difficulty is through actual measurements and assigning values to all the various features.

Measuring stuff and plugging the figures into a formula is certainly objective.

However, you have to acknowledge that:
a) The powers that be who decided which features need to be measured must have done so somewhat subjectively
b) The creation of the formula that assigns importance to the measured features will have been somewhat subjective
c) The raters who go out to measure courses might conceivably make mistakes on occasion

The system can't be assumed to be perfect, even if it's the best we've got.