Course & Slope Rating discussion points

[BubbaP]

Trying hard not to mention those 3 letters ?

Most of us are familiar with the old "handicap travels well" comment for various courses on the old system. What are people's views on the preferable outcome on what is ultimately a partly subjective set of ratings?
Plenty of people posting high ratings like a "badge of honour" out in social media world, but might it actually be preferable to play regularly on a course that is a little "under rated"?

Finally any courses that you've seen and know, and thought that doesn't seem right?

Burford, which is a favourite of a few forum members, seems to have raised a few eyebrows locally.

White, Par 71, CR 71.4, Slope 134

I've not played it enough, or off comp tees to have a view myself.

 

[TheJezster]

I play at Wimbledon Common and our course is short but extremely tree lined and very hard to get a handicap cut with the CSS being 66 to our par 68. Our new slope is 107 for the mens. One of our closest rivals, Mitcham, is a similarly lengthed course (slightly longer) with the same playability, but far far easier and it would be quicker to get handicap cuts there. I've just found out that their slope is 131!!!!

This seems crazy to me. Every time I play there I'll add a card for handicap and have an extremely good chance it'll count as one of my 8!

Haven't really looked at many others as I was happy to just see what happens so to speak. I'll just play the course I'm on, the handicap will take care of itself. But this difference seems, well, wrong to be honest

 

[jim8flog]

Burnham and Berrow yellow tees compared to our yellow tees both are Slope 124 We play a regular seniors match against them and I used to play quite a few of their Opens and invitational competitions.

I was assuming when all this came I might get a couple of extra shots in matches when playing there.

It may be that theirs was done some years ago.

 

[merv79]

Burnham and Berrow yellow tees compared to our yellow tees both are Slope 124 We play a regular seniors match against them and I used to play quite a few of their Opens and invitational competitions.

I was assuming when all this came I might get a couple of extra shots in matches when playing there.

It may be that theirs was done some years ago.

I dont quite fully understand this all yet as not been following it too closely but surely you would get extra shots wouldnt you?

My understanding is that the slope only gives an indication of the total difference between a scratch and 18/20 handicap golfers score, so the higher the slope means margin between a scratch and 18/20 is higher. Yeovil has yellow course rating of 1.6 under par and B&B is 1.3 over par for a scratch golfer, so surely you cant receive the same number of shots on both courses?

 

[doublebogey7]

I dont quite fully understand this all yet as not been following it too closely but surely you would get extra shots wouldnt you?

My understanding is that the slope only gives an indication of the total difference between a scratch and 18/20 handicap golfers score, so the higher the slope means margin between a scratch and 18/20 is higher. Yeovil has yellow course rating of 1.6 under par and B&B is 1.3 over par for a scratch golfer, so surely you cant receive the same number of shots on both courses?

Yes you can, Course rating is not part of the Course Handicap calculation. Though at the lower rated course you would need fewer Stableford Points to play to your handicap.

 

[badgergm]

It's not part of the calculation on the day, but is critical in handicap index calculation going forwards.

If the course rating at Yeovil has gone down as compared to old SSS/CSS and the course rating at B+B has gone up as compared to old SSS/CSS then as course ratings start to be used Yeovil handicaps will go up and B&B handicaps will go down.

However my understanding is that course ratings have been pretty consistent with respect to SSS?

 

[rosecott]

Yes you can, Course rating is not part of the Course Handicap calculation. Though at the lower rated course you would need fewer Stableford Points to play to your handicap.

I think that is a somewhat misleading statement. Course Handicap Tables relate specifically to the course rating for the course being played.

 

[doublebogey7]

I think that is a somewhat misleading statement. Course Handicap Tables relate specifically to the course rating for the course being played.

I think your mixing Course Rating with Slope Rating.

 

[IanM]

Though at the lower rated course you would need fewer Stableford Points to play to your handicap.

This is the bit I m struggling with...

 

[doublebogey7]

This is the bit I m struggling with...

But its no different from how your CONGU works.

 

[IanM]

But its no different from how your CONGU works.

So, in effect you mean what was previously the effect of CSS on handicap amendments? On a lower rated course, you get few shots... but wouldn't "par" still be 36 points... i.e. 2 point per hole. What am I missing?

 

[doublebogey7]

So, in effect you mean what was previously the effect of CSS on handicap amendments? On a lower rated course, you get few shots... but wouldn't "par" still be 36 points... i.e. 2 point per hole. What am I missing?

You are mixing up playing to handicap and playing to Par they are not and never have been the same thing. 36 points is par, playing to handicap varies depending on, CSS under CONGU, CR +/- PCA under WHS.

 

[IanM]

Which is what I said in the first have of the sentence, so thanks for confirming.

PCA? Is that a typo for PCC, or another term that I've missed??

 

[Ethan]

If you imagine plotting a graph of the expected score for players of different handicaps, you would see a line rising from the scratch player to the complete duffer. The steepness of that line is the slope, in other words the gradient of increasing difficulty with handicap. Some courses are very playable to the scratch player but murder to the 20 handicapper, say a course that has hazards needing a 240 carry, or hills that give you an extra 30 yards run if you can carry it a long way (like the 15th at Augusta). That sort of course will have a high slope. On the other hand, a course which has tight treelined fairways and dog legs at 230 yards rob some of the advantage for the scratch player, so that course might well have a lower slope.

The actual slope number is calculated using a formula based on the difference between the course rating and bogey rating. It should be exactly the same for two courses which have the same course and bogey ratings.

 

[rulefan]

It's not part of the calculation on the day, but is critical in handicap index calculation going forwards.

If the course rating at Yeovil has gone down as compared to old SSS/CSS and the course rating at B+B has gone up as compared to old SSS/CSS then as course ratings start to be used Yeovil handicaps will go up and B&B handicaps will go down.

However my understanding is that course ratings have been pretty consistent with respect to SSS?

For the last couple of years, as courses have been rated, the SSS is set to the rounded value of the Course Rating. They are therefore the same.
The CSS is simply the SSS/CR with a competition course condition factor applied.

 

[rulefan]

CR +/- PCC under WHS.

Playing Conditions Calculation.

Call me a pedant if you wish. I am.

 

[IanM]

Playing Conditions Calculation.

Which is what I said in the first have of the sentence, so thanks for confirming.

PCA? Is that a typo for PCC, or another term that I've missed??

..See, I have been listening!

 

[jim8flog]

I dont quite fully understand this all yet as not been following it too closely but surely you would get extra shots wouldnt you?

My understanding is that the slope only gives an indication of the total difference between a scratch and 18/20 handicap golfers score, so the higher the slope means margin between a scratch and 18/20 is higher. Yeovil has yellow course rating of 1.6 under par and B&B is 1.3 over par for a scratch golfer, so surely you cant receive the same number of shots on both courses?

Course Rating is totally irrelevant in match play and to competition winners. It is only relevant to changes in handicap.

My Handicap Index is the same at both courses and both courses have the same Slope Rating, therefore my Playing Handicap is the same at both courses.

 

[Grant85]

Trying hard not to mention those 3 letters ?

Most of us are familiar with the old "handicap travels well" comment for various courses on the old system. What are people's views on the preferable outcome on what is ultimately a partly subjective set of ratings?
Plenty of people posting high ratings like a "badge of honour" out in social media world, but might it actually be preferable to play regularly on a course that is a little "under rated"?

Finally any courses that you've seen and know, and thought that doesn't seem right?

Burford, which is a favourite of a few forum members, seems to have raised a few eyebrows locally.

White, Par 71, CR 71.4, Slope 134

I've not played it enough, or off comp tees to have a view myself.

Ultimately the 'handicap travels well' courses will be much fewer and number as those players will have lower actual handicaps, but add on a shot or two round their own course.

There will still be anomalies, or things raters have missed out or not factored in both directions. Maybe things like prevailing wind or a well draining course with loads of run compared to a similar course with softer ground and no run for much of the year.

And even saying that, the day of play adjustment could / should still correct those anomalies slightly.

As an 18 handicap, I'd take anyone on in matchplay around a shorter course and really fancy my chances. My 18 shots will go much further and I can make a load of risk free net pars, forcing a lower player to take on every shot. But tee off at a longer championship course and I'm going to struggle to even make too many net pars.

with the new system I might only get 16 shots round a short course, but 20 at an Open Qualifying venue type place. In my view much fairer.

 

[rulefan]

things raters have missed out or not factored in both directions. Maybe things like prevailing wind or a well draining course with loads of run compared to a similar course with softer ground and no run for much of the year.

Those factors are specific parts of the rating assessment process. Unlikely to be missed as boxes have to be completed with values not just ticks.