Course & Slope Rating discussion points

[rulefan]

Who says a bogey golfer only hits it X distance and the bunkers or in play? Who says the scratch golfer only hits it Y distance. All variables and utter nonsense. One of my playing partners carries his hybrid longer than my driver! We all know handicap golfers who hit it longer than scratch golfers.

Studies made by the USGA of thousands of shots. The most recent study showed that average straight driving length of scratch players has increased by 4 yards in the last 10 years. Of course longer off centre drives run the risk of 'obstacles'.

Why only assess size and depth of a bunker and not the condition, sand, amount of sand that's also a huge variable.

'sand conditions' may qualify for an adjustment to the table rating.

Phycological effect of the hole - geez peace certain holes suit someone's eye while it won't suit another person..

The text in the manual is rather more specific that you imply

Last week at The Machrie strong winds coming from a different direction every day. Assess the average wind and direction. Not possible without introducing huge variables.

Again the text together with proper training and experience help.

Roll, dogleg, forced lay up all decided by a pathetic outdated system that is inaccurate, by deciding X golfer only hits it a determined length introduces a variable based on perception not actual fact.

see above and the studies which have been done re stroke distance (not only by the USGA but other bodies including EG)

The system dismisses the fact that golfers will take risks, can carry the ball way longer than the pre determined outdated distance the "rating" uses.

Risks are taken for rewards. But getting it wrong risks a penalty.

 

[Jacko_G]

Studies made by the USGA of thousands of shots. The most recent study showed that average straight driving length of scratch players has increased by 4 yards in the last 10 years. Of course longer off centre drives run the risk of 'obstacles'.


'sand conditions' may qualify for an adjustment to the table rating.

The text in the manual is rather more specific that you imply
Again the text together with proper training and experience help.
see above and the studies which have been done re stroke distance (not only by the USGA but other bodies including EG)

Risks are taken for rewards. But getting it wrong risks a penalty.

None of which are a method to ignore or use simply. Its a cocked up pathetic system and the fact that you even try to defend it shows how ingrained it is on the institution.

Not fit for purpose.

 

[Jacko_G]

Also the fact that Greg Norman hits the ball further now in his 70's than he did in his heyday also pours scorn on your 4 yards stat.

I know I'm at least 30 yards longer than I was when I first started using metal woods.

 

[rulefan]

None of which are a method to ignore or use simply. Its a cocked up pathetic system and the fact that you even try to defend it shows how ingrained it is on the institution.

Not fit for purpose.

And your better solution is?

 

[rulefan]

Also the fact that Greg Norman hits the ball further now in his 70's than he did in his heyday also pours scorn on your 4 yards stat.

I know I'm at least 30 yards longer than I was when I first started using metal woods.

When did two people make a reliable sample?

Is Norman a scratch player?
How far do you hit and how often onto the fairway? How many years ago did you start using metal woods?

 

[Jacko_G]

And your better solution is?

Look back and see I've already stated I can't do anything. Sadly its people like you are the problem who act like sheep and accept systems instead of questioning the validity of a failed variable formula.

Incidentally just looked at my stats of my last driver fitting and picked up over 4 yards changing from Cobra to PXG and a different shaft. So I smell ??in your attempt to hide behind a stat.

 

[Jacko_G]

When did two people make a reliable sample?

Is Norman a scratch player?
How far do you hit and how often onto the fairway? How many years ago did you start using metal woods?

Same time as two imaginary golfers who only hit predetermined distances and never take on any shots were used to rate a golf course.

 

[rulefan]

Look back and see I've already stated I can't do anything.

Do you mean you can't because you can't think of an alternative? There is no reason why you shouldn't present your case to the R&A, USGA or anyone else, including this forum. If it's worthwhile they'll look at it.
Just shouting that it's rubbish doesn't help anyone understand your argument.

Q. Why is your suggestion better?
A. Because I say so and the current situation is rubbish.
Q. So what is your suggestion?
A. I won't tell you.

 

[Imurg]

Has the CR been judged in a similar way to the current SSS..?

 

[rosecott]

Do you mean you can't because you can't think of an alternative? There is no reason why you shouldn't present your case to the R&A, USGA or anyone else, including this forum. If it's worthwhile they'll look at it.
Just shouting that it's rubbish doesn't help anyone understand your argument.

Q. Why is your suggestion better?
A. Because I say so and the current situation is rubbish.
Q. So what is your suggestion?
A. I won't tell you.

Have a stiff drink, it's a brick wall.

 

[rulefan]

Has the CR been judged in a similar way to the current SSS..?

For many years, all GB&I courses except England's men's, have been rated under the USGA system but still described as SSS. Those courses were rated using a similar but less sophisticated system but only for scratch players (hence Standard Scratch Score).
A couple of years ago, partly in anticipation of the WHS, virtually all England courses have been rated or rerated. The differences between SSS and CR have been few and generally no more than 1 stroke either way. The rest of CONGU will have rerated according to a rolling schedule or when significant changes have been made to the course.
So SSS is CR rounded.

 

[rulefan]

having raised it at the assessors seminar the response

Did you actually train for and rate many courses?

 

[Rlburnside]

I can understand Jacko reasoning I’ve often thought that the way our course was rated is flawed, we live in one of the windiest places in the uk with no real prevailing wind direction.

It would be very hard to find a average wind speed and find how far a golfer could hit a ball.

As a result I think our course has been rated easier than it actually plays.

When the course was rated they would have walked the course and saw how wide the fairways are at landing points where bunkers ,hazards are, all flawed as it’s all dependent on wind direction and speed on any given day.

To get a more accurate picture it would need a study of weather especially wind speeds over the course of a season, then rate the course more accurately.

 

[SammmeBee]

In mixed comps....if men play from men’s tees and women from women’s tees and the appropriate CRs etc are used. Is there any necessity for courtesy shots’ for the men or the women?

 

[rulefan]

In mixed comps....if men play from men’s tees and women from women’s tees and the appropriate CRs etc are used. Is there any necessity for courtesy shots’ for the men or the women?

So called 'courtesy shots' were abolished years ago. They were/are formally built into the CONGU and now WHS systems.

CONGU Appendix O
WHS Rule 6.2

 

[SammmeBee]

So called 'courtesy shots' were abolished years ago. They were/are formally built into the CONGU and now WHS systems.

CONGU Appendix O
WHS Rule 6.2

So is that no course equalisation/playing adjustment strokes are required now in WHS?

They were/are under current CONGU rules but am unsure now if slope/CR etc negates any need for any adjustments to be made if different golfers play from different tees.......

 

[rulefan]

I can understand Jacko reasoning I’ve often thought that the way our course was rated is flawed, we live in one of the windiest places in the uk with no real prevailing wind direction.

It would be very hard to find a average wind speed and find how far a golfer could hit a ball.

As a result I think our course has been rated easier than it actually plays.

When the course was rated they would have walked the course and saw how wide the fairways are at landing points where bunkers ,hazards are, all flawed as it’s all dependent on wind direction and speed on any given day.

To get a more accurate picture it would need a study of weather especially wind speeds over the course of a season, then rate the course more accurately.

Fortunately I've not had to rate any coastal links courses but I know raters who have to deal with Scotland and the Lancashire coast have plenty of experience and multi direction winds are treated appropriately. Wind has it's own special mention in the raters' 'bible'. But your club can always appeal it's rating.
Can you tell me the length and current rating?

 

[nickjdavis]

So is that no course equalisation/playing adjustment strokes are required now in WHS?

....

Course equalisation/playing adjustment strokes will still be a part of the WHS.

 

[Rlburnside]

Fortunately I've not had to rate any coastal links courses but I know raters who have to deal with Scotland and the Lancashire coast have plenty of experience and multi direction winds are treated appropriately. Wind has it's own special mention in the raters' 'bible'. But your club can always appeal it's rating.
Can you tell me the length and current rating?

Thanks, I would be interested in how the raters treat multi directional wind, I’m probably one of the very few at my club that has given this any thought and would not give any thought to try to encourage any appeal, it is what it is.

Our current course rating is 70.5 and slope rating is 118- par 71, 6152 yards long.

 

[Jacko_G]

Have a stiff drink, it's a brick wall.

Simply because I refuse to wear a blazer, stink of pish and accept a flawed system.

You're clueless and effective as the the rating.