Course & Slope Rating discussion points

[rulefan]

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.......

See the reference to Rule 6.2 in the WHS where is tells you how it is done in WHS

 

[rulefan]

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.

Give the length I would say an allowance has been given for the wind effect

 

[brfcfan]

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

Couldn't agree with you more Jacko. Our course is slope 137, which is utter nonsense. Yes it might be in the winter but in the summer the straight short hitters have a field day.

The course rating methodology is a joke, they are trying to make something scientific when its impossible to do so.

Surely looking at the 1000's of rounds played at a particular course by different categories of golfers over the last 5-10 years would have been a better way of rating a course?

 

[ExRabbit]

Couldn't agree with you more Jacko. Our course is slope 137, which is utter nonsense. Yes it might be in the winter but in the summer the straight short hitters have a field day.

The course rating methodology is a joke, they are trying to make something scientific when its impossible to do so.

Surely looking at the 1000's of rounds played at a particular course by different categories of golfers over the last 5-10 years would have been a better way of rating a course?

Very good point! And it wouldn't have cost so much.

 

[upsidedown]

Couldn't agree with you more Jacko. Our course is slope 137, which is utter nonsense. Yes it might be in the winter but in the summer the straight short hitters have a field day.

The course rating methodology is a joke, they are trying to make something scientific when its impossible to do so.

Surely looking at the 1000's of rounds played at a particular course by different categories of golfers over the last 5-10 years would have been a better way of rating a course?

Very good point! And it wouldn't have cost so much.

The course I was at in NZ under their version of WHS was re rated in around 2011 on the evidence of rounds played there , it was rated higher . Hopefully something similar is down the line

 

[jim8flog]

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.

I know, nearly reaching the same age, my driver length has remained pretty consistent but that is just one club in the bag. However I am now 40 yards shorter with my irons like for like shaft and loft on an iron.

So whilst the drive maybe the same diifficult the second or sots on par 3s have become more difficult.

I have no arguments against the course ratings given to our club and all the extra driver length would merely mean that your ball would be deeper in to the rough on most holes here.

But one course is not sufficient to go by.

 

[jim8flog]

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?

As per Rule Fan. Yes if the figures say so

and it maybe a different number of shots depending on the format handicap(medal) play or stableford unlike the the UHS which is the same.

 

[rulefan]

The course I was at in NZ under their version of WHS was re rated in around 2011 on the evidence of rounds played there , it was rated higher . Hopefully something similar is down the line

From New Zealand Golf

The New Zealand Golf Course Rating system was introduced on 1 September 2000, following numerous trials, and the inadequacies of the previous system. New Zealand Golf has a license agreement with the USGA to use both the Course Rating and Handicap System, and believes this to be the most advanced and fairest system available today.

 

[rulefan]

Couldn't agree with you more Jacko. Our course is slope 137, which is utter nonsense. Yes it might be in the winter but in the summer the straight short hitters have a field day.

The course rating methodology is a joke, they are trying to make something scientific when its impossible to do so.

Surely looking at the 1000's of rounds played at a particular course by different categories of golfers over the last 5-10 years would have been a better way of rating a course?

Do you really understand what Slope means? If so why didn't you mention the Course Rating?

 

[rulefan]

Surely looking at the 1000's of rounds played at a particular course by different categories of golfers over the last 5-10 years would have been a better way of rating a course?

So how would you assign a rating to a new course?

 

[rulefan]

I wouldn't suggest that the USGA rating is perfect but would ask the gainsayers to specify just what a better system would be.

 

[Rlburnside]

Give the length I would say an allowance has been given for the wind effect

Although ours is not a long course i think it plays 300-350 yards longer because we get very little run even in summer and the wind effect, I always think it’s like playing a extra par 4.

I do wonder how much weather conditions are taken into account when rating a course, imo for our course it should be given number 1 priority well ahead of any other considerations when rating, we are at the extreme end of the scale with wind conditions.

What would you say would be the average rating for a course that would be 350-400 yards longer than ours.

 

[rulefan]

Although ours is not a long course i think it plays 300-350 yards longer because we get very little run even in summer and the wind effect, I always think it’s like playing a extra par 4.

I do wonder how much weather conditions are taken into account when rating a course, imo for our course it should be given number 1 priority well ahead of any other considerations when rating, we are at the extreme end of the scale with wind conditions.

What would you say would be the average rating for a course that would be 350-400 yards longer than ours.

I really need to know more but 70-71 ish with reservations

 

[Rlburnside]

I really need to know more but 70-71 ish with reservations

Thanks for your input, so how could a course much longer than ours have broadly have the same rating.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks for your input, so how could a course much longer than ours have broadly have the same rating.

Because of the presence or absence of all the other elements that go into a rating.