CR and Slope - are some courses harder than others? And other course difficulty discussion

[D-S]

While possible to theorise based on a report, further evidence would be needed - I'd hope there is a process!
Unfortunately, within a club, commercial/vanity interests of owners/members often get priority.

Sadly the only process I know is when clubs check with the County re course set up or when they are advised about it in seminars etc. There is no system where the county regularly inspects course set up for conformance. Maybe there should be as it is a key part of the system, especially now with the amount of GP scores being entered. Perhaps some clubs try to conform when there is a comp on, but these days it need to be every day unless the tees are turned off in the portal.

 

[wjemather]

Sadly the only process I know is when clubs check with the County re course set up or when they are advised about it in seminars etc. There is no system where the county regularly inspects course set up for conformance. Maybe there should be as it is a key part of the system, especially now with the amount of GP scores being entered. Perhaps some clubs try to conform when there is a comp on, but these days it need to be every day unless the tees are turned off in the portal.

This is the only instruction that we've seen - turn the tees off when they do not conform. There simply isn't the resource to have inspections - as such, we are left with reliance on clubs fulfilling their responsibilities and everyone reporting anything that doesn't seem right via the appropriate channel.

 

[rulefan]

we are left with reliance on clubs fulfilling their responsibilities and everyone reporting anything that doesn't seem right via the appropriate channel.

But golf is played and run by honest people - so no problem there

 

[sunshine]

The main factor in rating is length, which is measured independently of the rating but is checked for anomalies; pretty much every other factor you could think of is measured during a rating visit

So does this mean that courses with very tricky greens are likely to play harder (relatively) than the ratings would indicate? What about elevation and fairway roll which impact effective playing length?

- Two courses I play regularly are Berkhamsted and Hadley Wood. Off the white tees they are the same length, CR and SR.
- Berkhamsted is definitely more challenging off the tee, you need to thread it through the hazards, choose your line off the tee carefully due to the doglegs. However, it is also largely flat, the greens are fairly straight forward and as a heathland course the fairways are firm so it plays shorter than the yardage on the card.
- Hadley Wood has generous fairways but due to the elevated greens it plays longer than the yardage suggests. The greens have heavy undulations and are well guarded, if you short side yourself above the hole the course can make you look silly.

How does the rating process deal with this?

I expect to score better at Berkhamsted than Hadley, so do my friends. I recognise that a sample size of 4 is not a comprehensive data set, but in the real world I would expect a scratch golfer to find nearly every green in regulation at both courses but roll in more putts at Berkhamsted so score better.

 

[wjemather]

So does this mean that courses with very tricky greens are likely to play harder (relatively) than the ratings would indicate? What about elevation and fairway roll which impact effective playing length?

- Two courses I play regularly are Berkhamsted and Hadley Wood. Off the white tees they are the same length, CR and SR.
- Berkhamsted is definitely more challenging off the tee, you need to thread it through the hazards, choose your line off the tee carefully due to the doglegs. However, it is also largely flat, the greens are fairly straight forward and as a heathland course the fairways are firm so it plays shorter than the yardage on the card.
- Hadley Wood has generous fairways but due to the elevated greens it plays longer than the yardage suggests. The greens have heavy undulations and are well guarded, if you short side yourself above the hole the course can make you look silly.

How does the rating process deal with this?

I expect to score better at Berkhamsted than Hadley, so do my friends. I recognise that a sample size of 4 is not a comprehensive data set, but in the real world I would expect a scratch golfer to find nearly every green in regulation at both courses but roll in more putts at Berkhamsted so score better.

Greens are measured - dimensions, speed, contours, surrounding features, etc.
Effective (playing) length is calculated using measurements of things like dog-leg and obstacle carries & lay-ups, elevation changes, reduced/extended roll due to slopes or soft/firm ground, etc.

The various features of individual courses can easily result in two differently challenging courses receiving similar ratings. Those different challenges will suit some players but not others and so one course may appear easier than the other to those individuals - other players would likely find the opposite to be true.

Even playing very well scratch golfers are still going to miss at least 3 or 4 greens, probably more; it's very rare occurrence that they hit 'nearly all'.

 

[rulefan]

Greens are measured - dimensions, speed, contours, surrounding features, etc.
Effective (playing) length is calculated using measurements of things like dog-leg and obstacle carries & lay-ups, elevation changes, reduced/extended roll due to slopes or soft/firm ground, etc.

The various features of individual courses can easily result in two differently challenging courses receiving similar ratings. Those different challenges will suit some players but not others and so one course may appear easier than the other to those individuals - other players would likely find the opposite to be true.

Even playing very well scratch golfers are still going to miss at least 3 or 4 greens, probably more; it's very rare occurrence that they hit 'nearly all'.

The above relates to the Bogey Rating in addition to the Course Rating but the allocation of rating values is (understandably) higher for the Bogey player than the Scratch player. In addition, the 'obstacles' often only affect the scratch player or bogey player depending on their position on the course.

Slope is a function of the relationship between the CR and the BR.

 

[Backsticks]

Greens are measured - dimensions, speed, contours, surrounding features, etc.
Effective (playing) length is calculated using measurements of things like dog-leg and obstacle carries & lay-ups, elevation changes, reduced/extended roll due to slopes or soft/firm ground, etc.

The various features of individual courses can easily result in two differently challenging courses receiving similar ratings. Those different challenges will suit some players but not others and so one course may appear easier than the other to those individuals - other players would likely find the opposite to be true.

Even playing very well scratch golfers are still going to miss at least 3 or 4 greens, probably more; it's very rare occurrence that they hit 'nearly all'.

Does the greens assessment take factors like two tiers, false front run back off, kidney with stymied pin, etc into account ?

 

[wjemather]

Does the greens assessment take factors like two tiers, false front run back off, kidney with stymied pin, etc into account ?

Ratings reflect the normal course setup, so tiers, yes; run-offs, yes; dodgy pin positions, no.

 

[rulefan]

Does the greens assessment take factors like two tiers, false front run back off, kidney with stymied pin, etc into account ?

Size & shape of green. Also number and depth of surrounding bunkers.

 

[cliveb]

It's all very well that other factors such as characteristics of the greens, hazards and rough are taken into consideration when calculating CR and BR, but have the authorities thought about whether they are given enough weighting?

My own impression is that courses' CRs are too heavily based on length. Short tricky courses tend to have unrealistically low CRs, and as a consequence the handicaps of their members are higher than they should be - resulting in handicaps that "travel well".

 

[Backsticks]

It's all very well that other factors such as characteristics of the greens, hazards and rough are taken into consideration when calculating CR and BR, but have the authorities thought about whether they are given enough weighting?

My own impression is that courses' CRs are too heavily based on length. Short tricky courses tend to have unrealistically low CRs, and as a consequence the handicaps of their members are higher than they should be - resulting in handicaps that "travel well".

Nah. Length is the be all and end all. Short tricky courses are just humiliated by longer hitters. 'Tricky' is just a short courses figleaf over its...shortness.

 

[IanMcC]

Without CR-Par as part of the calculation, Course and Playing Handicaps do not account for Course Rating at all, only Slope.

When CR-Par is part of the CH calculation, no adjustment is required for Stableford and Par/Bogey, but an adjustment is still required for regular stroke play (medal) & match play (because par is irrelevant in these formats).

This makes things a little clearer to me in respect of bringing in the CR-Par calculation. Could you or someone else explain to me the effect this will have on Mixed tee and 9 hole (mixed) events, as we run both at our club?
For example, our Summer Stablefords. In summer, men play off whites (72.3/128/par 70) and Ladies play off reds (73.7/129/Par 74). Currently in a Stableford comp the Gents get 2 shots if a lady plays. Will this disappear? If its a medal then the Ladies get 2 shots. Will that disappear?

 

[sunshine]

My own impression is that courses' CRs are too heavily based on length. Short tricky courses tend to have unrealistically low CRs, and as a consequence the handicaps of their members are higher than they should be - resulting in handicaps that "travel well".

Not sure about this. In my experience, genuine scratch golfers hit the ball long and straight and tend to shoot low scores on short tricky courses. They've only got a wedge into the green so can get it close.

 

[Orikoru]

Not sure about this. In my experience, genuine scratch golfers hit the ball long and straight and tend to shoot low scores on short tricky courses. They've only got a wedge into the green so can get it close.

Doesn't that mean the slope ratings should be higher then? If a scratch player finds it disproportionately easy vs a bogey player?

 

[cliveb]

Not sure about this. In my experience, genuine scratch golfers hit the ball long and straight and tend to shoot low scores on short tricky courses. They've only got a wedge into the green so can get it close.

If short tricky courses are easy for scratch players but difficult for bogey players, then they should have high slope ratings. But they don't. So they have low bogey ratings along with their low CRs. In my previous post I should have said they have unrealistically low BOGEY ratings - which is what affects normal handicap golfers (ie. the overwhelming majority).

Doesn't that mean the slope ratings should be higher then? If a scratch player finds it disproportionately easy vs a bogey player?

Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

Mind you, your course (which used to be mine) is short (~5800) and has a low CR (2 under par), but very few pros broke par in the pro-ams that were held during the 10 years I was there. So that would seem to suggest that perhaps short tricky courses aren't necessarily easy for scratch players.

 

[D-S]

If short tricky courses are easy for scratch players but difficult for bogey players, then they should have high slope ratings. But they don't. So they have low bogey ratings along with their low CRs. In my previous post I should have said they have unrealistically low BOGEY ratings - which is what affects normal handicap golfers (ie. the overwhelming majority).


Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

Mind you, your course (which used to be mine) is short (~5800) and has a low CR (2 under par), but very few pros broke par in the pro-ams that were held during the 10 years I was there. So that would seem to suggest that perhaps short tricky courses aren't necessarily easy for scratch players.

Par can be misleading though. A better view of a tricky course for a scratch player would be CR for the yardage. I would assume that a 5800 course which was a wide open field with few hazards would have a lower CR than your ‘tricky‘ example.
Also it depends on where the difficulties are on the holes. If they are at, on a flat hole, between 230 and 250 yards, or if they require either a forced or choice layup then this will impact on the CR. I fthey are all shorter than this and not in the way for Scratch players then they are not as relevant.

 

[rulefan]

Par can be misleading though. A better view of a tricky course for a scratch player would be CR for the yardage. I would assume that a 5800 course which was a wide open field with few hazards would have a lower CR than your ‘tricky‘ example.
Also it depends on where the difficulties are on the holes. If they are at, on a flat hole, between 230 and 250 yards, or if they require either a forced or choice layup then this will impact on the CR. I fthey are all shorter than this and not in the way for Scratch players then they are not as relevant.

I would suggest that a 5800 yard course of no special difficulty would have a CR of about 66/68

 

[cliveb]

I would suggest that a 5800 yard course of no special difficulty would have a CR of about 66/68

Quite so. And how about a tricky 5800 yard course, with tight fairways, evil greens and horrible patchy rough? It has CR 66.6 and slope 117. (Orikoru knows which course I'm referring to )

 

[rulefan]

Quite so. And how about a tricky 5800 yard course, with tight fairways, evil greens and horrible patchy rough? It has CR 66.6 and slope 117. (Orikoru knows which course I'm referring to )

Perhaps the obstacles are too far away for the high cappers but they don't take drivers (for accuracy) and the lower cappers can hit beyond them

 

[cliveb]

Perhaps the obstacles are too far away for the high cappers but they don't take drivers (for accuracy) and the lower cappers can hit beyond them

Ok I understand now. The course rating system and the formulae it uses are perfect and it never gets anything wrong. How unreasonable of me to suggest that might not be the case.