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

[sunshine]

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.

I was referring to the CR which is scratch expectation.
No idea about slope. I have no idea how they work it out, because a bogey golfer might be an old boy who is short and straight or a younger player who smashes it miles but in the wrong direction.

 

[rulefan]

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.

No one said that. I jokingly (see icon) suggested that the players may not conform the the 'models' that the system works to. Higher handicappers are notoriously variable. Scratch players, far less so.
However, the USGA Rating System has been used around the world for over 30 years. Pretty well all of the wrinkles have been ironed out by now. The only major golf authority which went their own way was the (Men's) EGU who had a similar but less sophisticated system for rating the Standard Scratch Score. Bogey Rating/Slope was not included. EG adopted the USGA system shortly after the merger with the EWGA and in anticipation of WHS.
Such is the variable nature of golf courses and golfers worldwide, any system will throw up exceptions and this may or may not be one.

 

[D-S]

I was referring to the CR which is scratch expectation.
No idea about slope. I have no idea how they work it out, because a bogey golfer might be an old boy who is short and straight or a younger player who smashes it miles but in the wrong direction.

The assumption is that a scratch golfer for example on a flat hole carries the ball 230 yards with a 20 yard roll out - the bogey golfer 180 plus 20. The dispersion of the scratch is better than the bogey, then all landing areas, carries, bunkers, obstacles, penalty areas, proximity to OB, fairway width etc. are measured plus standard semi and rough height, green speed, green size and severity and bunker positioning and depth . The slope depends a lot on the quantity, positioning and severity of all these obstacles etc as well as all the other measured factors.
There has to be a model scratch player and a model bogey player - these of course cannot be exactly representative of all the miriad differing abilities, strengths and weaknesses of all golfers.

 

[rulefan]

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.

10 years ago a different rating system was in force. It was not as detailed and was designed for the scratch player only. It did not involve Par at all. Nor Slope.
Were the pros tournament players or club pros? Most of the latter no longer play at the scratch level.

 

[sunshine]

The assumption is that a scratch golfer for example on a flat hole carries the ball 230 yards with a 20 yard roll out - the bogey golfer 180 plus 20. The dispersion of the scratch is better than the bogey, then all landing areas, carries, bunkers, obstacles, penalty areas, proximity to OB, fairway width etc. are measured plus standard semi and rough height, green speed, green size and severity and bunker positioning and depth . The slope depends a lot on the quantity, positioning and severity of all these obstacles etc as well as all the other measured factors.
There has to be a model scratch player and a model bogey player - these of course cannot be exactly representative of all the miriad differing abilities, strengths and weaknesses of all golfers.

Thanks - good info.

These days you won't find many scratch golfers who only carry it 230

 

[wjemather]

Thanks - good info.

These days you won't find many scratch golfers who only carry it 230

You'd be surprised. The stats show that most senior (over 55) scratch golfers struggle to even reach that, but their better (than the youngsters) accuracy and short game keep the handicap down - younger scratch golfers rely more on distance (under 35s are 20+ yards longer).

 

[wjemather]

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.

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'.

To follow up on this, apparently the stats show that scratch golfers only hit a little over 50% of fairways and under 60% of greens.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks - good info.

These days you won't find many scratch golfers who only carry it 230

A couple of years before Matt Fitz won the US Open he was averaging < 290 including runout.

 

[cliveb]

10 years ago a different rating system was in force. It was not as detailed and was designed for the scratch player only. It did not involve Par at all. Nor Slope.
Were the pros tournament players or club pros? Most of the latter no longer play at the scratch level.

The pros in the pro-am were club pros, not tour pros.
A comment that stuck in my mind from one of them was "you can drive some of the par 4s, but still end up 3-putting".

A few years back a European Tour player (who had recently come 2nd in the Scottish Open) played in a charity event.
Our club pro predicted he would score about 58, but he ended up with 76. (I hesitate to name him to avoid any possible embarrassment, and I'm sure he wasn't taking it seriously).

Anyhow, all this is kind of peripheral to the core of my argument which is that I reckon the adjustments made to CR and BR due to things other than length aren't always given enough weight.

 

[IanMcC]

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?

Bumping this. Does anyone actually know what CR-Par will do to dual tee comps?

 

[wjemather]

Bumping this. Does anyone actually know what CR-Par will do to dual tee comps?

With respect to Stablefords, there will no longer be the need for any mixed tee adjustments.