Match play against women

[Colin L]

Neither the SSS nor the course rating is based on past competitions.

 

[duncan mackie]

Surely you would need some competitions and some information to rate them, so the club would have to at least run competitions from different tees before anyone could rate them?

I was under the impression that the Stroke Indexes were once upon a time based on actual golf played on the course to determine the hardest and easiest holes. Surely the same for SSS and for slope rating, when this comes to more prominence.

I think you have fundamentally miss-understood both course ratings and the purpose of SI. The former are based on theoretical capabilities in order to be consistent. The performance of any set of golfers will be a reflection of their current handicapping.
With SO the position of the holes in the round being played is more important than their difficulty - although stableford confuses this a bit, and there's no doubt that it's more enjoyable to play it where difficulty is reflected in the distribution of strokes. This is why the CONGU changed the distribution of SI wording to it's current one where hole difficulty may be reflected in the allocated SI providing that the basic distribution rules aren't abused. Many courses do abuse them, but that's another thing.

 

[atticusfinch]

In my view, if HCs are properly calculated there is no further discussion.

I once played a woman from the UK (I'm a yank) and we both had the same HC based on the same usga system. She agreed we were equal and we played our match (on the Old Course) from the same tee so the strokes came on the same holes. We had a tough match and halved it! I don't think it mattered that her HC was earned from the ladies tees in the UK and mine on the men's in the USA. The HCs matched us exactly...even if i had a 19 HC I think we would have halved the match. (Ahem...I made a four on the road hole. )

 

[rulefan]

Clubs do not rate their tees.

We asked the county team to rate all our tees for both men and women, unfortunately they refused.

No surprise there. First the cost, time and logistics of rating all tees for men and women is prohibitive. Further they will not rate tees that are never (or very rarely) going to be for used qualifiers for one gender or the other.

They will not rate white or championship (blue/black) for ladies and rarely agree to rate ladies forward tees for men. They will and do rate red and yellow courses for both. But depends very much on the length.

 

[Colin L]

In my view, if HCs are properly calculated there is no further discussion.

I once played a woman from the UK (I'm a yank) and we both had the same HC based on the same usga system. She agreed we were equal and we played our match (on the Old Course) from the same tee so the strokes came on the same holes. We had a tough match and halved it! I don't think it mattered that her HC was earned from the ladies tees in the UK and mine on the men's in the USA. The HCs matched us exactly...even if i had a 19 HC I think we would have halved the match. (Ahem...I made a four on the road hole. )

I reckon that it was a matter of sheer chance that your handicaps matched.

Gratuitous bragging not gone unnoticed. Well done! :whoo:

 

[Grant85]

I think you have fundamentally miss-understood both course ratings and the purpose of SI. The former are based on theoretical capabilities in order to be consistent. The performance of any set of golfers will be a reflection of their current handicapping.
With SO the position of the holes in the round being played is more important than their difficulty - although stableford confuses this a bit, and there's no doubt that it's more enjoyable to play it where difficulty is reflected in the distribution of strokes. This is why the CONGU changed the distribution of SI wording to it's current one where hole difficulty may be reflected in the allocated SI providing that the basic distribution rules aren't abused. Many courses do abuse them, but that's another thing.

I understand what they are and why they are in place.

Also that it is important to have an even distribution of SI's throughout a round. Ideally don't have SI 1 or 2 on the 1st or the 18th

But I do wonder exactly how they are calculated and if they should be updated over time. I'm sure stroke indexes must be based on actual data at some point down the line.

And likewise course rating from a certain set of tees.

I assume there are a lot of courses that don't have a course rating currently and this will need to be worked out over the next year or so.

 

[chellie]

I had to give 8 shots at an away course this year in a club match. She got shots on the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th.

 

[rulefan]

1) But I do wonder exactly how they are calculated and if they should be updated over time. I'm sure stroke indexes must be based on actual data at some point down the line.

2) And likewise course rating from a certain set of tees.

1) The earlier SI allocation was based on difficulty data collected automatically by the handicapping software.

2) Rating is done by a trained group of 3 or 4 who measure and record all aspects of the course for both the scratch and 20 cap player. this include but not limited to. Position and size of obstacles (WH, bunkers, light & extreme rough, OOB ......) at the landing area. Possible slopes on fairway. This all goes into a number cruncher to produce Course Ratings and the slope for each gender for each set of tees.
It takes over 4 hours on course and another 4 or 5 doing the paperwork

 

[Grant85]

1) The earlier SI allocation was based on difficulty data collected automatically by the handicapping software.

2) Rating is done by a trained group of 3 or 4 who measure and record all aspects of the course for both the scratch and 20 cap player. this include but not limited to. Position and size of obstacles (WH, bunkers, light & extreme rough, OOB ......) at the landing area. Possible slopes on fairway. This all goes into a number cruncher to produce Course Ratings and the slope for each gender for each set of tees.
It takes over 4 hours on course and another 4 or 5 doing the paperwork

Interesting on the course rating. I'd imagine the guys who do this will be busy over the next year as this will become a crucial point of the new handicap system.

 

[cliveb]

2) Rating is done by a trained group of 3 or 4 who measure and record all aspects of the course for both the scratch and 20 cap player. this include but not limited to. Position and size of obstacles (WH, bunkers, light & extreme rough, OOB ......) at the landing area. Possible slopes on fairway. This all goes into a number cruncher to produce Course Ratings and the slope for each gender for each set of tees.
It takes over 4 hours on course and another 4 or 5 doing the paperwork

Yes, and they still get it wrong. Our course is quite short and on the face of it there aren't that many obstacles. So the SSS is 2 under par. But boy is it tricky. Very few pros break par at our annual pro-am.

If it takes the raters 4 hours to measure why don't they just play a round and find out how difficult it really is rather than estimating it based on measurements? Don't tell me it's to maintain consistency, as if it's some kind of science.

 

[Colin L]

Yes, and they still get it wrong. Our course is quite short and on the face of it there aren't that many obstacles. So the SSS is 2 under par. But boy is it tricky. Very few pros break par at our annual pro-am.

If it takes the raters 4 hours to measure why don't they just play a round and find out how difficult it really is rather than estimating it based on measurements? Don't tell me it's to maintain consistency, as if it's some kind of science.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. Course raters around the country of varying degrees of golfing ability or even a high degree of lack of ability playing courses and making a subjective judgment = huge inconsistency. Course raters trained to measure and assess objectively to a common set of criteria = a best effort to achieve consistency.

 

[duncan mackie]

Interesting on the course rating. I'd imagine the guys who do this will be busy over the next year as this will become a crucial point of the new handicap system.

They have been busy for a couple of years already!

Fwiw, and bearing in mind that SI has been around longer than computers and software, you will also find many courses with SIs based purely on length, or par and length, that have never changed it to accomadate current guidelines.

 

[Grant85]

They have been busy for a couple of years already!

Fwiw, and bearing in mind that SI has been around longer than computers and software, you will also find many courses with SIs based purely on length, or par and length, that have never changed it to accomadate current guidelines.

I actually found this site via a google search last night...

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/courseratings.html

Which appears to list USGA ratings for all courses in Scotland. Seems like this is aimed at American's playing over here so they can work out what handicap to play to.

Carnoustie looks to be the highest at 145. Muirfield is only 128!

It may be unofficial or outdated ratings, not sure, but could be that a lot of this work has been done and just needs updating in most cases for clubs that may have new holes, or made significant architectural changes to any holes.

 

[patricks148]

Not that it happens often, but men get 2 shots from ladies at my club as the SSS is different.

We are USGA Course and slope rated, so would that rating be the same for Men and Woman ?

 

[patricks148]

I actually found this site via a google search last night...

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/courseratings.html

Which appears to list USGA ratings for all courses in Scotland. Seems like this is aimed at American's playing over here so they can work out what handicap to play to.

Carnoustie looks to be the highest at 145. Muirfield is only 128!

It may be unofficial or outdated ratings, not sure, but could be that a lot of this work has been done and just needs updating in most cases for clubs that may have new holes, or made significant architectural changes to any holes.

i would be surprised if Muirfield is as low as that esp as its a par 70 sss 73, will dig out an old card and see if it has a slope on it

 

[Grant85]

i would be surprised if Muirfield is as low as that esp as its a par 70 sss 73, will dig out an old card and see if it has a slope on it

Never played Muirfield, or even attended for an Open.
But could be a big difference in tees the Pro's play compared with the members.

I was surprised as it has a lot of penal bunkering and certainly the 2013 Open was pretty much carnage. Barely anyone under par in fast, firm conditions.

 

[duncan mackie]

I actually found this site via a google search last night...

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/courseratings.html

Which appears to list USGA ratings for all courses in Scotland. Seems like this is aimed at American's playing over here so they can work out what handicap to play to.

Carnoustie looks to be the highest at 145. Muirfield is only 128!

It may be unofficial or outdated ratings, not sure, but could be that a lot of this work has been done and just needs updating in most cases for clubs that may have new holes, or made significant architectural changes to any holes.

Many Scottish courses, and all ladies tees, have been rated on the USGA rating system for some time now when new ratings were done. Many of the big courses listed will have had adjustments made that required re-rating hence their inclusion.
However, in the wider picture these represent a relatively small proportion of the total to be rated before 2020. The rating teams have been ramped up and are beavering away!

 

[duncan mackie]

No. The rating assumptions are different, as they were for SSS.

As Rulefan posted above the teams won't even rate the ladies comp tees for men unless they can be convinced that they will be used regularily! We had them SSS rated but have lost them to competition once slope comes in as they wouldn't rate them (they had a point as they were only used twice in the last couple of years, and we have now added new senior tees in similar positions.

 

[patricks148]

Never played Muirfield, or even attended for an Open.
But could be a big difference in tees the Pro's play compared with the members.

I was surprised as it has a lot of penal bunkering and certainly the 2013 Open was pretty much carnage. Barely anyone under par in fast, firm conditions.

card says 142 slope white and SSS/CR 74 so i can't see how it could be 128 even off the red tee. Nairn is par 71/SSS73 CR 73 and our slope is 134 and i would say its much easier than Muirfield

 

[patricks148]

No. The rating assumptions are different, as they were for SSS.

As Rulefan posted above the teams won't even rate the ladies comp tees for men unless they can be convinced that they will be used regularily! We had them SSS rated but have lost them to competition once slope comes in as they wouldn't rate them (they had a point as they were only used twice in the last couple of years, and we have now added new senior tees in similar positions.

so would the slope rating on our ladies Tee count for men also or is that just assco to women?