Match play against women

[rulefan]

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

The slope is calculated separately.

The slope is in effect the difference between the gender based scratch rating and the corresponding gender based bogey (20ish h'capper) rating for a specific set of tees.

 

[rulefan]

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It may be unofficial or outdated ratings, not sure, but could be that a lot of this work has been done and just needs updating in most cases for clubs that may have new holes, or made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

Those figures are the Slope NOT the Course Rating (SSS)
Slope is NOT a measure of difficulty.
The Course Rating (gender specific) is the measure of how difficult the course is for a scratch player. It is currently referred to as the SSS (Standard Scratch SCore).
The Bogey Rating (gender specific) is the measure of how difficult the course is for a bogey (h'cap 20) player.
Slope is the relative difficulty between players of different handicaps.
So Carnoustie is relatively more difficult as players' handicaps go up.

 

[Foxholer]

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

Remember that Course Rating and Slope are 2 separate attributes!

Course Rating for Muirfield in PofSlope's list is 73 (matching SSS). but the difference between a Scratch player's Slope (at 128) allowance (0), a 4 to 11-capper 1 extra and a 12-18-capper's two extra shots for Slope. This is in addition to the difference between Course Rating and Par!

However, both the USGA Rating and Slope for Muirfield HAVE been updated. Rating - for Whites - is now 73.7 and Slope is 142. so anyone 2-5 would get 1 extra shot, 6-9 would get 2 extra, 10-13 3 extra, 14-17 4 extra and 18 5 extra (on top of the 4 for the difference beteween Par and Rating!

Basically, I don't believe you fully understand the 'Slope' system - at least how it differs from 'simple' SSS. It's really pretty simple and well documented in the link Grant85 references. The Course Rating is pretty much equivalent to SSS. But there is an additional allowance that does not exist in the Congu system - Slope. Using statistics, Dean Knuth (The Pope of Slope) showed that higher handicap players needed an additional 'allowance' on more difficult courses and that allowance was pretty linear according to their handicap (actually, Index) - thus the term Slope (being the slope of the line on a graph) was applied!

The actual calculation of a USGA Index simply applies some rules based on the returned scores on whichever courses have been played. There is no concept of Buffer, nor CSS, which are only relevant to comps anyway!

Btw. Both USGA rating and Slope HAVE been updated Rating is 73.7 and Slope is 142. so anyone 2-5 would get 1 extra shot, 6-9 would get 2 extra, 10-13 3 extra, 14-17 4 extra and 18 5 extra!

 

[patricks148]

Those figures are the Slope NOT the Course Rating (SSS)
Slope is NOT a measure of difficulty.
The Course Rating (gender specific) is the measure of how difficult the course is for a scratch player. It is currently referred to as the SSS (Standard Scratch SCore).
The Bogey Rating (gender specific) is the measure of how difficult the course is for a bogey (h'cap 20) player.
Slope is the relative difficulty between players of different handicaps.
So Carnoustie is relatively more difficult as players' handicaps go up.

Thanks not that familiar with how slope and CR work TBH

Still not sure how you would rate Muirfield lower than Nairn on slope though

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks not that familiar with how slope and CR work TBH

Still not sure how you would rate Muirfield lower than Nairn on slope though

What are the rating, slope and par of Nairn ?

And to complete the sums, the par of Muirfield for those rated tees? Realise we are moving away from matchplay but it's a good example.

 

[patricks148]

What are the rating, slope and par of Nairn ?

And to complete the sums, the par of Muirfield for those rated tees? Realise we are moving away from matchplay but it's a good example.

can't see a rating for Muirfield for Ladies only SSS or slope are 74 and 142 but that may be off championship tee.

Nairns are.

Ladies par 75, SSS 75, CR 74.9 slope 139
Men white par 71 SSS 73 CR 72.6 slope 135
Mens Blue par 72 SSS 74 CR 74.1 slope 137

 

[rulefan]

Thanks not that familiar with how slope and CR work TBH

Still not sure how you would rate Muirfield lower than Nairn on slope though

If the slope is lower on a particular set of tees on a particular course than the slope on another set of tees on another course, it simply means that the relative difficulty for a bogey player as opposed to a scratch player is lower on the first course/tees than on the second course/tees.

It tells you absolutely nothing about the actual difficulty of either course/tees for either a scratch player or a bogey player.

 

[cliveb]

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.

The main point I was trying to make is that the so-called consistent way of rating courses fails in some cases, and that actually playing a course might give a better idea of its difficulty.

But if you're telling me that the raters are often not very good golfers then of course such an approach isn't going to work. But frankly if the raters AREN'T good golfers then I find that a bit alarming.

 

[Colin L]

The main point I was trying to make is that the so-called consistent way of rating courses fails in some cases, and that actually playing a course might give a better idea of its difficulty.

But if you're telling me that the raters are often not very good golfers then of course such an approach isn't going to work. But frankly if the raters AREN'T good golfers then I find that a bit alarming.

Why would someone trained to rate a course according to a set of objective criteria need to be a good golfer? I don't need to be a good golfer to be a competent referee.

 

[jim8flog]

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


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.

.

It is easy if you want to rate the SIs on difficulty, a simple press of the appropriate buttons within the computer software. if you want to artificially rate them as per the CONGU suggestion that's another matter.

 

[rulefan]

The main point I was trying to make is that the so-called consistent way of rating courses fails in some cases, and that actually playing a course might give a better idea of its difficulty.

But if you're telling me that the raters are often not very good golfers then of course such an approach isn't going to work. But frankly if the raters AREN'T good golfers then I find that a bit alarming.

Does it need a good golfer to measure the depth of a bunker, 250 yards from the tee or the closeness of a water hazard to the fairway?

 

[cliveb]

Why would someone trained to rate a course according to a set of objective criteria need to be a good golfer? I don't need to be a good golfer to be a competent referee.

Here's the problem: the so-called "objective" criteria are clearly inadequate, as evidenced by the obviously wrong SSS given to some courses.

For sure if those criteria were to arrive at correct conclusions about a course's difficulty, then they could be applied by anyone trained to do so.

But since they don't, my feeling is that a good golfer might be in a position to notice when the criteria have got it wrong. Hence why it concerns me that the raters are not required to be good golfers.

 

[rulefan]

Here's the problem: the so-called "objective" criteria are clearly inadequate, as evidenced by the obviously wrong SSS given to some courses.

For sure if those criteria were to arrive at correct conclusions about a course's difficulty, then they could be applied by anyone trained to do so.

But since they don't, my feeling is that a good golfer might be in a position to notice when the criteria have got it wrong. Hence why it concerns me that the raters are not required to be good golfers.

Most men's courses in England have nort been rated under the new system. Many haven't been rerated in the last 10 years. Courses change over time.

Incidentally, what real evidence for do you have for saying 'obviously wrong'?

 

[rulie]

Here's the problem: the so-called "objective" criteria are clearly inadequate, as evidenced by the obviously wrong SSS given to some courses.

For sure if those criteria were to arrive at correct conclusions about a course's difficulty, then they could be applied by anyone trained to do so.

But since they don't, my feeling is that a good golfer might be in a position to notice when the criteria have got it wrong. Hence why it concerns me that the raters are not required to be good golfers.

How do you know that there are "obviously wrong SSS given to some courses"? What objective criteria have you used to reach the conclusion that the SSS are "obviously wrong"? If you know they're "obviously wrong", you must have some objective criteria to determine what is "obviously correct".

 

[duncan mackie]

Here's the problem: the so-called "objective" criteria are clearly inadequate, as evidenced by the obviously wrong SSS given to some courses.

For sure if those criteria were to arrive at correct conclusions about a course's difficulty, then they could be applied by anyone trained to do so.

But since they don't, my feeling is that a good golfer might be in a position to notice when the criteria have got it wrong. Hence why it concerns me that the raters are not required to be good golfers.

The only times I've seen courses that are obviously incorrectly rated is when the condition of the rough varies from that when rated, or the wider course conditions differ significantly.

Courses such as Wentworth used to be a good 6 shots easier in normal play than when set up for professional competition (from the same tees) - spraying liquid feed on the rough, reducing fairways by 50% and firming and speeding up the greens....simply not the same.

Other than that the SSS rating system is only based on the scr golfer, and his attributes are much more consistent than the bogey guy - so consistent that they can be accurately substituted by assumed performance attributes.

As perfectly illustrated in the recent threads, and poll, on how the extreme conditions affected scoring - the only conclusion is that they did significantly affect them (different courses in different ways)

 

[cliveb]

How do you know that there are "obviously wrong SSS given to some courses"? What objective criteria have you used to reach the conclusion that the SSS are "obviously wrong"? If you know they're "obviously wrong", you must have some objective criteria to determine what is "obviously correct".

Ok, I only have circumstantial evidence, but consider this:

My home course has a par of 69 and SSS of 67. So a scratch golfer is expected to score 67, yes?

If 20 PGA qualified professionals play the course, we can expect a decent number to score close to 67. But in last year's pro-am, just 3 were under par. And the year before only one broke par. That suggests to me that the SSS is too low.

A typical comment by many pros was that they could drive some of our par 4s but invariably ended up 3-putting.

I believe the reason our SSS is too low is because the raters simply do not appreciate how difficult our greens are. How much weight is given to the difficulty of greens when calculating the SSS? How can you work out how tricky a green is by simple measurement?

 

[rulefan]

I believe the reason our SSS is too low is because the raters simply do not appreciate how difficult our greens are. How much weight is given to the difficulty of greens when calculating the SSS? How can you work out how tricky a green is by simple measurement?

Before assessing the course the greenkeeper is questioned about the stimp reading normally attained for club play. This is then checked on multiple greens when actually doing the rating. The (3 or 4) trained raters assess the contours of each green and record the agreed assessment.

The problem arises when the greenkeeper decides (or is told) to slick up the greens and set tricky pin positions in anticipation of an important competition (eg club championship) or prestigious event (eg Pro-am, 4BBB Open).

This is often very noticeable in county or national level events when courses are toughened (longer rough, narrower fairways, stimps set at 11+ etc) in order to give the scratch players 'a' real challenge. It is very rare for more than 5-10% of the field to beat SSS.
The CSS often goes up by 1 or 2.

The Open courses are never rated for the Open conditions but are rated for 'normal' conditions.

Of course, no England men's course has officially had their bogey rating or slope published yet for use in qualifying comps.

 

[rulie]

Ok, I only have circumstantial evidence, but consider this:

My home course has a par of 69 and SSS of 67. So a scratch golfer is expected to score 67, yes?

If 20 PGA qualified professionals play the course, we can expect a decent number to score close to 67. But in last year's pro-am, just 3 were under par. And the year before only one broke par. That suggests to me that the SSS is too low.

A typical comment by many pros was that they could drive some of our par 4s but invariably ended up 3-putting.

I believe the reason our SSS is too low is because the raters simply do not appreciate how difficult our greens are. How much weight is given to the difficulty of greens when calculating the SSS? How can you work out how tricky a green is by simple measurement?

Rulefan has summed it up in his post. The course ratings are done using the normal conditions for member play - fairway width, green speed, rough height etc. The other thing is that some "PGA qualified professionals" don't have time to practice and apply their skills and may not be playing to the skill level of a scratch player - their results, on a potentially altered course (tricked up?) shouldn't be used to judge the SSS for a scratch player on an average day.
I realize that members get emotional about "protecting" their course and its difficulty, but objective and consistent rating of courses is what the handicap system requires and will result in what the handicapping system is meant to achieve.

 

[cliveb]

... objective and consistent rating of courses is what the handicap system requires and will result in what the handicapping system is meant to achieve.

I certainly agree that is the goal, and the various responses here have persuaded me that perhaps the current system is the best we can do for now. But do you at least acknowledge that it might give anomalous results in some cases?

At present the course is only rated for scratch players. I am hoping that the new slope system will give a more realistic rating for handicap golfers.

 

[Grant85]

Rulefan has summed it up in his post. The course ratings are done using the normal conditions for member play - fairway width, green speed, rough height etc. The other thing is that some "PGA qualified professionals" don't have time to practice and apply their skills and may not be playing to the skill level of a scratch player - their results, on a potentially altered course (tricked up?) shouldn't be used to judge the SSS for a scratch player on an average day.
I realize that members get emotional about "protecting" their course and its difficulty, but objective and consistent rating of courses is what the handicap system requires and will result in what the handicapping system is meant to achieve.

I think when the slope ratings are all published and made official, I wouldn't particularly want my home course to be one of the harder courses.

In reality, with the new handicap system, this will not really matter at all. You could play your home course, which was rated easier than average and enjoy playing on an 'easy' track, knowing you will usually get a few more shots when you go to other venues.