Match play against women

[Colin L]

It's worth mentioning in general that while the discussion has been about men and women playing from different tees, it applies to any mixed tee competition regardless of gender. If you have two courses rated for men, you can hold a competition with some playing from one set of tees and some playing from the other. Equally, women can play from different tees provided both courses have been rated for them.

 

[cliveb]

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

Here's a concrete example that illustrates my point. Last week I was at St Mellion, and as well as the Nicklaus course I played the Kernow course a couple of times. Its length is 5620 and has a SSS of 69. My own home course length is 5647 and has a SSS of 67. The greens at my course are indisputably more difficult that those at the Kernow. About the only thing that's significantly different is that the Kernow course is fairly hilly, whereas my home course is fairly flat.

Obviously there must be things that get measured which result in this seeming disparity in SSS. My contention is that perhaps the criteria being measured aren't covering everything of significance.

 

[duncan mackie]

Here's a concrete example that illustrates my point. Last week I was at St Mellion, and as well as the Nicklaus course I played the Kernow course a couple of times. Its length is 5620 and has a SSS of 69. My own home course length is 5647 and has a SSS of 67. The greens at my course are indisputably more difficult that those at the Kernow. About the only thing that's significantly different is that the Kernow course is fairly hilly, whereas my home course is fairly flat.

Obviously there must be things that get measured which result in this seeming disparity in SSS. My contention is that perhaps the criteria being measured aren't covering everything of significance.

Do you have much water in front of your greens? That comes into play off the tee? This together with the elevation changes may well be the relevant factors.

However, most of the problem will probably relate to the way the greens are presented when the course is rated (both physically and described). The other key issue under CONGU ratings is the total focus on a scratch golfers capabilities rather than mere mortals.

Suggest you watch and see how the CR and slope ratings compare in due course.

 

[rulie]

Getting back to the thread's title (which isn't course rating) - you are going to lose; even if you win, you will lose. The ladies are better organized.

 

[rulefan]

Obviously there must be things that get measured which result in this seeming disparity in SSS. My contention is that perhaps the criteria being measured aren't covering everything of significance.

Have a look at

https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html

Only an overview, no details of exactly what and how measurements are taken.

 

[atticusfinch]

My contention is that perhaps the criteria being measured aren't covering everything of significance.

....or your idea of what is significant is not the same as the experienced raters.

 

[rulefan]

My contention is that perhaps the criteria being measured aren't covering everything of significance.

Every major handicapping authority in the world has been using the USGA rating system for 10 or more years. This includes all CONGU men's and ladies' unions and associations - except for England Men who have now joined in.

I would suggest if there had been serious flaws, they would have been sorted out by now.
Although there has been the odd minor tuning over the years but nothing fundamental.

 

[cliveb]

Every major handicapping authority in the world has been using the USGA rating system for 10 or more years. This includes all CONGU men's and ladies' unions and associations - except for England Men who have now joined in.

I would suggest if there had been serious flaws, they would have been sorted out by now.
Although there has been the odd minor tuning over the years but nothing fundamental.

OK, my last word on this subject. Since you have now shown me that there is a strictly defined methodology for rating courses worldwide that has been in use for some time, then clearly it must work well in the vast majority of cases.

Any system is bound to throw up the odd outlier, and I must accept that my home course is perhaps peculiar and represents such an outlier. But I also accept that changing a tried and tested system in an attempt to deal with these rare cases is likely to do as much harm as good.

 

[duncan mackie]

Any system is bound to throw up the odd outlier, and I must accept that my home course is perhaps peculiar and represents such an outlier. .

In my experience as course length varies from 6400yd the issues become magnified for handicap golfers. The previous SSS rating was also at it's weakest at extremes of length combined with factors such as multiple cross hazards or generally tight conditions, let alone extremes of greens.

The USGA rating approach, combined with the inclusion of a bogey golfer rating, are expected to resolve many of these elements (resolve as in make a better job as far as possible!) Time will tell.