New Course Rating

[Length]

My course is now due its USGA course rating. The measured course is only just over 6,000 yards, Par 70, SSS 69, and is in danger of being re-rated under 6,000 yards to SSS 68.
As at many old established courses the longest distance markers are very close to the back of the tees, just one to two yards. Unfortunately over the years some greens have been extended to the front too, which obviously makes these holes shorter.
England Golf says: On assessment of an existing SSS, the calculation shall provide for each hole being measured from four yards from the back of the tee.
The USGA recommends using percentages and mid-points to determine marker placement and stresses that at no time should a permanent marker be less than two yards from the front of a teeing area or less than four yards from the back of a teeing area.
My club appears to think after taking advice from a visiting Course Rating Official that there is some discretion on this, does any one know if this is possible?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

In the overall scale of things I don't think length matters too much with regards to the calculated rating.

Each tee is assessed seperately but if two tees are close together - eg within 15 yards of each other - then the measurements for the hole are the same. The slope rating is far more dependent on landing zone difficulty, severe rough, hazards and green size, speed and topology rather than just length. The guidelines used for slope rating are from USGA not England Golf.

Whilst not releasing the slope ratings yet I believe EG are telling clubs what their SSS would be using the new rating system (even though these will disappear when the slopes come in).

If your course has been rated ask the County for the revised SSS assuming the rating has been processed via EG. The opens I have seen so far haven't changed much (if at all).

 

[jim8flog]

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Dec.7(b) Distance points and
[/FONT][/FONT]Measured Course
On some golf courses the placing of
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Distance Points [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]at the back of the tees has made it difficult to
conform to the definition of a teeing ground in the
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Rules of Golf [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]and also to satisfy the requirements of
Clause 12 of the
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]UHS[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT].
In order to clarify the situation and ensure that
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Qualifying Competitions [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]are played over courses of
correct length the following provisions now apply:
(a)
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Distance Points [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]on all new courses and on any new holes or holes that have had their length
altered on existing courses must be placed not less than four yards from the back of each tee;
(b) on a reassessment of an existing
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Standard Scratch Score [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]the calculation must provide for
each hole being measured from a point not less than four yards forward of the back of each
tee;
(c) any competition played over a course which fails to provide teeing grounds as defined by the
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Rules of Golf
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]or to satisfy Clause 12 of the [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]UHS [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]shall be a [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Non Qualifying Competition[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT];
(d) in exceptional circumstances a
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Union [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]or [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Area Authority [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]may sanction in writing the use of a
Teeing Ground that does not satisfy these requirements.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Note :
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][/FONT][/FONT]There is no requirement to change or reposition [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Distance Points [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]on Existing Courses except
under sub-clause (a) above.
It should also be noted that the requirements for a
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Measured Course [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]include provision for tee
markers to be placed in front as well as behind the
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Distance Point [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]– see definition of a [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Competition[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Tee
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic][/FONT][/FONT].


One of the things to remember that having the fixed distance markers at the very back of the tees is something which is not recommended because it restricts how much of the tee that can actually be used to place the tee markers for the day. The tee markers for the day must be within 10 yards of the fixed distance marker.

 

[MadAdey]

Length does not have as much of an impact on rating as difficulty of hole does, as Mike said above. I've played on 6500+ courses with a low slope and rating. Likewise I've played short tight tough courses with a high slope and rating. It's about time the UK got away from the SSS rating as I don't see the point in it. With the US system your handicap is calculated more accurately against the course you played on and then when playing other places it gets adjusted to the course you are playing.

Off the back tees at my place it's rated @ 73.8/139 against it's par of 71. I shot 78 the other day and it gave me a difference against par of 3.4. So even though on the card I was +7, for handicap purposes I was only +3.4.

 

[rulefan]

Length does not have as much of an impact on rating as difficulty of hole does, as Mike said above. I've played on 6500+ courses with a low slope and rating. Likewise I've played short tight tough courses with a high slope and rating. It's about time the UK got away from the SSS rating as I don't see the point in it. With the US system your handicap is calculated more accurately against the course you played on and then when playing other places it gets adjusted to the course you are playing.

Off the back tees at my place it's rated @ 73.8/139 against it's par of 71. I shot 78 the other day and it gave me a difference against par of 3.4. So even though on the card I was +7, for handicap purposes I was only +3.4.

Don't confuse Course Rating and Slope.

USGA Course Rating is the rated difficulty for specific tees for a 'model' scratch player (ie effectively SSS under a different name).
In practice there is virtually no difference between the results from the EGU system and the USGA system.

Slope is a measure of the relative difficulty of those tees for a bogey player (h'cap 20). A lower the slope means the course is relatively easier.

Par is not a measure of difficulty in any sense.

18 x 300 yards = 5400 par 72 SSS/CR 66-67
18 x 400 yards = 7200 par 72 SSS/CR 75

Incidentally, under both the old EGU and USGA systems, length is by far the most significant factor.

 

[rulefan]

In the overall scale of things I don't think length matters too much with regards to the calculated rating.

Each tee is assessed seperately but if two tees are close together - eg within 15 yards of each other - then the measurements for the hole are the same. The slope rating is far more dependent on landing zone difficulty, severe rough, hazards and green size, speed and topology rather than just length. The guidelines used for slope rating are from USGA not England Golf.

Whilst not releasing the slope ratings yet I believe EG are telling clubs what their SSS would be using the new rating system (even though these will disappear when the slopes come in).

If your course has been rated ask the County for the revised SSS assuming the rating has been processed via EG. The opens I have seen so far haven't changed much (if at all).

Length matters very significantly. Maybe 90%.

If tees are < 25 yards apart, the real measured length is still the figure used for rating those tees. It is simply that landing zones are deemed to be common, so only one set of obstacle factors have to be assessed.

Once a course is rated to USGA spec, the CR given to the club becomes the course SSS from that date and must then be used for all qualifiers.

Slope cannot come into effect until all courses are rerated (except for US or Canadian visitors who are required to record all scores made on a USGA rated course).

 

[MadAdey]

Don't confuse Course Rating and Slope.

USGA Course Rating is the rated difficulty for specific tees for a 'model' scratch player (ie effectively SSS under a different name).
In practice there is virtually no difference between the results from the EGU system and the USGA system.

Slope is a measure of the relative difficulty of those tees for a bogey player (h'cap 20). A lower the slope means the course is relatively easier.

Par is not a measure of difficulty in any sense.

18 x 300 yards = 5400 par 72 SSS/CR 66-67
18 x 400 yards = 7200 par 72 SSS/CR 75

Incidentally, under both the old EGU and USGA systems, length is by far the most significant factor.

Slope is actually measured using the slant between what a scratch golfer should score and what high handicapper should score. Basically showing how much more difficult a course is for a high handicapper compared to a scratch golfer. So 2 course can have similar slope, even though 1 may be harder than the other. This little no explains it a lot better.
http://www.leaderboard.com/abcs.htm

 

[rulefan]

The link is pretty useful but has many misleading statements.

Here's a classic piece of nonsense as my examples above demonstrate.

What is the definition of a "par golfer"?

Someone who consistently shoots par for the course, regardless of the course. Also known as a "scratch golfer".

 

[MadAdey]

The link is pretty useful but has many misleading statements.

Here's a classic piece of nonsense as my examples above demonstrate.

What is the definition of a "par golfer"?

Someone who consistently shoots par for the course, regardless of the course. Also known as a "scratch golfer".

Little bit inacurate with the definition. A par golfer is smeone who shoots level in relation to the rating of the course. My place is par 71, but rates at 73.9 from the back tees. So shooting 71 would actually put him under par.

 

[rulefan]

More than a little bit inaccurate. Just wrong.

USGA - A "scratch golfer" is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses.

Shooting 71 would put him on par (71) and under the Course Rating (73.9).

USGA - Par is not a significant factor in either the USGA Handicap System or USGA Course Rating System.

 

[cliveb]

Length matters very significantly. Maybe 90%.

So to make sure I understand this, you're saying that length is the overwhelmingly dominant factor when rating course difficulty?
And that other factors such as tightness of course, hazards, difficulty of greens, etc are secondary?

This seems crazy - there are plenty of short courses that are very difficult, and plenty of long courses that are wide open and quite benign. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MadAdey]

So to make sure I understand this, you're saying that length is the overwhelmingly dominant factor when rating course difficulty?
And that other factors such as tightness of course, hazards, difficulty of greens, etc are secondary?

This seems crazy - there are plenty of short courses that are very difficult, and plenty of long courses that are wide open and quite benign. It just doesn't make sense to me.

It's not. I moved to the US a few years ago so have first hand knowledge. Length is only one factor in rating a course. Below I've listed the slope/rating and distance of some courses I play at.

133/71.3 6564
135/71.9 6678
133/71.9 6364
128/70.9 6516
129/71.8 6580

Read this however, but it highlights 2 courses with almost identical ratings, but one is over 300 yards longer. The shorter course is rated more difficult than 3 longer courses. So thinking length is the major factor is innacurate. Taking into account how often water comes into play amount of bunkering, doglegs etc all have an impact.

The shorter course gets that rating from 67 bunkers, 5 doglegs and water on 8 holes.

 

[rulefan]

On refection, 90% is an overstatement but is is by far the most significant single factor.

The 'model' scratch player will on average hit a drive about 250 yards. His second shot about 220.
If a player can't hit that far he will never be a scratch player. It doesn't matter what obstacles he has to negotiate on the way. If they are not in or near his landing zone they will have not affect his score.
The same principle applies to a 20 (bogey) handicapper.

However, if an obstacle is in or near the landing zone, the difficulty rating assigned to that type of obstacle will be greater for the bogey player than a scratch player

Of course this doesn't mean that anyone who can hit those distances will be scratch player. Just that they need to keep clear of the obstacles on the way.

The SSS for ladies is always higher than that for men. Their ability to recover from the same obstacles on the same course is no worse. It's just that, in general, they don't hit as far

 

[MadAdey]

On refection, 90% is an overstatement but is is by far the most significant single factor.

The 'model' scratch player will on average hit a drive about 250 yards. His second shot about 220.
If a player can't hit that far he will never be a scratch player. It doesn't matter what obstacles he has to negotiate on the way. If they are not in or near his landing zone they will have not affect his score.
The same principle applies to a 20 (bogey) handicapper.

However, if an obstacle is in or near the landing zone, the difficulty rating assigned to that type of obstacle will be greater for the bogey player than a scratch player

Of course this doesn't mean that anyone who can hit those distances will be scratch player. Just that they need to keep clear of the obstacles on the way.

The SSS for ladies is always higher than that for men. Their ability to recover from the same obstacles on the same course is no worse. It's just that, in general, they don't hit as far

I would agree that distance is the biggest single contributing factor, but all things need to be considered when making an accurate rating of a course under the USGA model. As I showed in my examples it is possible for a course to be several hundred yards shorter but still be rated more difficult.

 

[rulefan]

I would agree that distance is the biggest single contributing factor, but all things need to be considered when making an accurate rating of a course under the USGA model. As I showed in my examples it is possible for a course to be several hundred yards shorter but still be rated more difficult.

Ignoring all other factors, 100 yards makes a difference of about 0.45 on the length element.

 

[rulie]

MadAdey made reference to a shorter course with many doglegs and water hazards. In the situation of doglegs and water hazards, one must consider "forced layups" for the scratch player, since he may be able to hit his standard 250 yard tee shot, and be forced to hit a shorter shot as a tee shot. This makes the effective playing length longer for him than the actual measured length of the hole. We have a 340 yard par 4 hole where there is a water hazard beginning at 240 yards, and a severe downhill slope towards the water beginning at 210 yards from the tee. This causes a forced layup for the scratch player and increases the effective playing length to about 370 yards rather than the measured 340 yards.
All I'm saying is that the scorecard yardage doesn't always equate to the yardage the course is rated for.

 

[MadAdey]

MadAdey made reference to a shorter course with many doglegs and water hazards. In the situation of doglegs and water hazards, one must consider "forced layups" for the scratch player, since he may be able to hit his standard 250 yard tee shot, and be forced to hit a shorter shot as a tee shot. This makes the effective playing length longer for him than the actual measured length of the hole. We have a 340 yard par 4 hole where there is a water hazard beginning at 240 yards, and a severe downhill slope towards the water beginning at 210 yards from the tee. This causes a forced layup for the scratch player and increases the effective playing length to about 370 yards rather than the measured 340 yards.
All I'm saying is that the scorecard yardage doesn't always equate to the yardage the course is rated for.

That's exactly it. That shorter course with the higher forces me to hit less club on the doglegs and a couple of the water holes. One of the par 5s I have to hit a 3 wood lay up as anything out beyond the 250 mark is going to go towards either the OOB or flirting with the water.

Stroke index 1 I hit 4i then 5i, the further you go down the hole the tighter the fairway becomes. To a point at around 270 where it is only 15 yards wide due to water and the thick pine trees. So normally I'm sat alongside a higher handicap player as I can't use distance to any advantage.

 

[cliveb]

All of these comments about how courses are rated suggest to me that the focus is very much on the long game. There seems to be little consideration of the short game. In particular, does a course rating consider the difficulty of greens, or do they just assume a scratch player will take 2 putts on every hole? Because if it does, that's pretty unrealistic for some courses.

I'll give you a concrete example. My home course is short (approx 5600 yards), par 69, SSS 67. The greens are seriously tricky. At our annual pro-am, very few pros break par. (A few weeks ago Callum Shinkwin played here with a society whose charity he supports, and he shot 75 - although I'm sure he wasn't taking it seriously). Many members genuinely feel that the SSS is too low. It's pretty daunting to stand on the first tee knowing you're 2 over before you've even played your first shot.

 

[rulefan]

Greens are rated individually for many factors including visibility from approach area, length of shot in, size, bunkers, contours, speed.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

All of these comments about how courses are rated suggest to me that the focus is very much on the long game. There seems to be little consideration of the short game. In particular, does a course rating consider the difficulty of greens, or do they just assume a scratch player will take 2 putts on every hole? Because if it does, that's pretty unrealistic for some courses.

I'll give you a concrete example. My home course is short (approx 5600 yards), par 69, SSS 67. The greens are seriously tricky. At our annual pro-am, very few pros break par. (A few weeks ago Callum Shinkwin played here with a society whose charity he supports, and he shot 75 - although I'm sure he wasn't taking it seriously). Many members genuinely feel that the SSS is too low. It's pretty daunting to stand on the first tee knowing you're 2 over before you've even played your first shot.

The general point about the USGA rating system is it tries to take a lot of subjectivity out of the process and make it a science rather than an art. There are serveral assumptions used regarding the condition of the course in the summer (the rating period). One of these is the speed of the greens and although several are checked using a stimp meter the head greenkeeper is asked what his target speed is in case on the day of rating they are radically difference. Similar situation with the first cut of rough.

I can't comment on the weightings given to each factor as these are computed by England Golf in our county but I will say it appears to take all factors into account as part of the assessment

If (and I don't know why I would) I wanted to get a higher rating I would toughen up the landing zones rather than the greens or just raw length.

Hopefully when implemented golfers will see the benefit and not get too hung up on their course's rating.