New Course Rating

[jim8flog]

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.

.

Taking it as whole however a scratch golfer would also be expected to single putt some greens, so putting considerations surely should really not be taken in to account when a setting a course rating for the whole course.

I am nowhere near a scratch golfer. Where I play we have several very difficult to read and putt greens but If I take more than 30 putts in a round I know I have had a bad day with the putter.

 

[cliveb]

Taking it as whole however a scratch golfer would also be expected to single putt some greens, so putting considerations surely should really not be taken in to account when a setting a course rating for the whole course.

I guess that's a fair comment. But the fact that very few pros break par on our course seems to be empirical evidence that the SSS is too low.

 

[rulefan]

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

The rating teams record actual values to each obstacle etc {eg bunker depth (<3', >3', >6'), green size etc}.
Some of these values are not measurements but relative values (eg severe/moderate/no slope on fairway)
Those values given a weighting factor by the team leader from tables in their manuals. This is now done via an excel spreadsheet, which speeds things up and highlights inconsistencies.

The results are passed to EG for final calculations and determination of the SSS (Course & Bogey Ratings and Slope).

NB. This is an over simplification but suffice to say, with an experienced and properly trained team leader, there is a lot less subjectivity than in the old EGU system.

I'm guessing Cliveb's course has not yet been rerated under the USGA system. I am taking a flyer here but am guessing that the green committee has, over the years, been pushing for the fashionable faster greens. If they have always been moderately contoured, another notch or two on the stimp can have a devastating effect.
PS Highly contoured is reserved for Augusta

 

[rulie]

The rating teams record actual values to each obstacle etc {eg bunker depth (<3', >3', >6'), green size etc}.
Some of these values are not measurements but relative values (eg severe/moderate/no slope on fairway)
Those values given a weighting factor by the team leader from tables in their manuals. This is now done via an excel spreadsheet, which speeds things up and highlights inconsistencies.

The results are passed to EG for final calculations and determination of the SSS (Course & Bogey Ratings and Slope).

NB. This is an over simplification but suffice to say, with an experienced and properly trained team leader, there is a lot less subjectivity than in the old EGU system.

I'm guessing Cliveb's course has not yet been rerated under the USGA system. I am taking a flyer here but am guessing that the green committee has, over the years, been pushing for the fashionable faster greens. If they have always been moderately contoured, another notch or two on the stimp can have a devastating effect.
PS Highly contoured is reserved for Augusta

A new guideline learned for hole locations in course setup - the stimpmeter reading added to the slope of the green at the hole (easily measured with an iPhone) should not be 12 or more. Eg, 10 on stimp, hole should not be located where there is 2 or more degrees of slope.

 

[rulefan]

A new guideline learned for hole locations in course setup - the stimpmeter reading added to the slope of the green at the hole (easily measured with an iPhone) should not be 12 or more. Eg, 10 on stimp, hole should not be located where there is 2 or more degrees of slope.

Where did you pick that up? Presumably that is for elite level golf? Many pros have already said that > 12 is too fast and I though the USGA had recommended < 9.5 for club play on levelish greens.

 

[rulie]

Where did you pick that up? Presumably that is for elite level golf? Many pros have already said that > 12 is too fast and I though the USGA had recommended < 9.5 for club play on levelish greens.

I agree that 12 on the stimpmeter is too fast. The "12" that I'm talking about is the sum of the stimpmeter and the degrees of slope at the hole.

 

[rulefan]

Sounds reasonable. Where did you see this?

 

[MadAdey]

Personally I think all greens should be at a 10 on the stimp meter. Putts role out, but you can still hit the green and have it stop without needing to do a Mickleson shot.

 

[rulefan]

The average club player can't cope with more than 9.0

 

[rulie]

Sounds reasonable. Where did you see this?

Just heard it from a fellow Rules official at a provincial amateur championship, but it does give "numbers" to what I've done during course setups. One of my conditions is that a player should be able to stop the ball at the hole on a putt from above the hole. When I'm doing set up, that is one of my checkpoints-if I can't stop the ball at the hole, it's not right. Even moving the prospective hole location a couple of feet can make a big difference. And players appreciate it.

 

[MadAdey]

The average club player can't cope with more than 9.0

Why not? If you can't putt on fast greens it's because you have bad technique, same goes for chipping. Why should greens be slowed up to a point that I don't like playing on because I have put time into having a good short game. I just can't bring myself to have to whack a putt because a green is slower than the M25 in rush hour.

Please do not take my comment wrong as anyone on here that I have played with knows that I am not anti high handicappers. But I just get annoyed when people want to slow greens down to make it easier for them and punish the better golfer.

 

[rulefan]

Not sure what you mean by the better golfer.
By definition 50% of golfers are not better, why shouldn't they have the same rights.

Of course it is only in relatively recent years that the technology and grasses have been available to achieve such speed consistently. Most older courses with clay bowl greens cannot sustain those conditions for a season. Very few courses will set their greens to 10 except for major events. Even at county level we very rarely see them. During the last few years of rating I have never encountered a course which actually stimped at 10 although the club claimed that figure. I fact green keepers often say that members claim their greens are faster than they really are.

Edit. I've just realised that you are in NC. The climatic conditions are of course very different to northern Europe, so much of the above may not be so relevant.

 

[MadAdey]

Not sure what you mean by the better golfer.
By definition 50% of golfers are not better, why shouldn't they have the same rights.

Of course it is only in relatively recent years that the technology and grasses have been available to achieve such speed consistently. Most older courses with clay bowl greens cannot sustain those conditions for a season. Very few courses will set their greens to 10 except for major events. Even at county level we very rarely see them. During the last few years of rating I have never encountered a course which actually stimped at 10 although the club claimed that figure. I fact green keepers often say that members claim their greens are faster than they really are.

Edit. I've just realised that you are in NC. The climatic conditions are of course very different to northern Europe, so much of the above may not be so relevant.

I'm use to playing on nice fast Bermuda greens. When it is above 30*C from June through to the end of August most days the courses are a lot faster than back in England. I find myself complaining about slow greens now that I would have been happy with back home.