Jacko_G
Blackballed
To be honest it was a bargain. PXG have revised their pricing.
Distance gain and a huge dispersion gain is a bargain. Perhaps bite your lip until in possession of the full facts in future.
Good lad
Slope rating.
- Thread starter Ssshank
- Start date
To be honest it was a bargain. PXG have revised their pricing.
Distance gain and a huge dispersion gain is a bargain. Perhaps bite your lip until in possession of the full facts in future.
Good lad
rulefan
Tour Winner
No. Tired old driver was costing you 4 yards.
But how do you measure 4 yards when you are 300 yards away?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Jacko_G
Blackballed
Oh the irony!
Irn Bru
Ssshank
Member
There lies the problem with rating golf courses as not all scratch players are the same.
Also, it is agreed that the average male golfer has a swing speed of 93 mph, distance can vary greatly between those of the same speed due to poor technique.
The scratch golfer will have pretty good control of their swing and be on average 10mph faster, which should put them beyond 250 as an average.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Re the bold bit: Courses have been rated (either by Slope or SSS) for a long time! My observation is that Slope CR and SSS appear to be pretty similar numbers (albeit CR has 1 decimal place) for the courses I've looked at.
Re the italics bit: This document (https://swingmangolf.com/average-golf-swing-speed-chart-2/), confirmns your 93 mph swing speed stat, but has a subsequent chart refutes your 'beyond 250 as an average' assertion (at least for the '0 - 5' range). Even the LPGA (likely pretty centred striking) SS of 94 only gives 246 yard average!
rulefan
Tour Winner
Up to a point the ratings allow for that. The distance from where the ball is presumed to finish to nearby 'obstacles' (bunker nests, water, trees etc) is built in to the assessment. Further, the player must be able to carry an obstacle by some distance for it to be 'ignored'. So as an average of over 250 includes half of the shots being less than 250 does the player lay up and have a more difficult or unreachable next shot to the green?
And of course, not all bogey players are anywhere nearly the same
Which is why I would love Jacko to come up with a better system Ssshank
Member
Interesting, I'm not sure I subscribe to the new system as based on course I've played in tournament conditions there slopes seem way off. However, I suppose no system can be perfect.
Surely that contradicts their findings if LPGA players are producing those figures with such a low SS. To get to scratch you should be hitting it out the middle more often than not along with pretty good spin and plane control.
Ssshank
Member
Up to a point the ratings allow for that. The distance from where the ball is presumed to finish to nearby 'obstacles' (bunker nests, water, trees etc) is built in to the assessment. Further, the player must be able to carry an obstacle by some distance for it to be 'ignored'. So as an average of over 250 includes half of the shots being less than 250 does the player lay up and have a more difficult or unreachable next shot to the green?
And of course, not all bogey players are anywhere nearly the same
No system is perfect, I just question how they've produced the slopes they have. As some seem crazy based on how difficult/easy I've found a course.
I can only assume that one of the metrics is more heavily weighted, which seems to be the distance which is misleading.
Surely it is a calculated risk which is heavily dependent on the hole being played, more often than not it is worth getting as far down as possible.
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
I think it will only play out once we get back out and travel to other courses and see how the handicap travels or doesn't especially on courses where you've played close to or beaten handicap before (subject to playing to a similar standard of course
Foxholer
Blackballed
How many times did you play that course 'in tournament conditions'? And what was your (congu) Handicap (range) at the time? And can you remenber what CSS was?
I'd certainly not 'damn' any new system on a single 'instance'! and that particularly applies to Links courses imo, as (again, imo) there doesn't seem to have been sufficient weight applied to the wind factor.
Remember, Slope is about the relative difficulty of a course - for a Bogey golfer compared to a Scratch one - not the difficulty for a Scratch (actual or near) player! That's CR (SSS in 'old money')!
Ssshank
Member
10 rounds last year, handicap range was 1.6 - 4.2.
Can't recall the CSS as it will no longer allow me to view it as the database has changed over to the WHS system.
Of those 10 rounds, I matched or beat my handicap 9 times.
Foxholer
Blackballed
And how, on average, did the 21-24 handicap players fare? Because it's players at that level that Slope addresses!
Ssshank
Member
Fairly well, the top three scores were in the mid-high net '60s.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Improvers? 'Bandits'? 'All/most' 'Bogey' players? All 10 comps/tournaments? (assuming 'top three' was 'top three 21-24 cappers').
Oh and what is the Slope of the course?
Ssshank
Member
Different players, there was only one comp where the winner of division 3 shot net level par. Though for the rest a good bunch were at or below their handicap.
137.
rulefan
Tour Winner
What was the SSS/CR
Were those winning scores from 22-24 cappers?
Were those winning scores from 22-24 cappers?
Foxholer
Blackballed
You are only looking at the winners! The Slope system is likely to more rapidly adjust consistent improvers! And 'a good bunch' means sod-all really! How was the spread? Presumably, 'a good bunch' were outside buffer too!
My course is just a tad higher Slope (141 with CR 72.6 1 over Par - like SSS). It certainly has plenty of danger for Bogey players, but plenty of scope for 'great' rounds to be had by high-cappers too!
Btw. That's one of the reasons for comps to be played in 'Divisions'!
Crazyface
Tour Winner
Me head started to hurt half way down the first page. I've no idea what this is about. Too complicated for me. I'm out.
