Which course is better for reducing handicap?

[Voyager EMH]

In my experience so far, the courses with CR well above par, give me the best chances of achieving desirable score differentials.
This is often the longer courses.

I'm an older geezer who is not particularly long with the driver for a player with HI of 4.8

 

[Orikoru]

I don't think this is proving your point at all...

I think your point was that it is easier to lower your handicap on a long and difficult course: "If you really want to get your handicap down you need to join a club with very high course and slope ratings"

But then it turns out you were referring to a wide open, short 6000 yard courses with flat greens.

That quote just says it needs to have high ratings. It won't have high ratings unless it's relatively long. Perhaps I should have said 'artificially high ratings'.

 

[RichA]

My course is short, narrow and with hellish greens but because it's short it has very low course ratings. Consequently it's very difficult to get your handicap down there, since even a very good score for me will have a higher score differential. If you really want to get your handicap down you need to join a club with very high course and slope ratings.

It’s the same net result at ours for the opposite reasons.
It’s long, largely quite open but has minimal manmade technical hazards or green protection, so the course rating is low.
If you can drive the ball consistently 250 yards it’s not difficult. Scratch players will often post sub-70 rounds.
If you’re an average golfer but your long game is poor to average then you struggle to maintain a handicap below 15. But our handicaps tend to travel quite well on courses below 6000 yards.

In terms of lowering your handicap, as per the OP, I would think that the solution is to improve your consistency in the areas where your golf is weak, regardless of the nature of the course.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

That quote just says it needs to have high ratings. It won't have high ratings unless it's relatively long. Perhaps I should have said 'artificially high ratings'.

Just playing the me advocate! Didn’t high the issue is still your short game and not the fact it’s longer that’s the issue. You struggle on or around the greens at your course because of the undulations and slopes, yet you’ve acknowledged going to a course with basically flat greens you score the same or better. So whilst you’re still missing greens you can get away with having short comings in your chipping and green reading because the greens are easier.

So has noting really in your case to do with length or CR but your own game, because the courses you’ve played aren’t significantly longer than your own track

 

[Orikoru]

Just playing the me advocate! Didn’t high the issue is still your short game and not the fact it’s longer that’s the issue. You struggle on or around the greens at your course because of the undulations and slopes, yet you’ve acknowledged going to a course with basically flat greens you score the same or better. So whilst you’re still missing greens you can get away with having short comings in your chipping and green reading because the greens are easier.

So has noting really in your case to do with length or CR but your own game, because the courses you’ve played aren’t significantly longer than your own track

Yes, but the underlying point is that difficult green complexes are undervalued in the course ratings. So course is rated much easier than it really is. I don't think I should be getting 3 more shots on a course that's only 500 yards longer but has vastly easier greens and much wider fairways, but that's how it is.

 

[wjemather]

A large window it may be overall but it doesn't stop the markers being put 15 yards ahead on half a dozen holes.......well within the 200 yard window but individually over the limit meaning the course is not acceptable for handicapping.

It is club's responsibility to ensure the course is setup within the rules and guidance for handicapping whenever possible.
The flexibility given to tee placement is more than sufficient to ensure that they are able to do that in all but the most extreme circumstances.

NB: in the rules and guidance, the 10 yards per hole is "should", and the 100 yards total is "must"; so there is a little flexibility on a hole by hole basis to go slightly beyond the 10 yards if there is good reason for needing to do so (county can/should be consulted depending on circumstances). It would be hard to justify doing it on more than a couple of holes.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Yes, but the underlying point is that difficult green complexes are undervalued in the course ratings. So course is rated much easier than it really is. I don't think I should be getting 3 more shots on a course that's only 500 yards longer but has vastly easier greens and much wider fairways, but that's how it is.

This is where I disagree. There has to be a priority in rating anything golf courses being no different. I may be wrong and one of our resident experts can correct me, but I was under the impression Yardage was highest priority, followed by greens size/contour etc and then you go down the lists of hazards, topography etc. If I’ve got that correct then I genuinely don’t believe they’re undervalued, something has to be top priority and makes sense for that to be length otherwise you wouldn’t have standard rating criteria if you changed it all the time.

Ultimately it’s a standardised criteria, you’re not going to please everyone, if they change Priority to greens over length even more people would complain they lose shots they need as they can’t reach greens etc.

People often moan about things they can’t control and outside influences of a course rating is wrong, it’s easier for scratch players or vice versa. Yet they rarely take responsibility for the things they can control like realising they need to improve certain areas of their own games and putting the time in to do that instead of living in hope someone is going to change the rules to make it easier for them.

 

[Neilds]

Has anyone else played Ori's course who can give a balanced view on the difficulty of the greens there? Ori has often mentioned that his putting is not the best so he is going to always struggle on the green. Are his home club greens all on the side of hills with massive slopes and running at 14 on the stimp?

 

[irip]

Has anyone else played Ori's course who can give a balanced view on the difficulty of the greens there? Ori has often mentioned that his putting is not the best so he is going to always struggle on the green. Are his home club greens all on the side of hills with massive slopes and running at 14 on the stimp?

I don’t think having fast greens at your home course is a big problem as you get used to them.
It’s when they are all different pace that makes it difficult.
Also if you played Ori at his home course him knowing the greens should give him a big advantage as he will know them a lot more than you (true of playing any member at their course but more obvious if greens are very tricky).

 

[RichA]

Has anyone else played Ori's course who can give a balanced view on the difficulty of the greens there? Ori has often mentioned that his putting is not the best so he is going to always struggle on the green. Are his home club greens all on the side of hills with massive slopes and running at 14 on the stimp?

At our place we all tend to have the view that our greens are ridiculously hard to play consistent golf on.
Mostly like upturned dishes, fast in places slow in others, bald or damaged patches from an unusually hot summer followed by an unusually wet winter, minimal straight flat places. A couple where an approach shot to within 6 feet is followed by a 3 or 4 putt.
But then a better player comes along and goes round 3 under par with <30 putts.
Not knocking @Orikoru; I don’t think you can judge any golf course objectively based on what its members think. Mine and me included.

 

[Orikoru]

At our place we all tend to have the view that our greens are ridiculously hard to play consistent golf on.
Mostly like upturned dishes, fast in places slow in others, bald or damaged patches from an unusually hot summer followed by an unusually wet winter, minimal straight flat places. A couple where an approach shot to within 6 feet is followed by a 3 or 4 putt.
But then a better player comes along and goes round 3 under par with <30 putts.
Not knocking @Orikoru; I don’t think you can judge any golf course objectively based on what its members think. Mine and me included.

Yeah that's fair, too many bad memories.

This is where I disagree. There has to be a priority in rating anything golf courses being no different. I may be wrong and one of our resident experts can correct me, but I was under the impression Yardage was highest priority, followed by greens size/contour etc and then you go down the lists of hazards, topography etc. If I’ve got that correct then I genuinely don’t believe they’re undervalued, something has to be top priority and makes sense for that to be length otherwise you wouldn’t have standard rating criteria if you changed it all the time.

Ultimately it’s a standardised criteria, you’re not going to please everyone, if they change Priority to greens over length even more people would complain they lose shots they need as they can’t reach greens etc.

People often moan about things they can’t control and outside influences of a course rating is wrong, it’s easier for scratch players or vice versa. Yet they rarely take responsibility for the things they can control like realising they need to improve certain areas of their own games and putting the time in to do that instead of living in hope someone is going to change the rules to make it easier for them.

My golf game is the same no matter where I play though so I'm not sure how that can be a factor. I'll miss greens and have to chip on every course. Arguably that should make the longer course harder if anything, since I should miss more of the greens.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Yeah that's fair, too many bad memories.


My golf game is the same no matter where I play though so I'm not sure how that can be a factor. I'll miss greens and have to chip on every course. Arguably that should make the longer course harder if anything, since I should miss more of the greens.

The course isn’t that much longer to make you miss many more greens but if the greens are flatter and you struggle on undulating greens then arguably it’s easier and that’s why you’re scoring better because you can get away with more average shots.

I totally get your point I just don’t agree

 

[Orikoru]

The course isn’t that much longer to make you miss many more greens but if the greens are flatter and you struggle on undulating greens then arguably it’s easier and that’s why you’re scoring better because you can get away with more average shots.

I totally get your point I just don’t agree

I'm not the only one with less than perfect short game though am I? Slope rating is meant to be how a bogey golfer fares against a scratch golfer (or something like that in layman's terms anyway). A lot of bogey golfers have poor short games. If the course is easier for people like me, with poor short games, then that slope rating should be brought down a bit.

 

[irip]

I'm not the only one with less than perfect short game though am I? Slope rating is meant to be how a bogey golfer fares against a scratch golfer (or something like that in layman's terms anyway). A lot of bogey golfers have poor short games. If the course is easier for people like me, with poor short games, then that slope rating should be brought down a bit.

If your short game is below average for your handicap then it stands to reason another part of your game must be above average.

If that’s with the driver then it makes sense on a longer course you score better

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I'm not the only one with less than perfect short game though am I? Slope rating is meant to be how a bogey golfer fares against a scratch golfer (or something like that in layman's terms anyway). A lot of bogey golfers have poor short games. If the course is easier for people like me, with poor short games, then that slope rating should be brought down a bit.

Of course you’re not. Im just using you as an example because you’re open and honest about it and commenting here. My point is just because you or others have a poor short game that doesn’t make the system for ratings or the course you’re
playing rating wrong. To suggest the rating is wrong because people with weaker short games struggle there isn’t the fault of the rating process, but it is wholly controllable by working to improve that part of their game.

If your short game is below average for your handicap then it stands to reason another part of your game must be above average.

If that’s with the driver then it makes sense on a longer course you score better

This is what I’m on about, clearly has decent long game to make up for shortfalls elsewhere. That in itself is commendable and shows having the potential to lower the handicap even further, but does mean having to be willing to put the same time and effort into the short game practice as they do for long game. The question then becomes how many times does that person go to the range and how long they spend hitting balls compared to how much they work on their short game. But that’s the trade off as club golfers with jobs and lives etc.

I’m not saying the greens aren’t tough at that course I haven’t played it, but I will always believe you have to work on what you can control. We can all moan it’s to hard the ratings wrong but we also are responsible for improving ourselves and if that chipping and putting work was put in and improved then and only then can you blame the course

 

[D-S]

A large window it may be overall but it doesn't stop the markers being put 15 yards ahead on half a dozen holes.......well within the 200 yard window but individually over the limit meaning the course is not acceptable for handicapping.

If you have several tees 15 or so ahead of the markers and the rest on or 5 or so yards ahead, on a regular basis being considerably forward of the markers then you are storing up potentially a big problem.
We had a club which during one winter had the course unacceptable for handicapping for a significant period of time. We had a complaint backed up with evidence, the club admitted it, EG instructed us to delete all the scores for handicap for that period - it was several hundred scores.
So just one complaint from a visitor can lead to big issues.
Every club has the facility to ‘turn its tees off’ in the ISV and the WHS portal and if the course does not conform (typically because it is over 100 yards shorter than the measured length) our advice is to do so immediately to prevent such problems arising.

 

[Imurg]

If you have 15 tees, on a regular basis being considerably forward of the markers then you are storing up potentially a big problem.
We had a club which during one winter had the course unacceptable for handicapping for a significant period of time. We had a complaint backed up with evidence, the club admitted it, EG instructed us to delete all the scores for handicap for that period - it was several hundred scores.
So just one complaint from a visitor can lead to big issues.
Every club has the facility to ‘turn its tees off’ in the ISV and the WHS portal and if the course does not conform (typically because it is over 100 yards shorter than the measured length) our advice is to do so immediately to prevent such problems arising.

Couldn't agree more....but I bet, in 90% of the cases, it doesn't happen.....

 

[D-S]

Couldn't agree more....but I bet, in 90% of the cases, it doesn't happen.....

You’re dead right, but having been through it with this club and the hassle it caused the committee and it’s members, it is a cautionary tale that is worth spreading.