Will Slope Ratings be updated?

[Voyager EMH]

Basically it’s all made up bollocks!

This is true.
But we must get to grips with the bollocks, I'm afraid.

 

[rudebhoy]

Well OP, you’ve been given a lot of technical information here. Has any of it changed you concept of “difficulty” of a course? Have you lessened your concern that your course is not rated correctly?

You are concerned with “I get 23 shots” or “I get 21 shots”. This is because you are equating back to the old system. You are equating your Course Handicap to your old handicap when these two things do not equate. The notion of “I get ** shots” is misleading if looked at in isolation and then attempting to equate this back to the old system.

Players have their Handicap Index in their heads and then notice how Slope Rating can result in differing Course Handicaps. Not unreasonable then, to assume Slope Rating is the main factor of difficulty rating of a course when doing this calculation on its own in isolation. Again, doing this in isolation is misleading.

Course Rating will affect your differential or “what I played to” for that score on that day. In calculating “what you played to” both Course Rating and Slope Rating play their part.

I played a course this year where my Course Handicap was 3. The concept of “I get 3 shots” is misleading. I went round in 10 over par. I played to (differential) 5.6. Not bad. This was mainly due to the Course Rating being 2.0 over par and a PCC of +1 on the day. Having a notion of “I get 3 shots” would not have helped me.

The point I am trying to get across to is that it will take time to get used to this new system and have an overall concept and understanding. It is more complicated than what went before. Focussing on one aspect or calculation and trying to equate this back to the old system will not help you or any of us.

Spend some hours (and I really do mean hours) looking at what scores produce what differentials for you at your course compared with another course. Or compare the differentials achieved for the same gross scores, but from the different tees at your course. These differentials are “what you played to” for that score. This will give you a much better concept of “difficulty” of a course.
These “what I played to” scores are the same for everybody (with respect to the net double bogey limit) and will show you what you should be aiming to do as well as what a scratch player should be trying for.

Be prepared to forget the concepts of the old system. It is not coming back. Embrace the new.

I'm not hankering after the old system. I'm a fan of WHS, the idea every card counts, and your handicap is (depending on how often you play) based on current / recent form is great.

The thinking behind course ratings - to try to provide consistency / fairness across courses with varying levels of difficulty - is also a very good one.

My issue here is that the way the slope rating has been calculated at our place doesn't seem quite right. That view is borne out by another member above who is a far lower handicapper than me. Given the thousands of courses which were rated, it's inevitable that some of those ratings aren't bang on the money. That's why I was asking whether and how often the ratings are reassessed. The answer seems to be every 10 years, which feels a long long time to me.

Our course is tight, but it doesn't have lots of hazards placed at a distance where higher handicappers are more likely to end up in them than lower longer hitting handicappers. Indeed, as pointed out above, the positioning of quite a few of the tee boxes make the course a lot harder off the whites than the yellows, yet the slope ratings are 138 vs 139, and most of us will get the same number of shots regardless if we are playing from the yellows or the whites. That just feels wrong to me given the nature of our course, if I was playing off the whites, I'd expect to score 2-3 shots more than off the yellows.

 

[SammmeBee]

This is true.
But we must get to grips with the bollocks, I'm afraid.

You are quite correct Sir and the positive of the WHS is I tend to now just go out and play golf….play well and something might happen the next day, play rubbish and something might happen the next day…..it is what it is!

 

[YandaB]

I wonder if it helps some people to visualise it? Here is a graph that shows the slope for the OP's course, the one nearby and also Birkdale as it was mentioned. The vertical scale is the difficulty of the course, or what a player with a specific handicap index will need to score to "play to handicap" (though as it is an average of 8 will almost certainly mean a reduction). The lines are "Sloped" which is where I beleive the meaning comes from.
Edit, scratch the last sentence, it's a different graph that is the slope.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not hankering after the old system. I'm a fan of WHS, the idea every card counts, and your handicap is (depending on how often you play) based on current / recent form is great.

The thinking behind course ratings - to try to provide consistency / fairness across courses with varying levels of difficulty - is also a very good one.

My issue here is that the way the slope rating has been calculated at our place doesn't seem quite right. That view is borne out by another member above who is a far lower handicapper than me. Given the thousands of courses which were rated, it's inevitable that some of those ratings aren't bang on the money. That's why I was asking whether and how often the ratings are reassessed. The answer seems to be every 10 years, which feels a long long time to me.

Our course is tight, but it doesn't have lots of hazards placed at a distance where higher handicappers are more likely to end up in them than lower longer hitting handicappers. Indeed, as pointed out above, the positioning of quite a few of the tee boxes make the course a lot harder off the whites than the yellows, yet the slope ratings are 138 vs 139, and most of us will get the same number of shots regardless if we are playing from the yellows or the whites. That just feels wrong to me given the nature of our course, if I was playing off the whites, I'd expect to score 2-3 shots more than off the yellows.

I think you are still confusing absolute and relative difficulty.

For example, a low handicapper is barely effected regardless of slope, in terms of their own handicap. A scratch golfer will play off scratch at the easiest course in the country, and they will also be off scratch at the hardest. Furthermore, the easiest course in the country may well not have the lowest slope and vice versa. In US, they may be off -5 at easiest course, and 5 at hardest course (depending on Course Ratings and Par of course).

 

[rulefan]

In US, they may be off -5 at easiest course, and 5 at hardest course (depending on Course Ratings and Par of course).

That is a very extreme example. As par is essentially a measure of length and CR is substantially length related, it would be very unusual to encounter such a difference.

 

[Backsticks]

I think you are still confusing absolute and relative difficulty.

Yes, unfortunately, without course rating being taken into account when playing different courses, Slope is mistaken to be an index of difficulty. And really, no one can have an intuitive feel for slope, as we might have for difficulty. Unless you can really 'see' the golf course as both a scratch, and a 20hc level golfer, or are trained in slope evaluation, no useful evaluation of slope can be made by the average golfer I think.

 

[doublebogey7]

I'm not hankering after the old system. I'm a fan of WHS, the idea every card counts, and your handicap is (depending on how often you play) based on current / recent form is great.

The thinking behind course ratings - to try to provide consistency / fairness across courses with varying levels of difficulty - is also a very good one.

My issue here is that the way the slope rating has been calculated at our place doesn't seem quite right. That view is borne out by another member above who is a far lower handicapper than me. Given the thousands of courses which were rated, it's inevitable that some of those ratings aren't bang on the money. That's why I was asking whether and how often the ratings are reassessed. The answer seems to be every 10 years, which feels a long long time to me.

Our course is tight, but it doesn't have lots of hazards placed at a distance where higher handicappers are more likely to end up in them than lower longer hitting handicappers. Indeed, as pointed out above, the positioning of quite a few of the tee boxes make the course a lot harder off the whites than the yellows, yet the slope ratings are 138 vs 139, and most of us will get the same number of shots regardless if we are playing from the yellows or the whites. That just feels wrong to me given the nature of our course, if I was playing off the whites, I'd expect to score 2-3 shots more than off the yellows.

What is the CR from the 2 tees?

 

[rudebhoy]

What is the CR from the 2 tees?

69.9 and 71.1

 

[Swango1980]

That is a very extreme example. As par is essentially a measure of length and CR is substantially length related, it would be very unusual to encounter such a difference.

I did state I was comparing the most extreme cases though, the easiest versus the hardest courses in the entire country the gap may well be higher, as I'm not sure what the course ratings and par are.

However, course ratings can certainly be anything from a few under to a few over par, so if CR-Par WAS taken into account, then golfers would commonly see noticable changes to handicap between courses.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, unfortunately, without course rating being taken into account when playing different courses, Slope is mistaken to be an index of difficulty. And really, no one can have an intuitive feel for slope, as we might have for difficulty. Unless you can really 'see' the golf course as both a scratch, and a 20hc level golfer, or are trained in slope evaluation, no useful evaluation of slope can be made by the average golfer I think.

Very very true. A very high slope would indicate the course is very hard for a high handicapper, but it could well be relatively easy for a scratch player. A course with a low slope could well be quite tricky for a scratch player, but relatively not so hard for higher handicap.

So, in reality, it is very difficult to get a feel for what a "correct" slope should be just based on how hard you feel the course is. And 99% of the time, when golfers say the slope is not correct, it is only because they are incorrectly thinking it should represent absolute difficulty of a course.

 

[doublebogey7]

69.9 and 71.1

So WHS expects you to score on average 1.2 shots more off the whites than the yellows. Do you know what your stats say or is it just a feeling that the whites play 2-3 shots harder?

 

[Swango1980]

So WHS expects you to score on average 1.2 shots more off the whites than the yellows. Do you know what your stats say or is it just a feeling that the whites play 2-3 shots harder?

Playing to your handicap off yellows is nett 70, off whites nett 71 (obviously can't have a decimal number as a score).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Playing to your handicap off yellows is nett 70, off whites nett 71 (obviously can't have a decimal number as a score).

Is that according to his Course Handicap or his Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay? Asking for a friend.

 

[Swango1980]

Is that according to his Course Handicap or his Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay? Asking for a friend.

I think you know. Course

 

[rudebhoy]

So WHS expects you to score on average 1.2 shots more off the whites than the yellows. Do you know what your stats say or is it just a feeling that the whites play 2-3 shots harder?

I don't have any meaningful stats as it's very rare for me to play off the whites, the vast majority of the comps I play in are for seniors so off the yellows. I think I've only played off the whites once at our place this year.

But if a scratch golfer is expected to take 1.2 shots more off the whites, then surely there is something wrong with a 19 handicapper getting the same number of shots off both tees?

 

[Backsticks]

But if a scratch golfer is expected to take 1.2 shots more off the whites, then surely there is something wrong with a 19 handicapper getting the same number of shots off both tees?

No, not at all. As slope is only a value for the relative difficulty, and slope can be positive or negative, there is nothing inherently wrong in your example.

 

[Swango1980]

I don't have any meaningful stats as it's very rare for me to play off the whites, the vast majority of the comps I play in are for seniors so off the yellows. I think I've only played off the whites once at our place this year.

But if a scratch golfer is expected to take 1.2 shots more off the whites, then surely there is something wrong with a 19 handicapper getting the same number of shots off both tees?

No, because the 19 handicapper is also expected to finish nett 1.2 shots higher off the whites

 

[SammmeBee]

No, because the 19 handicapper is also expected to finish nett 1.2 shots higher off the whites

Careful posting stuff like this as the ‘experts’ on here will get annoyed that you understand it far better than they do…..

 

[doublebogey7]

Playing to your handicap off yellows is nett 70, off whites nett 71 (obviously can't have a decimal number as a score).

As an average, you can