[TEPaul]

We had a handicap services committee meeting today and in a discussion of course rating and slope rating, it certainly occured to me that as a trend it's likely really good restorations with reclaimed greenspace, reclaimed fairway widths, tree removal etc that the trend on course rating and also slope rating could go down (although slope is no more than the relative difference between the course rating (scratch rating) and the bogey rating!).

Rating and sloping are necessarily a bit of an inexact science but as restoration can effect the obstacle ratings, those things I mentioned, (greenspace reclamation etc, etc) would logically drive down the obstacles ratings.

How many who have been involved in restorations have had complaints from various members (probably the better players) that the restoration will make the course easier?

Restorations have enough problems passing muster with memberships, I'd hate to see this situation become another one.

[Dennis_Harwood]

This is a question from the raters exam a couple of years ago--

"The members of Green Acres wish to restore a previously open stream crossing the first fairway which had been  "undergrounded" and grassed about 15 years ago.  The stream would cross the fairway at about 225 yards from the regular tees--

If the stream is restored would you expect the slope rating from those tees to--go up? go down? have no effect? and why?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What is, is.

Membership resistance or support is usually agenda oriented.

The raters have an obligation to be independent and rate the course as they view it, without any regard to consequence.

[Paul Richards]

When Ron Prichard developed the Master Plan for Beverly CC, he explained to us that the Slope and Rating should not change very much, despite the changes called for in the restoration plan.

BTW, the slope of 132 or so is awfully low for a tough course like BCC.  

For the record, in three years of the Chicago Open (1999-2001), the lowest score was a 67.

[Doug Siebert]

A high slope has nothing to do with whether the course is tough or not, that's the rating.  The slope is only telling you whether it is tough for bogey players relative to how tough it is for scratch players.  Its too bad that people have somehow decided that slope determines difficulty, it adds pressure to designers to create courses that slope high, which is exactly the opposite of what they should be designing for overall enjoyment.  Nothing at all wrong with a course that rates 77 and slopes 115, but unfortunately players would much rather their course rates 70 and slopes 140, and they'd actually think that means it is tougher!

Dennis, my guess would be that the restoration of that stream would make the slope go down.  A stream at 225 is going to be an issue for the hypothetical scratch player who drives it 250, or at least I'd assume so.  But for the hypothetical bogey player who drives it 200, it should be a non issue on the tee shot, and he's probably assumed to be not much of a problem for his second.

[Paul Richards]

I believe that after Skokie's restoration by Ron Prichard, it's slope and rating changed very little.

A low-handicap friend of mine that is a member there seems to be under the impression that the course got harder for the low-handicappers, but it got easier for the high-handicappers.

[TEPaul]

Doug Siebert:

Excellent post, particularly the rater's question!

Paul Richards:

If a course, such as Skokie, with a restoration was made harder for the low handicap player (in the eyes of raters) and was left neutral with the restoration for the handicap player (bogey player), the slope rating would logically go down.

Pat:

I'm not suggesting at all that the rating process and raters should not be completely independent of restorations, that's not the point.

The point is does the effects on slope with restorations have an effect on the popularity of restorations amongst memberships? It certainly appears it can, matter of fact in some clubs it already has. That's also taking into consideration how many members of golf clubs do not understand what slope means. As has been made clear here on this thread, many if not most golfers seem to think slope is about the same thing as a course's rating!

There may be a way to begin to overcome that misunderstanding, in my opinion. That would be to put on cards or anywhere else the "course rating" appears the "bogey course rating" also, or maybe even begin to call the "course rating" the "scratch course rating".  That way these people who don't seem to understand what slope is may begin to get a clearer idea of what it actually is.

But there may be other elements of this kind of thing (slope going down with restorations) that may even be benefical for restorations, and may even begin to move slope up.

Clearly when an architect begins to think about moving fairway bunkers and such uprange to accomodate technology and keep these features in the LZ's of the scratch player they're only upping the difficulty for the scratch player and lessening the difficulty for the bogie player as that bunker may then be out of range for the bogie player who is considered to drive the ball only 180-200yds.

In that particular case the "obstacle rating" on that hole would go down for the bogie player and up for the scratch player and this kind of trend would begin to lessen the slope rating on the golf course.

It's certainly possible by leaving those bunkers where they always were that the slope rating could go up! In other words, any obstacle in the 180-200 yard range (as many originally were) will increase the obstacle number for the bogey rating calculations (or at least not lessen them) and not increase the obstacle number for the scratch rating calculations.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Apparently the raters didn't think it changed much.  What I said was that my friend had the impression that it had gotten harder for him and the other low-handicappers.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I understand. But if your friend was right, logically the slope rating should move down--maybe just a little but down nonetheless. Does your friend understand why that's so?

[JohnV]

Tom, moving the bunker further along the hole would have no effect on the bogey obstacle rating since he gets the point (doesn't lose one actually) if there is a fairway bunker anywhere on the hole while they have to be within 20 yards of the scratch golfer's landing area to count for him.  Of course, this would increase the scratch rating slightly so the slope could go down if the bogey rating didn't change.  Unless this was happening on a number of holes, the change would be so minimal as to probably not matter.

Since the rating is about 85-95% based on length, the changes to the ratings base on restoration would probably be minimal.  For example, if you widened all the 14 fairways (assume 4 par 3s) from 25-29 yards to 40-50 yards wide, you would subtract 14 fairway points.  This would come out to -.17 obstacle value points on the scratch golfers and .35 points on the bogey obstacle rating.  In other words, the course rating would go down by ~.2 and the bogey rating by .4 based on a fairly significant change.  Additionally, the Rough and Recoverability rating would also go down because the fairways would now be over 40 yards wide.  But, since the new middle of the fairway might bring new green side bunkers on the line of play, carry factors might occur that didn't before.

I would ask the players who complained about the possible effect of this change how often they are shooting par right now and if they weren't why they thought it would be bad if the course played slightly easier if it was more interesting because of it.

As for Dennis' question, while the scratch golfer can carry it 225, I believe that any rater I know would call this a forced layup.  I would have the scratch golfer layup to 215 adding 35 yards to his effective playing length.  The Bogey golfer would get a new water rating (assuming no other water on the hole) of 2 and the scratch golfer 1.  The 35 yards of added length would increase the scratch yardage rating by ~.15 strokes while the bogey golfers would not be changed.  The Scratch golfer's fairway number would be decreased by 1 because of the layup, but his green target would probably go up 1 or even 2.  So, in general, the scratch rating would go up ~.2 while the bogey rating would probably be unchanged.  This means the slope would go down.

[corey miller]

Huntington CC on Long Island has done a wonderful in-house job in restoring the lost green areas.  I believe every green had shrunken over the years some by 20-30%.  There have been complaints from the membership that the course plays easier.  i do not think the course has been re-rated.  Generally, these complaints are not limited to just the low handicap golfers.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug S. hit the nail right on the head -- too many courses and golfers are under the general impression that a high slope is really the chief indicator for a demanding course. That's completely untrue and backwards.

It's the course rating that tells you the degree of demand as faced by the scratch player. Unfortunately, as Doug rightly said, you have a full range of course developers who move ahead in the "slope" area and don't realize the effect it will have on the bulk of their patrons.

Although I will add -- it's a rare day when you see a course rated 74+ with a slope rating that's below 130 when calculated from the tip tees. Maybe more should be designed with this equation in mind?

TEPaul:

In answer to your question -- if restorations are made it's possible that course and slope ratings will change --and possibly go up, however, I believe the more important question is does the work done benefit the course? If the answer is yes, then the aspect of CR and SL is a secondary concern.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Thank you for that logic and very detailed rating and slope info.

Matt:

I understand that course and slope rating changes may be of minor or secondary concern to some of us and that the primary concern should be, does the work done benefit the course? But some of us at the club have to deal with questions and concerns from members who consider things like this primary concerns and it's very important to explain it to them in detail, if necessary. It doesn't do any good at all to simply tell them their concerns are secondary and leave it at that. We made those mistakes in the beginning of this process and don't want to do that again.

It's very important (we think) to treat members questions and concerns respectfully and seriously and be prepared to explain the realities of things to them. The misunderstanding of slope rating is very prevalent and it's important to explain very carefully to golfers and members why that's so.

[JohnV]

Tom,

I think the key is to make the members understand that great and hard are not the same thing (except maybe in Golf Digest's rankings.)  Making a course more interesting is what makes it greater and that adding options and playability will make it more interesting for everyone.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

My guess is that it is just my friend's PERCEPTION that it has gotten harder for him.

I would be curious to see how things have worked out statistically though.

[brad miller]

well said John, we have a few on the site that aren't GD guys that think the same way.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Some qualified USGA raters here--

Answer is, as stated, course rating goes up and slope goes down--

The stream is in the scratch golfers hitting area, hence forced layup--No real material effect on bogey golfer(except slight increase for carry over water), so relative difficulty adds to scratch rating, little or no increase to bogey so slope goes down--

Course is made more difficult, but slope goes down(and public opinion thinks its an easier course, which it isn't)

[TEPaul]

Again, one of the best ways to break this prevalent misunderstanding amongst so many golfers is to post and publish the "bogey rating" (on scorecards or anywhere else) as they always have the "course rating"--ie the "scratch rating"!

Only that way will golfers begin to see that the slope rating does not relate directly to difficulty for the scratch player!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()