USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Roadking2003]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

Thanks. What about a hole by hole breakdown?

[Newby]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

Thanks. What about a hole by hole breakdown?

The Rating and Slope only apply to the tees not to individual holes.

 

What were you expecting to see re an individual hole?

[Seamus_McDuff]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

 

Desert

[nsxguy]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

 

Desert

 

I suppose desert could be a penalty area but mostly I would think you'd hit out of that area rather than take a penalty stroke. Of course some desert courses recommend you not even go get your ball because of the wildlife,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I was thinking rows of hedges or large deep thickets/bushes.

[DaveLeeNC]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

Thanks. What about a hole by hole breakdown?

The Rating and Slope only apply to the tees not to individual holes.

 

What were you expecting to see re an individual hole?

 

I am pretty sure that the course rating process in the US is based on generating a scratch rating and a bogey rating for each hole/tee (where slope is calculated from the difference between scratch and bogey ratings).

 

dave

[Roadking2003]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

Thanks. What about a hole by hole breakdown?

The Rating and Slope only apply to the tees not to individual holes.

 

What were you expecting to see re an individual hole?

 

I assume the ratings are built up hole by hole. I would like to see the details around that process.

 

For example, we have a 457 yard (from the tips) par four that plays uphill and into a prevailing wind. It also has a creek down the right side. So what did the slope evaluators give this hole and why? What did the creek add? What did the hill add? etc.

[Hawkeye77]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

Thanks. What about a hole by hole breakdown?

The Rating and Slope only apply to the tees not to individual holes.

 

What were you expecting to see re an individual hole?

 

I assume the ratings are built up hole by hole. I would like to see the details around that process.

 

For example, we have a 457 yard (from the tips) par four that plays uphill and into a prevailing wind. It also has a creek down the right side. So what did the slope evaluators give this hole and why? What did the creek add? What did the hill add? etc.

 

Pretty sure your course would know the answer to that or can get it from whomever did the rating, but doubt you can find it publicly online. Ask the course.

[Newby]

 

Pretty sure your course would know the answer to that or can get it from whomever did the rating, but doubt you can find it publicly online. Ask the course.

 

The detailed ratings are not released to the clubs or anywhere else.

The rating teams do all the measuring and recording on the course. This is all put through a part man part machine computation. The elements would be virtually impossible for the layman to evaluate.

[Hawkeye77]

Pretty sure your course would know the answer to that or can get it from whomever did the rating, but doubt you can find it publicly online. Ask the course.

 

The detailed ratings are not released to the clubs or anywhere else.

The rating teams do all the measuring and recording on the course. This is all put through a part man part machine computation. The elements would be virtually impossible for the layman to evaluate.

 

Then I guess he won't see them! ;-)

[Seamus_McDuff]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

 

Desert

 

I suppose desert could be a penalty area but mostly I would think you'd hit out of that area rather than take a penalty stroke. Of course some desert courses recommend you not even go get your ball because of the wildlife,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I was thinking rows of hedges or large deep thickets/bushes.

 

Those too, like in the video

 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/areas-the-committee-may-mark-as-penalty-areas.html

[Newby]

I assume the ratings are built up hole by hole. I would like to see the details around that process.

 

For example, we have a 457 yard (from the tips) par four that plays uphill and into a prevailing wind. It also has a creek down the right side. So what did the slope evaluators give this hole and why? What did the creek add? What did the hill add? etc.

The detail you ask for is not available outside the USGA Rating Dept

 

But try this for starters:

 

http://www.usga.org/...r-e5bf725f.html

 

and this to follow:

 

http://www.greenockgolfclub.co.uk/docs/Course%20Rating%20USGA%20Manual%20&%20Guide.pdf

 

The latter is by no means the full manual but gives an idea of the information needed for scratch & bogey, men & women. It is recorded when on the course. There follows many hours of machination before the Course & Bogey Ratings and Slope are determined.

 

This is in addition to the four of five hours to collect it (if there are only a few tees to rate)

[Roadking2003]

Pretty sure your course would know the answer to that or can get it from whomever did the rating, but doubt you can find it publicly online. Ask the course.

 

The detailed ratings are not released to the clubs or anywhere else.

The rating teams do all the measuring and recording on the course. This is all put through a part man part machine computation. The elements would be virtually impossible for the layman to evaluate.

 

I would prefer to make that decision myself. And I distrust experts who tell me full disclosure is too complex for me to understand. My surgeon explained what he planned to do in a lot of detail.

 

Why not promote transparency rather than the committee saying "The slope is 135, trust us"?

[Roadking2003]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/test-item-graphics/

[rogolf]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchann...-item-graphics/

There's lots of information available on the USGA site. (Oh, I forgot, you don't trust them!)

[Roadking2003]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchann...-item-graphics/

There's lots of information available on the USGA site. (Oh, I forgot, you don't trust them!)

 

What's that about?

[Newby]

I would prefer to make that decision myself.

 

 

You'll have to take it up with the USGA.

 

But why would they lie about a rating?

 

Edit:

 

Just a thought. 5,000,000 golfers in the USA ask for the details of the rating calculation of the courses they play. How does that work?

[davep043]

The rating process is inherently subjective, so is inherently open to second-guessing by all of us untrained but avid golfers. From what I understand, there isn't a single rater, but a team of 10 to 12 different course raters work together to produce the final numbers. To release the hole-by-hole detailed worksheets would invite a storm of criticism. To get an idea of the complexity of the rating system, take a look at a few of these:

 

http://www.usga.org/articles/2011/03/the-artful-science-of-the-usga-course-rating-system-2147496622.html

https://www.usga.org/HDCPAssocLogin/CalibrationSeminarReg/Forms/USGACourseRatingCalibrationQandA-Rev.pdf

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/32104165/usga-course-rating-workbook-england-golf

http://oga.org/handicaps/tee-green-and-all-between-course-rating-primer

 

One of my long-term interests would be to take the course rating training, and learn to do it myself. Even so, I'd probably never agree with the numbers that the rating teams put together.

[DaveLeeNC]

The rating process is inherently subjective, so is inherently open to second-guessing by all of us untrained but avid golfers. From what I understand, there isn't a single rater, but a team of 10 to 12 different course raters work together to produce the final numbers. To release the hole-by-hole detailed worksheets would invite a storm of criticism. To get an idea of the complexity of the rating system, take a look at a few of these:

 

http://www.usga.org/...2147496622.html

https://www.usga.org...onQandA-Rev.pdf

https://www.yumpu.co...ok-england-golf

http://oga.org/handi...e-rating-primer

 

One of my long-term interests would be to take the course rating training, and learn to do it myself. Even so, I'd probably never agree with the numbers that the rating teams put together.

 

To release useful information would not require that 'everything be released. But from what I know each hole's analysis kind of stands on its own and ends up with a scratch and bogey rating . If the support software doesn't output that it would be simple to change that, but I cannot imagine going through that process without seeing the results for each hole. And that information could be VERY helpful to handicap committees who are trying to come up with hole handicaps, particularly in the case of major course changes (and therefore course ratings) where said committee would like to get the hole handicaps 'out there' without the long delays of collecting hundreds of scorecards from the subset of golfers whose handicap fits the process.

 

dave

[rogolf]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchann...-item-graphics/

There's lots of information available on the USGA site. (Oh, I forgot, you don't trust them!)

 

What's that about?

And I distrust experts who tell me full disclosure is too complex for me to understand. My surgeon explained what he planned to do in a lot of detail.

 

Why not promote transparency rather than the committee saying "The slope is 135, trust us"?

 

Why not be a self-starter and go to the source (USGA) instead of asking somebody else to find the link for you?

[nsxguy]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchann...-item-graphics/

There's lots of information available on the USGA site. (Oh, I forgot, you don't trust them!)

 

What's that about?

And I distrust experts who tell me full disclosure is too complex for me to understand. My surgeon explained what he planned to do in a lot of detail.

 

Why not promote transparency rather than the committee saying "The slope is 135, trust us"?

 

Why not be a self-starter and go to the source (USGA) instead of asking somebody else to find the link for you?

 

Well, he did go to the surgeon who explained what he planned to do in detail - it's not like he read the medical journals. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[LeoLeo99]

The USGA operates way too clandestinely to get a dime of my money.

[Newby]

The rating process is inherently subjective, so is inherently open to second-guessing by all of us untrained but avid golfers. From what I understand, there isn't a single rater, but a team of 10 to 12 different course raters work together to produce the final numbers.

 

It is primarily objective. It's all about real measurements. Where are obstructions in relation to the landing zone? How big are they? How wide is the fairway? What is the size of the green?

Very little is subjective. How difficult is it to get out of the trees? The subjectivity is a very significant part of the training of about 3 full days plus refreshers.

 

Teams consist of a minimum of three. Generally not more than five.

 

This gives a good idea of what it is all about

 

http://www.mesga.org...NS=CS&DN=RATING

 

Incidentally, the article above doesn't really make it clear that when rating for the bogey player, the relative positions of obstacles change because the bogey player doesn't hit the ball as far. This of course applies to lady scratch and bogey players.

Some obstacles are not relevant, others now come into play.

[davep043]

A number of the factors are subjective, including topography, R&R, bunkers, trees, green contours, and the mathematical method for psychological difficulties. I know they've tried to make the system as objective and repeatable as possible, but there's still a significant amount of judgement involved.

[North Butte]

Assigning a precise number to a subjective judgement does not make it “objective”.

 

Nothing wrong with incorporating a trained expert’s subjective judgment into a calculation, of course. Sometimes that adds valuable information. But subjective is subjective.

[Roadking2003]

I would prefer to make that decision myself.

 

 

You'll have to take it up with the USGA.

 

But why would they lie about a rating?

 

Edit:

 

Just a thought. 5,000,000 golfers in the USA ask for the details of the rating calculation of the courses they play. How does that work?

 

I doubt that they would lie. But why keep it secret? Why not make it public?

 

They could easily put the details on their website and let the public look at it or ignore it. Just like they do for the front 9 / back 9 data in your link.

 

In fact, it might be interesting to some of us to study the process and become course raters.

[Roadking2003]

This was posted on March 1 and is now out of date. Does anybody have a link to the latest rule changes in this same format?

 

http://www.golfchann...-item-graphics/

There's lots of information available on the USGA site. (Oh, I forgot, you don't trust them!)

 

What's that about?

And I distrust experts who tell me full disclosure is too complex for me to understand. My surgeon explained what he planned to do in a lot of detail.

 

Why not promote transparency rather than the committee saying "The slope is 135, trust us"?

 

Why not be a self-starter and go to the source (USGA) instead of asking somebody else to find the link for you?

 

Chill dude! It's not a big deal. Did you have a fight with your wife? Girlfriend? Both?

[Roadking2003]

The rating process is inherently subjective, so is inherently open to second-guessing by all of us untrained but avid golfers. From what I understand, there isn't a single rater, but a team of 10 to 12 different course raters work together to produce the final numbers. To release the hole-by-hole detailed worksheets would invite a storm of criticism. To get an idea of the complexity of the rating system, take a look at a few of these:

 

http://www.usga.org/...2147496622.html

https://www.usga.org...onQandA-Rev.pdf

https://www.yumpu.co...ok-england-golf

http://oga.org/handi...e-rating-primer

 

One of my long-term interests would be to take the course rating training, and learn to do it myself. Even so, I'd probably never agree with the numbers that the rating teams put together.

 

To release useful information would not require that 'everything be released. But from what I know each hole's analysis kind of stands on its own and ends up with a scratch and bogey rating . If the support software doesn't output that it would be simple to change that, but I cannot imagine going through that process without seeing the results for each hole. And that information could be VERY helpful to handicap committees who are trying to come up with hole handicaps, particularly in the case of major course changes (and therefore course ratings) where said committee would like to get the hole handicaps 'out there' without the long delays of collecting hundreds of scorecards from the subset of golfers whose handicap fits the process.

 

dave

 

Exactly. I can't imagine any valid reason to NOT disclose the details. If we are too stupid to understand the math, that's our problem. But I think it would be quite interesting.

[Newby]

They could easily put the details on their website and let the public look at it or ignore it.

 

In fact, it might be interesting to some of us to study the process and become course raters.

 

Although I have no real disagreement with the principle, just the practicalities.

If one member of a club queried (ie disagreed with and asked for justification) one hole on their course, that would be 16000 discussions the USGA teams would have to resolve and possibly revisit.

 

Why not just simply apply to be a rater and go on the course?

Many courses offer a courtesy round to the raters. In fact I'm not sure if some state authorities in the US say that raters should play the course afterwards.

[Colin L]

A number of the factors are subjective, including topography, R&R, bunkers, trees, green contours, and the mathematical method for psychological difficulties. I know they've tried to make the system as objective and repeatable as possible, but there's still a significant amount of judgement involved.

 

How can physical, measurable features like topography, bunkers, trees, green contours be subjective? (Maybe R&R as well but I don't know what that is and Rest and Recreation doesn't seem to fit :))

[Newby]

Recoverability and Rough - an evaluation of the probability of missing the landing zone/green and the difficulty of recovering if missed.

The measurable elements are

- Average Rough Height. Different factors depending on type of grass.

 

Length of carry to reach Target and again grass length and type - (Bogey players only)

 

The resultant 'point count' depends on the player (M/F/S/B)

 

Edit:

 

Here's a snippet from the procedure.

If more than 1/2 the green is closely bordered with a Rise and/or Drop greater than 5', do not include any area that is closely bordered by bunkers.

No opinions, just measuring, .

 

Attached is a typical recording form for one hole for one set of tees for one gender.