New Course Rating System

[Joe Schmoe]

Could be tied into handicap system

With the power of computers today. I'm curious as to why the usga doesn't record hole by hole scores for each course. You could then crunch all the numbers and see what a course rating should be, as well as what a players handicap should be. As a side bonus, you could enter only the holes you played.

It seems that this would be a great way to keep courses on opposite sides of the country on equal footing, rather than reling on the unbiasedness of humans.

[brettcra]

I could go on all day about how bad the rating system is. Every high end course is way overrated, and every small muni is way underrated. I shoot some of my worst scores on the small cheap courses with ratings of 67 and 68. They may not have as many bunkers and hazards, but they are usually not in great shape, and half the time you hit one in the fairway and you still have a bad lie. These scores kill my handicap. Then I go to an expensive course and everything is well groomed and I shoot lights out. Unfortunately, I can't afford to play the high end courses enough to make up for the cheap ones. I know if I belonged to a private club, my handicap would drop 5 strokes.

[larrybud]

With the power of computers today. I'm curious as to why the usga doesn't record hole by hole scores for each course. You could then crunch all the numbers and see what a course rating should be, as well as what a players handicap should be. As a side bonus, you could enter only the holes you played.

 

It seems that this would be a great way to keep courses on opposite sides of the country on equal footing, rather than reling on the unbiasedness of humans.

 

How would you rate a brand new course? Obviously a new course wouldn't have a rating until a significant amount of players (with handicaps) played it. You need to know who's scratch, and who's a bogey golfer to compute the slope. Then what would those players do with the score when they had no rating/slope?

 

The think the main failing of the handicap system are the cheaters that don't post all of their scores.

[larrybud]

I could go on all day about how bad the rating system is. Every high end course is way overrated, and every small muni is way underrated. I shoot some of my worst scores on the small cheap courses with ratings of 67 and 68. They may not have as many bunkers and hazards, but they are usually not in great shape, and half the time you hit one in the fairway and you still have a bad lie. These scores kill my handicap. Then I go to an expensive course and everything is well groomed and I shoot lights out. Unfortunately, I can't afford to play the high end courses enough to make up for the cheap ones. I know if I belonged to a private club, my handicap would drop 5 strokes.

 

Then system has to fit ALL levels of golfers and ALL types of games. I believe if you're a fairly solid ball striker, the local muni will give you a higher differential than a nicer, more difficult course.

 

However, bring out the average hacker or old fart, and the difficult course can REALLY be difficult. So a happy medium is sought out.

 

The handicap system is based on a LOT of statistical data collected over the years. Every once in a while they tweak it, but all in all, it works fine IMO, as long as people post their scores and play by the rules.

 

However, I'll see people who get KILLED in net tournament play because they never play the ball down, drop the ball where it goes OB, have no clue where to drop for hazards or unplayables, etc. Their handicap is phony to begin with

[Joe Schmoe]

For a new course just use the first months worth of scores to compute it's rating. Presumable you don't have new golfers as well. You know the other golfers handicaps from the scores at other courses that are played. So therefore you know if you have a bunch of scratch golfers playing, or a bunch of hacks like me.

[BILL12x]

What do you think about the "new" ratings that they are doing?

 

It used to be that the #1 handicap hole was the toughest on that side, then 3, then 5, etc. Now, they are ranking by the difference between the good players and the not so good players. For example, If what used to be the #1 handicap hole is generally bogied by both good and bad players, it will now have a much higher handicap rating so as not to give a stroke there, because essentially, both players need a shot there. What happens with this is that now you end up having to give up a stroke on an easier hole. Personally, I think this type of rating sucks.

[Joe Schmoe]

What do you think about the "new" ratings that they are doing?

 

It used to be that the #1 handicap hole was the toughest on that side, then 3, then 5, etc. Now, they are ranking by the difference between the good players and the not so good players. For example, If what used to be the #1 handicap hole is generally bogied by both good and bad players, it will now have a much higher handicap rating so as not to give a stroke there, because essentially, both players need a shot there. What happens with this is that now you end up having to give up a stroke on an easier hole. Personally, I think this type of rating sucks.

I didn't think that this is new. I haven’t read anything from the USGA that says the hardest hole should be handicap #1. And secondly the way they are now doing it is correct. You give strokes on the holes where there is the greatest disparity in likely scores. It just so happens that it is usually the case that the hard holes, are often the holes where the disparity is the greatest.

[SadTrombone]

The handicap system was the worst thing to happen to golf. Play me straight up...if we play enough that we realize I should be giving you 5-6 shots, we'll deal with that if we play for something. I don't think the USGA should be dictating that I give you 12 shots when you're more like a 5 than a 15.

 

Not that everyone is like that but some (many) are.

 

-mini

[wkuo3]

The handicap system was the worst thing to happen to golf. Play me straight up...if we play enough that we realize I should be giving you 5-6 shots, we'll deal with that if we play for something. I don't think the USGA should be dictating that I give you 12 shots when you're more like a 5 than a 15.

 

Not that everyone is like that but some (many) are.

 

-mini

 

Yes, and no. How else could a system that's not overly complicated for the general golfers to use.

In a smaller closed group , which we have about 80+ now.

Our group of golfers likes to put small bets on golf outing, and we'll adjust after each round according to the scores that day, after a few rounds, you'd bet it's very close to the true handicap between each golfers.

But for a large open tournaments, until a better solution comes up, U.S.G.A. handicap system is what we use for the general purpose.