How "accurate" is the rating system (for purposes of establishing a handicap)?

[vbb]

I've been trying to find out some information regarding the slope/rating system for golf courses. I have a working theory that certain courses just fit certain golfers eyes much better than others, so the rating system is hard to normalize across all golfers.

 

Case in point, I play three golf courses around my area fairly regularly, my home course, the course close to my office and my good friend's home course. The course close to my office is a public/semi-private course that can play fairly long (7200 from the tips). It's also pretty wide open with large greens and few OB stakes. The main defenses are the tricky greens and expansive waste areas, but if you're decently long off the tee, you can be a little wayward and still score once you learn the best place to leave your approach shots. My home course is only 6000yds from the tips and has a good amount of OB left, but fairly little OB right. It's defense is some forced carry tee shots and doglegs and fairly small greens. My buddy's course is around 6500yds from the tips, and has OB everywhere. The greens are large, fast and true, but all the OB is the main defense.

 

If you're on with your driver, or smart enough to tee off with a 3W or hybrid to keep the ball in play, you can post a good score on my buddy's course. And since his course is rated harder than my course, 10 good scores there will result in a lower handicap than 10 good scores at my course. I'm a 12... so I am nowhere near scratch...but I certainly feel that either my buddy's course is rated too hard, or my course is rated too easy. When the two of us play on a neutral course, we will have very similar scores, with me probably beating him 6 or 7 out of 10 times, yet his handicap is a 10 compared to my 12.

 

Does anyone know who rates the courses and what criteria are considered?

 

[North Butte]

There's an entire handbook for the USGA course rating and the raters go through a pretty extensive training. I've not seen a copy of the handbook online but there's probably one out there somewhere. If not, your state golf association could perhaps provide you one (assuming you are a member, i.e. a handicap subscriber).

[Newby]

This is pretty superficial but might give you a taster

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/video-hub.html#brightcoveId=5834141980001&pageTitle=%20Rules%20of%20Golf%20Explained%3A%20Abnormal%20Course%20Conditions&playlist=rules-explained

[Newby]

This may be more helpful :-

 

The USGA Course Rating System takes account of the actual measured length of a golf course, factors that can affect the playing length and other challenges that influence the playing difficulty of each hole (obstacle factors).

 

The factors that can affect the effective playing length of a golf course are:

 

**Roll** – assessment of how far a ball will roll on fairways with various surface conditions/contouring

**Dogleg** – where the dogleg design of a hole does not allow a full tee shot to be played

**Wind** – assessment of average wind strength and direction

**Elevation** – difference in elevation between the tee and green and for player’s approach shots to the green

**Forced Lay-up** – where a player is forced to play short of obstacles that crosses the fairway

 

The ten obstacle factors that are used to determine the playing difficulty of a golf course are:

 

**Topography** – nature of the stance and lie within each landing zone and approach shot elevation to the green

**Fairway** – the width of fairway landing zones, hole length and nearby obstacles – trees, hazards and punitive rough

**Green Target** – evaluation of hitting the green with the approach shot – visibility and nature of the green surface

**Recover-ability and Rough** – difficulty of recovery if the tee shot landing zones and/or the green is missed

**Bunkers** – size and depth of bunkers and their proximity to landing zones and greens

**Out of Bounds / Extreme Rough** – depth and nature of punitive rough and proximity to landing zones and greens

**Penalty Areas **– shot length to carry water hazards, proximity of water hazards from centre of fairways and greens

**Trees** – size and density, proximity to centre of landing zones/greens, shot length to target areas, recovery difficulty

**Green Surface** – putting difficulty on a green – green speeds, surface contours and tiers

**Psychological** – evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other nine obstacle factors

[vbb]

^^Thanks!

[davep043]

I found this a few years ago. Its out of date, but includes a lot of detailed information that was in effect from 2012-2016. While I'm sure that some details have probably changed, I imagine that the overall process is very similar right now.

http://www.greenockgolfclub.co.uk/docs/Course%20Rating%20USGA%20System%20Manual%202012-2015.pdf

 

[DaveLeeNC]

This is ultimately an impossible problem. A given course can be 'easy' for one type of (for example) 10 HC golfer and 'hard' for a different type of 10 HC golfer. I was once on a trip and got paired with a nice guy (both of us singles) and we discovered that our indexes were identical. So we decided that we had to play a match. And the question was which tees. He was pretty long but had wild tendencies and I was the opposite. His comment was 'if we play the whites I am unlikely to shoot my index'. And I said 'if we play the blues, I am unlikely to shoot my index'. We played the blues and he won.

 

dave

[Truman]

The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

[Mcgeeno]

> @Truman said:

> The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

 

Agreed. I'm not sure on the full methodology but I've always found the base yardage seems to be the main factor.

 

My home course is just over 6000 yards fully tipped out. A short course by most standards.

 

When our club travels or plays in inter club matches we have a very solid history of success. When good players come to my course they do not shoot the 69 course rating often in tournaments.

 

Only two par 5's, 2 par threes over 230. Water, trees and OB on numerous holes. Small greens but not overly complicated for putting. I've always wondered how the science works for that. I would much rather take my chances at breaking 80 at a really tough course as a 1-2 cap then having to shoot 66 or 67 at an 'easy' course to get to my index.

 

I have found my handicap and some of my buddies handicaps travels pretty well. We will play longer courses that are more open and usually find we do well.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Truman said:

> The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

 

I have heard that argument about length a multiple times and once again I must say that it is not entirely true. One gets that idea when playing on courses where there are only a little more difficulties than the yardage. Once one plays on a course where there are lots of other things making the life of a golfer miserable one starts to understand the entire concept and it is not entirely about length.

 

Having said that I feel compelled to add that there is no perfect and fit-to-all rating / handicap system, all of them are mere compromises. Besides, handicap is just a number and only scratch is real golf, so why bother to stress..?

[davep043]

Statistically speaking, better players tend to be longer players, so having length be one of the primary factors in course rating makes sense. You have to start with something, distance is a reasonable starting point. You can always critique the order and magnitude of the additional factors that influence rating, but as @"Mr. Bean" says, there are so many ways that golfers vary from one another that ant rating system has to make compromises. It would be interesting to go back to the title of the thread, and ask the OP to define "accurate".

[Newby]

A formula for estimating what the rating of a course might turn out to be produces a ratio of very approximately 30 / 40 where 30 represents length and 40 is average difficulty

[gwt]

PhD in stats and physics takes it on:

http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/2015/03/the-selling-of-usgas-slope-handicap.html

[Newby]

Is the size of the sample mathematically sound?

[Newby]

The original research:

http://popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html

[davep043]

> @Newby said:

> The original research:

> http://popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html

 

Interesting that there was consideration given to using additional factors for the player's consistency of scores in handicapping. Obviously that was never adopted.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> Is the size of the sample mathematically sound?

 

According to the study "only the USGA has adequate data" so this analysis would "only give a hint of a slope effect (if there is one)".

 

dave

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

 

 

> Interesting that there was consideration given to using additional factors for the player's consistency of scores in handicapping. Obviously that was never adopted.

>

And I found this interesting.

**8. Future Research: The Player Variability Problem**

 

_The HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course._

 

_The HRT is considering a solution of adopting a normal model handicap formula which would mesh a two dimensional handicap to the Slope System. The solution could result in a Steady Eddy receiving more strokes on a high Slope Rated course than a Wild Willy of equal Handicap Index would receive._

**PS**

_a) How do I get italics to work?

b) What is Markdown?_

**PPS**

It worked that time but not for the text above !!!!!!!

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @Newby said:

> > @davep043 said:

>

>

> > Interesting that there was consideration given to using additional factors for the player's consistency of scores in handicapping. Obviously that was never adopted.

> >

> And I found this interesting.

> **8. Future Research: The Player Variability Problem**

>

> _The HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course.

>

> The HRT is considering a solution of adopting a normal model handicap formula which would mesh a two dimensional handicap to the Slope System. The solution could result in a Steady Eddy receiving more strokes on a high Slope Rated course than a Wild Willy of equal Handicap Index would receive._

> **PS**

> _a) How do I get italics to work?

> b) What is Markdown?_

> **PPS**

> It worked that time but not for the text above !!!!!!!

 

good stuff^^ that makes sense to me. I'll add, as the OP pointed out, that there are horses for courses. While the above is a good generality, other factors can make a player prefer one course over another. i.e. a fader of the ball might do better at some Jack Nicklaus designs than at courses more suited for a drawer of the ball. Other designed that always put the trouble the same distance off the tee might favor some players over others, etc.

[davep043]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

 

>

> good stuff^^ that makes sense to me. I'll add, as the OP pointed out, that there are horses for courses. While the above is a good generality, other factors can make a player prefer one course over another. i.e. a fader of the ball might do better at some Jack Nicklaus designs than at courses more suited for a drawer of the ball. Other designed that always put the trouble the same distance off the tee might favor some players over others, etc.

This is why I would ask the OP to define "accurate". Knowing that different designs and course conditions have different effects on players with different skill sets, how can there be a single definition of "accurate"? I think the toughest thing is to make ratings across the country or around the world consistent, understanding that many different ratings teams are involved. As detailed as the guidelines are, there's still a fair amount of judgement involved.

 

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

 

> As detailed as the guidelines are, there's still a fair amount of judgement involved.

>

Not that much.

eg Is the depth of that bunker over 5' ? How far to the PA from the centre of the fairway?

 

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @Newby said:

> > @davep043 said:

>

>

> > Interesting that there was consideration given to using additional factors for the player's consistency of scores in handicapping. Obviously that was never adopted.

> >

> And I found this interesting.

> **8. Future Research: The Player Variability Problem**

>

> _The HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course.

>

> The HRT is considering a solution of adopting a normal model handicap formula which would mesh a two dimensional handicap to the Slope System. The solution could result in a Steady Eddy receiving more strokes on a high Slope Rated course than a Wild Willy of equal Handicap Index would receive._

> **PS**

> _a) How do I get italics to work?

> b) What is Markdown?_

> **PPS**

> It worked that time but not for the text above !!!!!!!

 

_Italics won't work across

 

a paragraph break_

 

_If you want italics as such, you must_

 

_put the underscore at the end and beginning of each paragraph_

 

even if you highlight the text and click the italic button... there is a disconnect there unfortunately

[Newby]

Thanks. Just edited the original and it worked.

I'm sure the designer though it a good idea.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Mcgeeno said:

> > @Truman said:

> > The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

>

> Agreed. I'm not sure on the full methodology but I've always found the base yardage seems to be the main factor.

>

> My home course is just over 6000 yards fully tipped out. A short course by most standards.

>

> When our club travels or plays in inter club matches we have a very solid history of success. When good players come to my course they do not shoot the 69 course rating often in tournaments.

>

> Only two par 5's, 2 par threes over 230. Water, trees and OB on numerous holes. Small greens but not overly complicated for putting. I've always wondered how the science works for that. I would much rather take my chances at breaking 80 at a really tough course as a 1-2 cap then having to shoot 66 or 67 at an 'easy' course to get to my index.

>

> I have found my handicap and some of my buddies handicaps travels pretty well. We will play longer courses that are more open and usually find we do well.

 

Alot of times on those short courses, strategy gets away from players and we get greedy with the driver unless there are forced carries/layups or doglegs. Especially for longer players.

[vbb]

> @Mcgeeno said:

> > @Truman said:

> > The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

>

> Agreed. I'm not sure on the full methodology but I've always found the base yardage seems to be the main factor.

>

> My home course is just over 6000 yards fully tipped out. A short course by most standards.

>

> When our club travels or plays in inter club matches we have a very solid history of success. When good players come to my course they do not shoot the 69 course rating often in tournaments.

>

> Only two par 5's, 2 par threes over 230. Water, trees and OB on numerous holes. Small greens but not overly complicated for putting. I've always wondered how the science works for that. I would much rather take my chances at breaking 80 at a really tough course as a 1-2 cap then having to shoot 66 or 67 at an 'easy' course to get to my index.

>

> I have found my handicap and some of my buddies handicaps travels pretty well. We will play longer courses that are more open and usually find we do well.

 

This is the predominant theory that led to me posting the topic. A handicap can be "manipulated" in a way based on rounds played at certain courses. When an 82 at one course leads to a certain differential but it would take a 75 at another course to lead to the same differential, I know full well that it is far easier for me to shoot an 82 at the first course even though it is rated harder than it would be for me to shoot a 75 at the other. If I played 20 rounds at the longer, wider course my handicap index would surely be lower than if I played 20 rounds at the shorter, tighter (and "easier rated") course.

 

You have to figure that hitting greens and not 3 putting is a big key to consistent scoring, so the easier it is to hit greens, the easier it will be to score. At some of the shorter, tighter courses with OB or hazards/trees all around, having a clear second shot into the green may be tougher than a wider, longer course where a person can pull driver, miss the centerline by 20 yards and still have a look at the green.

[vbb]

> @davep043 said:

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

>

> >

> > good stuff^^ that makes sense to me. I'll add, as the OP pointed out, that there are horses for courses. While the above is a good generality, other factors can make a player prefer one course over another. i.e. a fader of the ball might do better at some Jack Nicklaus designs than at courses more suited for a drawer of the ball. Other designed that always put the trouble the same distance off the tee might favor some players over others, etc.

> This is why I would ask the OP to define "accurate". Knowing that different designs and course conditions have different effects on players with different skill sets, how can there be a single definition of "accurate"? I think the toughest thing is to make ratings across the country or around the world consistent, understanding that many different ratings teams are involved. As detailed as the guidelines are, there's still a fair amount of judgement involved.

>

 

Maybe "accurate" was the wrong word to use. A better word would have been "normalized" I think. It seems as if the majority of replies have addressed my question though. A course slope and rating is necessarily going to be a little squishy. I was not basing my theories off of scientific evidence, but rather personal experience. Playing to my handicap at some courses is a lot easier than at others, and on paper it would appear I do better at longer and higher rated courses. (The other thing that is obvious is that I probably need to leave driver in the bag at the shorter courses).

[HatsForBats]

> @vbb said:

> > @Mcgeeno said:

> > > @Truman said:

> > > The primary consideration is length. While many other things are considered, they are all small percentages. That’s the weakest part of the HC system.

> >

> > Agreed. I'm not sure on the full methodology but I've always found the base yardage seems to be the main factor.

> >

> > My home course is just over 6000 yards fully tipped out. A short course by most standards.

> >

> > When our club travels or plays in inter club matches we have a very solid history of success. When good players come to my course they do not shoot the 69 course rating often in tournaments.

> >

> > Only two par 5's, 2 par threes over 230. Water, trees and OB on numerous holes. Small greens but not overly complicated for putting. I've always wondered how the science works for that. I would much rather take my chances at breaking 80 at a really tough course as a 1-2 cap then having to shoot 66 or 67 at an 'easy' course to get to my index.

> >

> > I have found my handicap and some of my buddies handicaps travels pretty well. We will play longer courses that are more open and usually find we do well.

>

> This is the predominant theory that led to me posting the topic. A handicap can be "manipulated" in a way based on rounds played at certain courses. When an 82 at one course leads to a certain differential but it would take a 75 at another course to lead to the same differential, I know full well that it is far easier for me to shoot an 82 at the first course even though it is rated harder than it would be for me to shoot a 75 at the other. If I played 20 rounds at the longer, wider course my handicap index would surely be lower than if I played 20 rounds at the shorter, tighter (and "easier rated") course.

>

> You have to figure that hitting greens and not 3 putting is a big key to consistent scoring, so the easier it is to hit greens, the easier it will be to score. At some of the shorter, tighter courses with OB or hazards/trees all around, having a clear second shot into the green may be tougher than a wider, longer course where a person can pull driver, miss the centerline by 20 yards and still have a look at the green.

 

Sure. If you find a course that is tougher on your particular game you can manipulate your handicap up by playing there often. I have a shorter, tighter course where my index would be 9.0 from the rounds I have played there over the last 15'ish months. For a longer more wide open course that I play often my index would be 7.2. Give me a choice of which course to play and I am picking the longer more wide open course 90+% of the time.

 

67.0/129 course = 9.0 index

71.9/133 course = 7.2 index

[North Butte]

For instance at my home course, if I go up to what is generally considered the "senior" tees then after 20 rounds my handicap INDEX will be about 2 to 2-1/2 strokes lower than if I play back on the nominal "men's" tees.

 

Moving up takes almost all of the fairway bunkers out of play. And it lets me land the ball on top or over a few ridges where, from the longer tees, it hits into an upslope and stops. And it means when I miss a fairway I'm probably hitting a shorter club out of the rough.

 

But anyway, the details of why are just my supposition. The reality is, move up and drop my index a couple strokes. Move back and it goes back up. If I wanted to "game" my handicap I'd probably play way back one more set of tees and watch the index skyrocket. Then if I played someone in a match for money I could play the up tees and be, in effect, a sandbagger.

 

The game I normally play in has guys of all ages and abilities playing from whatever tees they like. The only rule is, pick one set of tees and stay there. You can't bounce around trying to fiddle your index by mixing and matching. If you want to move up, then move up and play all your rounds there.

 

Everyone knows the handicap system has holes in it w.r.t. matching up a given set of tees (or a given course) to a given player. But if you play enough rounds on the same course and tees it doesn't matter.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @"North Butte" said:

> For instance at my home course, if I go up to what is generally considered the "senior" tees then after 20 rounds my handicap INDEX will be about 2 to 2-1/2 strokes lower than if I play back on the nominal "men's" tees.

>

> Moving up takes almost all of the fairway bunkers out of play. And it lets me land the ball on top or over a few ridges where, from the longer tees, it hits into an upslope and stops. And it means when I miss a fairway I'm probably hitting a shorter club out of the rough.

>

> But anyway, the details of why are just my supposition. The reality is, move up and drop my index a couple strokes. Move back and it goes back up. If I wanted to "game" my handicap I'd probably play way back one more set of tees and watch the index skyrocket. Then if I played someone in a match for money I could play the up tees and be, in effect, a sandbagger.

>

> The game I normally play in has guys of all ages and abilities playing from whatever tees they like. The only rule is, pick one set of tees and stay there. You can't bounce around trying to fiddle your index by mixing and matching. If you want to move up, then move up and play all your rounds there.

>

> Everyone knows the handicap system has holes in it w.r.t. matching up a given set of tees (or a given course) to a given player. But if you play enough rounds on the same course and tees it doesn't matter.

 

I'm similar, but like to mix up the tees I play. Playing longer tees than I "should" definitely tests my game more...I can score if I am swinging well, my short game is good and everything lines up right, but it is easy for pars to turn into bogies or worse if anything is off. Yesterday, I played 2 balls- 1st from Tips 72.2/142 (7K) and 2nd up 2 boxes (1,000 yards) 67.7/121 (6 K). Was +6 (w/ 4 three putts and another from the fringe) for 15 holes on first ball and -1 on the 2nd ball for 18 (w/ 1 three putt). Hit both balls pretty well, but my speed control on long putts sucked...this was more of an issue on the longer course as I had many more long first putts than on the shorter course. This was my first time playing the 6 K box, but I have played the 7 & 6.5 K boxes a lot...while my best differentials are pretty similar (~0) from both boxes, my worst differential from the tips is much worse than my worst from 1 box up (having barely broken 100 the first time I played the tips).

[jjj912]

My experience is that courses are not rated consistently. In other words, similar courses can have materially different slope/ratings for comparable length tees. The course rating seems to be a lot more consistent than the slope. I think the course length, a purely objective measurement, dominates the rating determination, which is why it is more consistent. Slope seems to be influenced more by other factors, which is probably why it is less consistent.

 

As others have pointed out, you can game the handicap calculation simply by selectively choosing the set of tees to play from. My experience is that going from driver-long iron (rear tees) to fairway wood-midiron (front tees) doesn’t change your score nearly as much as the change in rating/slope would suggest (Obviously, there will be some courses where this is not true). Therefore, playing forward will increase your handicap and playing back will decrease it.

 

To the OP’s question about rating/slope being normalized or accurate, I would say it is good if everyone plays the same tees at the same course (everyone is measured by the same yardstick), a bit less so if everyone plays from different tees at the same course (the gaming issue), and much less if everyone plays different courses (rating inconsistencies).