Course rating vs score

[PracticeSwinger]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

The system does not think the average scratch hits it 250 off the tee.  It uses that metric for the course rating. A subtle but distinct difference.

  To have consistent ratings across the world they have to use some arbitrary distance.  For a scratch could or should they use 260? 280? 300?  Does it really matter as long as ratings are done the same way every time?

Agree completely... and as you mentioned, for scratch players, it doesn't make much difference if it's an arbitrary 250 or 270 since it only needs to be consistent - which it is... where I think it might introduce a length skewing is for all non-scratch guys and their differentials - with slope being a linear approximation (thus the name!) from scratch to bogey and stating that the scratch 'population' hits it 'only' 50 yards more than the bogey 'population'... this is just my hunch; haven't run any data , so take that with a grain of salt... (then again, no system can be flawless by trying to generalize players by category/abilities - while everyone's game has it's particular strengths/weaknesses)

[larrybud]

17 hours ago, 2bGood said:

On some holes the angles don't allow me to take advantage of my length so I have to hit mid iron off the tee and I end up the same place as I would with driver from the tips, so there is no guarantee that those hole are all that much easier. 

 

That's taken into consideration as the effective playing distance is calculated on each hole, and a factor in the calculation/adjustments.

[larrybud]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

The system does not think the average scratch hits it 250 off the tee.  It uses that metric for the course rating. A subtle but distinct difference.

That's the actual definition of the "scratch player" in the handicapping manual, so please explain what the difference is?

"A Course Rating is based on the expected performance of the scratch player as defined and described in Section 3. A Course Rating is based on measured length, effective playing length corrections, and 10 obstacle factors to the extent that they affect the scoring ability of a scratch player."

Definition:

"Scratch Player - A player with a 0.0 Handicap Index. A scratch player, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level."

 

note: [brackets] are for women.

[Shilgy]

16 minutes ago, larrybud said:

That's the actual definition of the "scratch player" in the handicapping manual, so please explain what the difference is?

"A Course Rating is based on the expected performance of the scratch player as defined and described in Section 3. A Course Rating is based on measured length, effective playing length corrections, and 10 obstacle factors to the extent that they affect the scoring ability of a scratch player."

Definition:

"Scratch Player - A player with a 0.0 Handicap Index. A scratch player, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level."

 

note: [brackets] are for women.

They’re the same…the second one includes the phrase “for rating purposes”.

[Pepperturbo]

Never mentioning tee and ratings, low scores always feel and sound good. 

 

When I play Executive type courses 5600-5900 yards, I only use irons off all tees, and typically finish even Par or 1-3 under.  I won't play those courses with Driver or more than once-twice a month as it has what I see as a negative lowering effect on my index, artificially drops it.  There will come the day when those length courses will be all I play, till then I chase challenge till I can't. At my age, that challenge is 6500-6700yds. lol

 

I always think about competition and winning.  Difficult tees and courses create fractionally higher scores, but build an index that travels well and keeps me comfortable facing challenge.  But how it's perceived depends on the person, and his/her golf agenda.  Some people only hear the score, others tee block color or yardage, but most seldom, if ever, ask rating.  I get boring flipping wedges and enjoy the dying 'art' of using longer irons into greens, still. 🙂

 

Having played Interclub team play for a lot of years, one thing I noticed was over long period, low scores from easier tees affect confidence.  Seen it during match play events and with friends and colleagues.  Mind you, this is NOT a criticism, just observation.  When invited to more challenging courses they stand on tees and think to themselves... oh, sh.... I've seen it in their eyes... 😛 

 

Maybe that's behind why I still play more challenging courses.  When a friend invites me to play member/guest at his private club like this brute, Blue tees Par 71, 6700+, 73.7, 137 or another friend's club split/tees 6440+yards, 71.7/130, I relish the challenge. 

 

@isaacbm posed a good question about wind.  Here in SoCA, AZ and TX I face wind far too often.  How's it measured in slope the day of play?

Edited October 7, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[PracticeSwinger]

13 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

@isaacbm posed a good question about wind.  Here in SoCA, AZ and TX I face wind far too often.  How's it measured in slope the day of play?

To the best of my knowledge is it included in the effective playing distance (along with elevation, roll, dogleg and altitude above sea level) that serves for the Scratch yardage rating and Bogey yardage rating... it is set for prevailing wind and not adjusted on a daily basis... 

[Pepperturbo]

3 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

To the best of my knowledge is it included in the effective playing distance (along with elevation, roll, dogleg and altitude above sea level) that serves for the Scratch yardage rating and Bogey yardage rating... it is set for prevailing wind and not adjusted on a daily basis... 

Thanks. 

 

I still don't understand how it is factored in, yet not adjusted daily???  🧐  The other day, I was playing into a 2-3 club wind.  It affected the difficulty of each shot on holes coming in on that course, rated 71.5/128.

[larrybud]

 

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Thanks. 

 

I still don't understand how it is factored in, yet not adjusted daily???  🧐  The other day, I was playing into a 2-3 club wind.  It affected the difficulty of each shot on holes coming in on that course, rated 71.5/128.

 

"Prevailing wind" is factored into the base calculation.  You guys should read the USGA Course Rating Guide. It's about 50 pages long. It's way more involved than people think:

 

A length correction for wind should be made based on average daytime wind speed during the midseason. Landing zones and approach shot lengths are not adjusted for Wind.

Although there are no specific adjustments for Wind, if Wind is generally a factor when playing a hole and an obstacle could be rated at a particular value or one higher, consider using the higher rating value.

Local weather services or websites can provide information on wind speed. Many local airports also publish weather data that can provide daily average wind speed as well as sustained wind speed that is appropriate for this procedure. In addition, check with golf course staff for this information and attempt to validate by consulting multiple information sources.

 

There then in a "wind rating table", in which adjustments are made based on average wind speed.

 

As far as daily factors, that's where the PCC (Playing Condition Calculation) comes into play based on unknown formula/standard deviation that they haven't made public.

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by larrybud

[isaacbm]

7 hours ago, Shilgy said:

The system does not think the average scratch hits it 250 off the tee.  It uses that metric for the course rating. A subtle but distinct difference.

  To have consistent ratings across the world they have to use some arbitrary distance.  For a scratch could or should they use 260? 280? 300?  Does it really matter as long as ratings are done the same way every time?

I think it matters. It’s significantly easier to be a “scratch“ now as the average scratch hits it 25 to 30 yards further than they did when the system was developed. 

[Krt22]

18 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

I think it matters. It’s significantly easier to be a “scratch“ now as the average scratch hits it 25 to 30 yards further than they did when the system was developed. 

That must explain why my club is flooded with nothing but scratch golfers

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, isaacbm said:

I think it matters. It’s significantly easier to be a “scratch“ now as the average scratch hits it 25 to 30 yards further than they did when the system was developed. 

There are plenty of shorter players that still play to scratch…..few guys like @Obee that still can thrive at some courses.

 

But I get what you are saying.   An argument could be made I guess that the shorter scratch player is actually a better, at least more well rounded, player than his longer brethren.

 

But again….let’s say you are correct and it is easier now.  What should the USGA do? Just lower the rating on every course about two strokes so everyone’s handicap goes up?  You’d still have to give me a half dozen strokes. So it’s just semantics imho.

[Obee]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

There are plenty of shorter players that still play to scratch…..few guys like @Obee that still can thrive at some courses.

 

But I get what you are saying.   An argument could be made I guess that the shorter scratch player is actually a better, at least more well rounded, player than his longer brethren.

 

But again….let’s say you are correct and it is easier now.  What should the USGA do? Just lower the rating on every course about two strokes so everyone’s handicap goes up?  You’d still have to give me a half dozen strokes. So it’s just semantics imho.

I would actually be OK with all courses being rated a bit more easily. The game has actually gotten easier for those who are good at it. Probably 1 1/2 strokes different would be about right. Change the par five distance to 500 yards. That alone would change par on many, many golf courses. And if we start to change par, then the ratings will follow.

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, Obee said:

I would actually be OK with all courses being rated a bit more easily. The game has actually gotten easier for those who are good at it. Probably 1 1/2 strokes different would be about right. Change the par five distance to 500 yards. That alone would change par on many, many golf courses. And if we start to change par, then the ratings will follow.

Hmm, do they really take par into the equation for rating?  Seems odd to say the least.   And if my math is correct….would lowering the course rating tend to make the slope higher?  It might play easier for the longer scratch but certainly no easier for the bogey golfer…..so the slope would go up. Which would negate some of the handicap increase for those higher than scratch.

 

I get it now!  You wily old coot! 🤣 As a scratch your handicap would go up a bit and the guys you’re giving strokes to wouldn’t go up as much because of the increased slope number.

 

[Obee]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Hmm, do they really take par into the equation for rating?  Seems odd to say the least.   And if my math is correct….would lowering the course rating tend to make the slope higher?  It might play easier for the longer scratch but certainly no easier for the bogey golfer…..so the slope would go up. Which would negate some of the handicap increase for those higher than scratch.

 

I get it now!  You wily old coot! 🤣 As a scratch your handicap would go up a bit and the guys you’re giving strokes to wouldn’t go up as much because of the increased slope number.

 

No, I am separating the two. A 6520-yard golf course with four par-5's and a par of 72--with three of the par fives being under 500 yards--is not really a par 72. That is all. Changing rating and slope would be separate. But they are connected. 

[PracticeSwinger]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Hmm, do they really take par into the equation for rating?  Seems odd to say the least.   And if my math is correct….would lowering the course rating tend to make the slope higher?  It might play easier for the longer scratch but certainly no easier for the bogey golfer…..so the slope would go up. Which would negate some of the handicap increase for those higher than scratch.

Par isn't part of the equation... and for the latter part, it all depends if the Bogey rating would decrease accordingly (if the same easing method is used) to the Course rating to change slope or not... (pretty sure you got all that and were just jabbing with Obee)

[dvq9654]

21 hours ago, larrybud said:

Definition:

"Scratch Player - A player with a 0.0 Handicap Index. A scratch player, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level."

 

note: [brackets] are for women.

This is pretty laughable. What player hits a drive 250 on average, yet can reach a 470 yard hole in two on a regular basis? Of course someone who drives it 250 CAN hit a 470 yard hole in two, but it would not be a regular occurrence. It would be a good drive plus all out 3 wood off the deck. 

 

They may mean can in a very literal sense, but I would argue this definition highlights an oddity in the way they view distance while creating course ratings / handicapping. 

 

[PracticeSwinger]

2 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

This is pretty laughable. What player hits a drive 250 on average, yet can reach a 470 yard hole in two on a regular basis? Of course someone who drives it 250 CAN hit a 470 yard hole in two, but it would not be a regular occurrence. It would be a good drive plus all out 3 wood off the deck. 

 

They may mean can in a very literal sense, but I would argue this definition highlights an oddity in the way they view distance while creating course ratings / handicapping. 

 

This is obviously WRX... but we need to keep in mind that - only looking at the USA : 1.6% of players are scratch or better and only approximately 10% of golfers have a recognized handicap index...

So, that basically applies to 5 players for every 3,000 golfers you see out there

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, dvq9654 said:

This is pretty laughable. What player hits a drive 250 on average, yet can reach a 470 yard hole in two on a regular basis? Of course someone who drives it 250 CAN hit a 470 yard hole in two, but it would not be a regular occurrence. It would be a good drive plus all out 3 wood off the deck. 

 

They may mean can in a very literal sense, but I would argue this definition highlights an oddity in the way they view distance while creating course ratings / handicapping. 

 

I am not seeing what is laughable and I am not seeing where they said anything about "regular basis". A legit scratch golfers avg drive distance is pretty consistent, its the main thing scratch/+ guys do that really differentiates themselves from other golfers, it's the consistency of their dispersion patterns, especially with longer clubs.  They can and will hit driver then 3w off the deck and reach a 470 yard hole in two as long as they have a decent lie. I see it happen just about every weekend (although the + guys are typically hitting iron)

[dvq9654]

12 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am not seeing what is laughable and I am not seeing where they said anything about "regular basis". A legit scratch golfers avg drive distance is pretty consistent, its the main thing scratch/+ guys do that really differentiates themselves from other golfers, it's the consistency of their dispersion patterns, especially with longer clubs.  They can and will hit driver then 3w off the deck and reach a 470 yard hole in two as long as they have a decent lie. I see it happen just about every weekend (although the + guys are typically hitting iron)

You're right that I did introduce the word regularly and that likely isn't what they mean. That said, in today's game, a legit scratch golfer is not driving the ball 250, on average, and I personally have never seen anyone, even scratch players, hit a 3 wood consistently off the deck. Yes, they do well often, but consistently is a stretch. 

[bladehunter]

Count me in the group who prefers the longer tees.      I don’t know why.  But from my clubs back tees is 71.6/129    The middle - white tee is 69.1/125.    My scoring average currently is 73.8 from the back tee. And 74.5 from the white tee.  
 

from what I can see. The difference is that I can hit driver less on the up tee , and the angles get more severe  on this course the further you move up.  The back tee will be off to a side.  While The others  will be opposite angle and in a straight line.  Like the course was designed for the rear and the rest were just after  thoughts.  
 

at any rate.  It’s much harder to shoot the rating from  the up tee in my opinion 

[bladehunter]

28 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am not seeing what is laughable and I am not seeing where they said anything about "regular basis". A legit scratch golfers avg drive distance is pretty consistent, its the main thing scratch/+ guys do that really differentiates themselves from other golfers, it's the consistency of their dispersion patterns, especially with longer clubs.  They can and will hit driver then 3w off the deck and reach a 470 yard hole in two as long as they have a decent lie. I see it happen just about every weekend (although the + guys are typically hitting iron)

Yea.  I agree here.  I mean 470 isn’t huge.  It’s not going to be 3 wood in.     
 

I think we have to remember that a “ legit scratch player “ who isn’t playing from the back tees has to be shooting in the 60s very often.  If you have a buddy who shoots 72-75 often  from forward tees. He’s not a scratch player.  Probably 3-5 handicap.  

Edited October 8, 2021 by bladehunter

[Krt22]

14 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

You're right that I did introduce the word regularly and that likely isn't what they mean. That said, in today's game, a legit scratch golfer is not driving the ball 250, on average, and I personally have never seen anyone, even scratch players, hit a 3 wood consistently off the deck. Yes, they do well often, but consistently is a stretch. 

Are you saying they hit it farther or shorter? The guys who drive it ~250 are generally older and were obviously very good players when they were younger and hit their long clubs very well. Their biggest issue is father time not skill. Obviously they aren't flagging it every time from 230, but neither are PGA tour pros. The point is they absolutely have the potential to reach, so if you are building a course around that notion it makes sense. The younger guys who are scratch of better are all longer than 250 (some significantly longer)

[dvq9654]

5 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Are you saying they hit it farther or shorter? The guys who drive it ~250 are generally older and were obviously very good players when they were younger and hit their long clubs very well. Their biggest issue is father time not skill. Obviously they aren't flagging it every time from 230, but neither are PGA tour pros. The point is they absolutely have the potential to reach, so if you are building a course around that notion it makes sense. The younger guys who are scratch of better are all longer than 250 (some significantly longer)

Farther. What you said about the 3 wood is all I'm saying.

 

The point I was trying to illustrate is that the "prototype" scratch player the system uses as the basis for its rating is questionable. I think this definition contributes to what many have said in here, which is that they generally have better differentials from longer tees. A large reason for this is the distance definition does not jibe with reality.  

[Pepperturbo]

46 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

I personally have never seen anyone, even scratch players, hit a 3 wood consistently off the deck. Yes, they do well often, but consistently is a stretch. 

I agree.  Over the years, having played with and against a lot of scratch guys, very seldom have I seen one reach the green of a 530+ yard Par 5 in two.  They regularly get close, maybe green side, but not on the green.  Hell, I don't see many pros actually reach the green in 2, unless conditions fronting the green favor the shot.

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I agree.  Over the years, having played with and against a lot of scratch guys, very seldom have I seen one reach the green of a 530+ yard Par 5 in two.  They regularly get close, maybe green side, but not on the green.  Hell, I don't see many pros actually reach the green in 2, unless conditions fronting the green favor the shot.

Now you are moving the goal posts all over the place. 470 and 530+ are very different holes.  And so are the holes what pros play. Pros reach sub 550 yard par 5s in two all the time. And reaching and physically being on the green are also two different things. If we use that as a metric, plenty of pros cant "reach" long par 4s in two a majority of the time either (GIR percentage outside of 200 yards is <50%), which is  a silly thing today. 

 

470 not a long hole for scratch amateurs to reach, even those who are not exceptionally long.  

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

I agree.  Over the years, having played with and against a lot of scratch guys, very seldom have I seen one reach the green of a 530+ yard Par 5 in two.  They regularly get close, maybe green side, but not on the green.  Hell, I don't see many pros actually reach the green in 2, unless conditions fronting the green favor the shot.

530 is a par 4 these days on some tour courses.  It would have to be extremely uphill or odd design to prevent a vast majority or tour pros reaching in two.