What is the minimum course slope and rating for you to consider it a “real” round?

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

What is an unfair fairway?

tatertot beat me to it! LOL

[Pepperturbo]

I don't care what Par is, and don't have a minimum slope or rating.  The first time I ever played 18 holes of golf was from White 6200+yd tees on a 69/120 rated course, shot 94. 

 

IMO all 18 hole rounds are real rounds, even short and executive courses can challenge a person.  All depends on a person's frame of mind, their creative juices and how he/she tackles the course.  Leave the ego in the trunk and use your imagination.  The easiest of courses can be made into a test.  For fun, courses under 6300yds, I often leave my driver and 3wd in the bag and only use irons over 18 holes to test my ball striking and meddle.

 

But generally, I prefer more difficult rated courses, as they are, over the years, what my index has built on.  The key though, is NOT play easily rated courses too regularly, so ratings and lower scoring do not affect my index.  A few of the courses I frequent are 72/133 and 71/128.

[NoTalentLefty]

Anything over 5800 yards at my age. 

[Pepperturbo]

On 8/1/2023 at 6:36 PM, Feelingofgreatness said:

Yardage is a silly metric.

The other day I played a 5900 yard course that was tighter than tight.  Unless you could hit the ball on a rope you wouldn't break 90 and the greens were small and really fast.

Agree with that 100%.

 

Recently, I took some friends to what appears to be a benign course; tees we played were 6400+yds, rating 71.3/132.  When we set it up, they asked about the course, so I gave them a thumbnail and yardage.  Each of them laughed.  One long ball 10 index hitter said he'll eat the course up; I laughed.  Long fun, but later ugly story, they played off my ball, and all 3 guys played like diarrhea.  The long ball hitter lost 5 or 6 balls.

 

There's a short 5700 yd (par 70 68/131) course south of me that is a seriously fun target course.  If a person can't hit to certain spots in the fairway, he's in for an ugly day.  Due to wind, I only use driver on one par 5, and a Par 4, rest of the holes are long irons.

 

It's pitiful, but countless people play wide-open courses, maybe with parallel fairways, cause they don't have control of their ball.  Put them on a tight course, no parallel fairways, with OB or water on many holes, the course chews them up.

[J_Tizzle]

I'd say any course, no matter what the "par" on the card is, your real par is the course rating.

 

I played a 6300 course with a course rating of 68.3 and a par of 71, so to me, my target score is 68, its not always what the number on the card says par is.

[J_Tizzle]

16 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Agree with that 100%.

 

Recently, I took some friends to what appears to be a benign course; tees we played were 6400+yds, rating 71.3/132.  When we set it up, they asked about the course, so I gave them a thumbnail and yardage.  Each of them laughed.  One long ball 10 index hitter said he'll eat the course up; I laughed.  Long fun, but later ugly story, they played off my ball, and all 3 guys played like diarrhea.  The long ball hitter lost 5 or 6 balls.

 

There's a short 5700 yd (par 70 68/131) course south of me that is a seriously fun target course.  If a person can't hit to certain spots in the fairway, he's in for an ugly day.  Due to wind, I only use driver on one par 5, and a Par 4, rest of the holes are long irons.

 

It's pitiful, but countless people play wide-open courses, maybe with parallel fairways, cause they don't have control of their ball.  Put them on a tight course, no parallel fairways, with OB or water on many holes, the course chews them up.

 

I played in my city championship a couple of weeks ago and saw this first hand.

 

First course is 6200 par 70 (course rating of 68), zero trouble, and I played poorly and got paired with 3 other people who shot 72, then the next day is at a different course (6700 par 72 course rating around 72.3 I think, with hazards on both sides of every hole essentially), and 2 of the 3 guys I played with shot mid/high 80s.

Edited August 4, 2023 by J_Tizzle

[ANimz]

I trust rating more than slope.  The most difficult course of 4 in my town by slope is the easiest course by far.  I typically try to play around 6,500 yards.  Wouldn't mind a 7K course, but I know I am not near long enough, not am I good enough with my long irons.  I guess it would be a good way to get better though.  

[butchammon]

If you look back at that Excel spreadsheet that I made (back on Page 1), I have the Slope of each course listed and total yards (as per playing from the whites).

 

I always remember hearing a saying about "the higher the number/slope, the harder the course".  So, something around 100 or 105, for a basic 9 hole Muni would be suitable for beginners to get a good taste of what the game is all about.  Then again, something in the 130's and 140's would be vicious and cause a "newbie" to immediately give up and quit.

[st1800e]

Anywhere ,anytime, any tees, any rating…. It’s golf.  

[larrybud]

On 8/1/2023 at 3:02 PM, PuffyC said:

I've never found course ratings to have much relationship to real world difficulty or results. For example, we regularly play 2 courses, one with a rating of 70.2 and the other with a rating of 67.7. I consistently shoot better scores on the one with the 70.2 rating so 🤷‍♂️

That's because course rating is more directly related to length, while slope is more related to hazards/difficulty. If you're long but crooked, you'd probably fare better on a 70.2 with a lower slope than a 67.7 and a higher slope.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

That's because course rating is more directly related to length, while slope is more related to hazards/difficulty. If you're long but crooked, you'd probably fare better on a 70.2 with a lower slope than a 67.7 and a higher slope.

 

Distance is still, by FAR, what makes up the bogey rating (and thus, the slope). Not many 74.2/121 courses out there. 😉

[PuffyC]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:06 PM, larrybud said:

That's because course rating is more directly related to length, while slope is more related to hazards/difficulty. If you're long but crooked, you'd probably fare better on a 70.2 with a lower slope than a 67.7 and a higher slope.

 

I'm definitely long and crooked 😉 but I agree. On the longer course you can spray stuff around a bit and not get yourself into too much trouble. On the shorter course you need to be accurate pretty much all the time or you're not going to score well.

[kobe123]

My course rating is 76.7/148 and it's extremely tough. I'd say it plans even harder since the rough is so thick. It's a championship level course which extremely thick kentucky bluegrass.

 

If I shoot under 78 here, I'm content. If I shoot this at another course I play, I'm extremely disappointed.

[Ri_Redneck]

Since this is GolfWRX, I don't think anything under 7400/78/155 yards should even be considered!!

 

Sorry, had to do it since no one else had.

 

BT

[darkhelmet]

Maybe I'm wrong, but something that I don't think gets factored into the slope/ratings are: standalone vs. "in the middle of a housing development" and level of "extra" maintenance.

 

When I first started playing, it was up in Massachusetts, on a lot of older standalone courses that had, over the years, most of the brush and other nastiness cleared out of the trees between holes.  Now, most of the public (and some private) courses near me are all in the middle of housing developments.

 

So on those older courses, you could miss either way off the tee and still find your ball with a decent opportunity to get it back into play, usually in the right direction as well.

 

On the courses I play now, most holes have extreme danger on both sides (either OB both ways into peoples' yards or water on one side, OB on the other), and if you ever do go near the trees, there has never been any effort to clear out the brush, so it's a lost ball more than half the time.

 

So for average or below average golfers, some courses are way more punitive than the slope/rating might otherwise indicate.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Some of you I think are missing a key qualifier in this question...

 

On 8/1/2023 at 8:13 AM, Georgie Z said:

What is the minimum course slope and rating of the tees you are playing for you to consider it a legitimate accomplishment to break 70,80, or 90 for the first time?

 

 

Every round of golf is a "real" round IMHO. I regularly play an 18-hole, 3670/58.2/99, par-60 course. And that round of golf is as real as any other. 

 

My course record there is 69. Do you think I go around telling people I've broken 70 in my golf career? Not on your damn life. 

 

It's still one of my two best rounds of golf in my life. The other being when I shot 85 on a 6128/69.7/124, par-72 course. That's the round that if I say I've "broken 90" I'm referring two. Because it's a legitimate accomplishment for the sake of comparing best scores in a round of golf. 

 

[slytown]

On 8/1/2023 at 3:16 PM, jholz said:

I don't put a lot of stock into course ratings either...they tend to focus on factors that don't always, necessarily equate to making a course more difficult and ignore a lot of other factors. 

 

But, like others, if the course has a par of 70 - 72 and somewhere in the 6000 yard range, I'd call it legit.

 

Agreed. The handicap system needs an update or just scrap it altogether for average scores.

[msg]

You have to get the ball in the hole and still execute shots. I don't care what par or total length or rating the course is. That's just me though. I played an easy par 3 course, thinking I would set the course record. lol Boy was I wrong. 

[iacas]

On 8/1/2023 at 3:16 PM, jholz said:

I don't put a lot of stock into course ratings either...they tend to focus on factors that don't always, necessarily equate to making a course more difficult and ignore a lot of other factors. 

 

Like…?

[jholz]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Like…?

 

Effective playing length and 10 obstacle factors is what they consider. 

[PracticeSwinger]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

Effective playing length and 10 obstacle factors is what they consider. 

I'm guessing the underlying question was more : what other factors you think are ignored and should be taken into account?

[iutodd]

There are no limits to what is or isn't a "real" round.  Golf is hard.  Move up a tee.  Who cares.  The pros hit 8 iron or less into basically every par 4 they play.  

 

Nate Lashley finished T57 at the 3M Open - he's 129th in driving distance on Tour.  Here are his approach yardages into every par four during the fourth round according to shot link:

 

88, 168, 200, 143, 96, 196, 107, 167, 156, 161, 33 (68 feet).

 

Tour average for an 8 iron is around 160-165.  It's OK to have a few long approaches (5 iron or longer) - but 9 of 11 approach shots into par fours for Nate were (likely) an 8 iron or less.  Maybe one of those 168/167 shots was a 7 iron.  Oh and basically every par 5 on tour is reachable for pros with a good drive.  

 

So move up a tee and play golf like a tour pro.

[DaveLeeNC]

I mentally measure a round by its handicap differential. My best round is a zero, even though I have a round or two where I shot lower. At age 74 I will not be seeing any more scores around the Course Rating. 

 

dave

[jholz]

52 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

I'm guessing the underlying question was more : what other factors you think are ignored and should be taken into account?

 

I would argue that they privilege length above all else and consider water more penal than jungle. 

 

It is a subtly subjective process. 

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Varry_Hardon said:

I'm guessing the underlying question was more : what other factors you think are ignored and should be taken into account?

 

Yes, because I know what a course rating factors, @jholz.

 

11 hours ago, jholz said:

I would argue that they privilege length above all else and consider water more penal than jungle.

 

"Extreme rough" is regarded almost the same as OB, so… no. Yes, length is the dominant factor.

 

11 hours ago, jholz said:

It is a subtly subjective process. 

 

It's also a fairly measured process. Green targets are measured. Bunker depths matter. The size of the greenside bunkers matter. The length of the shots matter. The distances of the corridors. Whether there's "roll" on tee shots, and whether side slopes add to or subtract from the width. Whether the flag is visible, or the green is visible.

 

There's more to it than length and ten other factors.

[jholz]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Yes, because I know what a course rating factors, @jholz.

 

 

"Extreme rough" is regarded almost the same as OB, so… no. Yes, length is the dominant factor.

 

 

It's also a fairly measured process. Green targets are measured. Bunker depths matter. The size of the greenside bunkers matter. The length of the shots matter. The distances of the corridors. Whether there's "roll" on tee shots, and whether side slopes add to or subtract from the width. Whether the flag is visible, or the green is visible.

 

There's more to it than length and ten other factors.

 

I take it you rate courses in your spare time?

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

I take it you rate courses in your spare time?

Only for the last 16 years, and as captain the last ten.

 

You still haven’t answered the question.

 

On 8/1/2023 at 3:16 PM, jholz said:

I don't put a lot of stock into course ratings either...they tend to focus on factors that don't always, necessarily equate to making a course more difficult and ignore a lot of other factors. 

Like what?