USGA Handicap Submissions, Based on tee box color or tee box information?

[JohnB92]

21 hours ago, mark m said:

It’s obvious they are making changes to the course and some of the tees. In the meantime, because the Houston Open is at the end of March, they don’t want play from any tee areas that may be used in the event. This is common. They sometimes rope off those tees or cover them. 
 

But regardless they could have easily put out a statement that changes are being made, and some areas closed to prepare for the Tour event, and so on. And the Blue and White tees have been temporarily moved up and here are some temporary yardages and ratings. “We appreciate your patience” etc. 

The renovations to the course have been completed as far as the normal scorecard being played right now goes. Those were MAJOR changes. It's, not the same course in 2018 that it is today. Flipped the nines around, changed the holes dramatically by changing the (now) front side to having 3 Par 5s/Par 3s instead of 2.

Hole 17 is a separate issue. Hole 17 is being changed because of the way they have the grandstands being built and (if they do a temp green) to allow the green to heal. Due to the length of the dogleg there's a lot of people hitting into the stands. 17 green is by far the one in the worst shape. It gets soaked with runoff water when it rains and then gets really quickly dried by the wind due to being exposed on the point of the lake. I'm honestly surprised they haven't closed that hole earlier. It's for sure the one the Super is the most worried about. A good 1/3 of that green has been covered by a tarp for the last month.

 

20 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Or as you(?) mentioned earlier, just leave the blue tees in the storage shed.

 

And we still don't know about any permanent markers yet, do we ?

 

As I see it the real issue here is/could be the bogus differentials likely to have been input into so many(?) scoring records. An awful lot of vanity cappers around if they're entering blue tees on GHIN.

 

I don't know if there are any formal clubs at the course but if there are I hope at least the members, or the 'cap committee(s) are entering the rounds correctly.

I confirmed after my Sunday round, there are no permanent markers on any of the tee boxes where the blue tees were located. I've never seen one in all my rounds (maybe they are on the back tournament box?) the things I thought I saw were sprinkler heads with brass yardage plates on them. I only found a couple on Sunday, always on Par 3s. 

@nsxguy put the issue as I see it in a clear way. There's a lot of very inaccurate HDCPs being generated. Even if you aren't a regular, maybe play here once a month. If you're marking blue because "I played the blue tees, where the blue markers are on the box", you're almost certain to have that round be counted in your HDCP calculation because 3 extra shots being applied. It's also really easy to not realize the true-blue tee is way, way behind you. It took me 3 rounds to find all of them.

To give some examples of how wild it is now that y'all see the scorecard. These examples are also why it's not as obvious as "well just mark down white", because there's a number of times where Blue is set on the gold box as well. It's just most often on white.

Hole 3: Everyone plays from the gold box due to safety. The White/Blue box is back where the angle will cause a sliced drive to land on #1's green. (469 instead of 587/566)
Hole 8: Everyone plays from at least the gold box, every time (495 instead of 625/554) no idea why. Besides OB right and the really thin green there's nothing hard about that hole. I just suck at it.
Hole 11: Often use a box that isn't listed on the card ~170 yards for Blue, instead of the 237. To be fair that's one of the few blue boxes they actually use with any regularity. 
Holes 14 & 16 (both back 9 par 5s) are both played from gold. (446 & 489 instead of 529/480 & 576/501) 
Hole 18: Back in December where they placed the Blue/White tees on the Gold tee box. 2 of my group nearly drove the green since it was downwind (346 instead of 503/410). Most days blue is on white (410) though.


Update: TGA received my inquiry. I got an email that it's being forwarded to Sr. Director of Membership and Handicapping. No idea what that means but at least they've seen it (it wasn't an auto-response).

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, JohnB92 said:

The renovations to the course have been completed as far as the normal scorecard being played right now goes. Those were MAJOR changes. It's, not the same course in 2018 that it is today. Flipped the nines around, changed the holes dramatically by changing the (now) front side to having 3 Par 5s/Par 3s instead of 2.

Hole 17 is a separate issue. Hole 17 is being changed because of the way they have the grandstands being built and (if they do a temp green) to allow the green to heal. Due to the length of the dogleg there's a lot of people hitting into the stands. 17 green is by far the one in the worst shape. It gets soaked with runoff water when it rains and then gets really quickly dried by the wind due to being exposed on the point of the lake. I'm honestly surprised they haven't closed that hole earlier. It's for sure the one the Super is the most worried about. A good 1/3 of that green has been covered by a tarp for the last month.

 

I confirmed after my Sunday round, there are no permanent markers on any of the tee boxes where the blue tees were located. I've never seen one in all my rounds (maybe they are on the back tournament box?) the things I thought I saw were sprinkler heads with brass yardage plates on them. I only found a couple on Sunday, always on Par 3s. 

@nsxguy put the issue as I see it in a clear way. There's a lot of very inaccurate HDCPs being generated. Even if you aren't a regular, maybe play here once a month. If you're marking blue because "I played the blue tees, where the blue markers are on the box", you're almost certain to have that round be counted in your HDCP calculation because 3 extra shots being applied. It's also really easy to not realize the true-blue tee is way, way behind you. It took me 3 rounds to find all of them.

To give some examples of how wild it is now that y'all see the scorecard. These examples are also why it's not as obvious as "well just mark down white", because there's a number of times where Blue is set on the gold box as well. It's just most often on white.

Hole 3: Everyone plays from the gold box due to safety. The White/Blue box is back where the angle will cause a sliced drive to land on #1's green. (469 instead of 587/566)
Hole 8: Everyone plays from at least the gold box, every time (495 instead of 625/554) no idea why. Besides OB right and the really thin green there's nothing hard about that hole. I just suck at it.
Hole 11: Often use a box that isn't listed on the card ~170 yards for Blue, instead of the 237. To be fair that's one of the few blue boxes they actually use with any regularity. 
Holes 14 & 16 (both back 9 par 5s) are both played from gold. (446 & 489 instead of 529/480 & 576/501) 
Hole 18: Back in December where they placed the Blue/White tees on the Gold tee box. 2 of my group nearly drove the green since it was downwind (346 instead of 503/410). Most days blue is on white (410) though.


Update: TGA received my inquiry. I got an email that it's being forwarded to Sr. Director of Membership and Handicapping. No idea what that means but at least they've seen it (it wasn't an auto-response).

 

Given your description of those 6 holes, there is no way the "blue" yardage can be used for handicaps. I didn't do all the math but it seems pretty close as to whether or not even the white yardage can be used.

 

I don't recall if we established the course as a "muni" but you mentioned "county" so it sounds like it's a government/residents-owned facility.

 

So it's the gubmint. It's more likely than not IMO, all they're interested in is the $$$. They couldn't care less about handicaps - unless it affects their bottom line.

 

The only reason for them to keep it in great shape year-round is the extra $$$ the Tour stop brings in from non-residents, both in terms of the cash coming into town for the tourney and the ability to charge multiples of their base price to out-of-county players.

 

Your single complaint is a pimple on an elephant's butt.

 

However, the USGA getting wind of it may make a difference.

 

Seems like the best thing to do would be to have the course rated for one or more combo sets of tees. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[JohnB92]

32 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Given your description of those 6 holes, there is no way the "blue" yardage can be used for handicaps. I didn't do all the math but it seems pretty close as to whether or not even the white yardage can be used.

 

I don't recall if we established the course as a "muni" but you mentioned "county" so it sounds like it's a government/residents-owned facility.

 

So it's the gubmint. It's more likely than not IMO, all they're interested in is the $$$. They couldn't care less about handicaps - unless it affects their bottom line.

 

The only reason for them to keep it in great shape year-round is the extra $$$ the Tour stop brings in from non-residents, both in terms of the cash coming into town for the tourney and the ability to charge multiples of their base price to out-of-county players.

 

Your single complaint is a pimple on an elephant's butt.

 

However, the USGA getting wind of it may make a difference.

 

Seems like the best thing to do would be to have the course rated for one or more combo sets of tees. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

It's technically owned by the city, but really the money comes from Chevron and the Astros. They are the two big sponsors, have their own building and charity outreach facilities on site. So, management doesn't survive off of greens fees directly. I have no idea what management's compensation is tied to.

I don't want to speculate about the financial incentives, because I really don't think its malicious. I think it's purely not wanting to hold up play because Tim and Bobby want to "see what it's like for the pros" with their goal being to say to their buddies "I played that course and it's so hard, I struggled to break 100. Those guys on tour are crazy good." If it takes them 5 hours to play that round, Tim and Bobby don't care. Everyone behind them does.

I didn't put it in my earlier post, but I did provide TGA with my Arccos data of "Actual Yardage Played". I've played 8 rounds in the last six weeks from the "Blue Tees". Range in yardage from 6257 - 6506 with an average of 6395. Which, for those paying attention is actually shorter than the White yardage on the scorecard for every round. 

I also played 2 rounds from White (first two rounds when I was like oh wow, I don't feel like playing from 7400 on a course I've never seen) those measured 5726 & 5843. The White and Gold tee scorecard yardage is 6553 and 5905. So, every tee box is being shifted up an entire set up tees, and then about another 150 yards additionally.

I did get a response from the Texas Golf Association's Sr. Director of Membership and Handicapping this morning (glad to see those emails are actual read. Kind of surprised at that). The response was:

 

Quote

Thank you for your message, for the information, and for bringing this to our attention. We will need to contact the staff at Memorial Park GC. So please bear with us while we work to get this resolved, where you are posting your scores to the correct tee/correct CR/Slope Rating.

I'll see what they end up advising. 

[nsxguy]

43 minutes ago, JohnB92 said:

It's technically owned by the city, but really the money comes from Chevron and the Astros. They are the two big sponsors, have their own building and charity outreach facilities on site. So, management doesn't survive off of greens fees directly. I have no idea what management's compensation is tied to.

I don't want to speculate about the financial incentives, because I really don't think its malicious. I think it's purely not wanting to hold up play because Tim and Bobby want to "see what it's like for the pros" with their goal being to say to their buddies "I played that course and it's so hard, I struggled to break 100. Those guys on tour are crazy good." If it takes them 5 hours to play that round, Tim and Bobby don't care. Everyone behind them does.

I didn't put it in my earlier post, but I did provide TGA with my Arccos data of "Actual Yardage Played". I've played 8 rounds in the last six weeks from the "Blue Tees". Range in yardage from 6257 - 6506 with an average of 6395. Which, for those paying attention is actually shorter than the White yardage on the scorecard for every round. 

I also played 2 rounds from White (first two rounds when I was like oh wow, I don't feel like playing from 7400 on a course I've never seen) those measured 5726 & 5843. The White and Gold tee scorecard yardage is 6553 and 5905. So, every tee box is being shifted up an entire set up tees, and then about another 150 yards additionally.

I did get a response from the Texas Golf Association's Sr. Director of Membership and Handicapping this morning (glad to see those emails are actual read. Kind of surprised at that). The response was:

 

I'll see what they end up advising. 

 

Frankly, I wish you'd put up that Arccos data earlier - it likely would've saved a fair number of posts. Seems like NO rounds at the course are postable.

 

I'm not going to get into all the financials either but regardless, it seems clear the course management doesn't care about your issue. They're doing their jobs by getting as many players around the course is as short a time as possible. They're making happy the only person they need to - their immediate boss. While admirable(?) they still should care about GOLF.

 

Pace of Play is the #1 issue in golf. I get it. But that's no excuse for the course not being marked correctly or for them simply closing down the tips.

 

You said they had MAJOR renovations just 6 years ago. Did they re-rate the course ? My guess would be no as I would think the first thing anybody rating the course would've asked is "where are the permanent markers ?"

 

It'll be interesting to hear what the TSA says,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by nsxguy

[JohnB92]

2 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Frankly, I wish you'd put up that Arccos data earlier - it likely would've saved a fair number of posts. Seems like NO rounds at the course are postable.

 

I'm not going to get into all the financials either but regardless, it seems clear the course management doesn't care about your issue. They're doing their jobs by getting as many players around the course is as short a time as possible. They're making happy the only person they need to - their immediate boss. While admirable(?) they still should care about GOLF.

 

Pace of Play is the #1 issue in golf. I get it. But that's no excuse for the course not being marked correctly or for them simply closing down the tips.

 

You said they had MAJOR renovations just 6 years ago. Did they re-rate the course ? My guess would be no as I would think the first thing anybody rating the course would've asked is "where are the permanent markers ?"

 

It'll be interesting to hear what the TSA says,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

 

 

Lol well I'm a dumbo and didn't realize I could get that number from Arccos. I came across it when reviewing my Sunday stats. So that's all on me. I'll edit my first post for context in case someone comes across this question in the future.

TGA sent me another email to instruct me to continue posting scores based on the color tees I've been playing. My guess is they don't want me to do something different so if an adjustment is required, they can apply it consistently. Which makes sense. 

"Since this affects Course Rating, Handicapping and the facility, obviously more than one person is involved, but rest assured, we’ll get it resolved and if we determine it is appropriate, we will be able to edit your scoring record at that time. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in advance."

You honestly might be right; they may not have re-rated the course after the major renovations. That involved multiple new greens, new hazards. Two par 4s being changed into a Par 5 & Par 3 combo. It's possible they just slapped the old rating on the card and didn't worry about it. Since courses are only re-rated every 10 years (based on what I've read, but that could be inaccurate) it's possible nobody at UGSA or TGA noticed. I highly doubt there's a ton of people really closely examining those things. Not to mention the course PLAYS hard AF even if you're playing it shorter, I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing if they decide the greens are so difficult that even with a shorter length the CR wouldn't change🤣.

[ThinkingPlus]

38 minutes ago, JohnB92 said:

Lol well I'm a dumbo and didn't realize I could get that number from Arccos. I came across it when reviewing my Sunday stats. So that's all on me. I'll edit my first post for context in case someone comes across this question in the future.

TGA sent me another email to instruct me to continue posting scores based on the color tees I've been playing. My guess is they don't want me to do something different so if an adjustment is required, they can apply it consistently. Which makes sense. 

"Since this affects Course Rating, Handicapping and the facility, obviously more than one person is involved, but rest assured, we’ll get it resolved and if we determine it is appropriate, we will be able to edit your scoring record at that time. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in advance."

You honestly might be right; they may not have re-rated the course after the major renovations. That involved multiple new greens, new hazards. Two par 4s being changed into a Par 5 & Par 3 combo. It's possible they just slapped the old rating on the card and didn't worry about it. Since courses are only re-rated every 10 years (based on what I've read, but that could be inaccurate) it's possible nobody at UGSA or TGA noticed. I highly doubt there's a ton of people really closely examining those things. Not to mention the course PLAYS hard AF even if you're playing it shorter, I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing if they decide the greens are so difficult that even with a shorter length the CR wouldn't change🤣.

If significant changes to the course have been made then re-rating is mandatory regardless of when it was last rated. Memorial folks are about to get a reality check from the TGA one way or another.

[Pepperturbo]

As odd as what the OP shares, maybe not so...  There are tournament venues that have two different courses, but the tournament committee mixes holes across each course, so visitors won't focus play on the course used by the tournament; thus no rating.  When I encounter that, I post to the course that has the most holes, and commensurate tees.

 

Many courses post instruction sheets as to how to post.  Unless directed otherwise, I post scores in accordance with the tee boxes I am accustomed to playing.  For example, last weekend at the course we played, there was a tournament after our tee group.  Because of the level of golfers, at dawn, at the request of the tournament host, the Superintendent moved all Blue tee blocks up to where the White tees blocks normally are placed.  We played from the near grass covered blue plates and posted accordingly.  

Edited February 13 by Pepperturbo

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, JohnB92 said:

Lol well I'm a dumbo and didn't realize I could get that number from Arccos. I came across it when reviewing my Sunday stats. So that's all on me. I'll edit my first post for context in case someone comes across this question in the future.

TGA sent me another email to instruct me to continue posting scores based on the color tees I've been playing. My guess is they don't want me to do something different so if an adjustment is required, they can apply it consistently. Which makes sense. 

"Since this affects Course Rating, Handicapping and the facility, obviously more than one person is involved, but rest assured, we’ll get it resolved and if we determine it is appropriate, we will be able to edit your scoring record at that time. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in advance."

You honestly might be right; they may not have re-rated the course after the major renovations. That involved multiple new greens, new hazards. Two par 4s being changed into a Par 5 & Par 3 combo. It's possible they just slapped the old rating on the card and didn't worry about it. Since courses are only re-rated every 10 years (based on what I've read, but that could be inaccurate) it's possible nobody at UGSA or TGA noticed. I highly doubt there's a ton of people really closely examining those things. Not to mention the course PLAYS hard AF even if you're playing it shorter, I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing if they decide the greens are so difficult that even with a shorter length the CR wouldn't change🤣.

 

I see TP has already responded but yes, if a course has undergone any sort of major alterations it has to be re-rated.

 

I don't recall but have you been posting as white tees ? Or as blue ? Regardless, your 'cap, EVEN IF you posted WHITE, never mind BLUE, while being closer to being correct, given all those (6) MUCH shorter tees, would seem to be non-postable.

 

Wonder how TSA will resolve that ?

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

There are tournament venues that have two different courses, but the tournament committee mixes holes across each course, so visitors won't focus play on the course used by the tournament; thus no rating.  When I encounter that, I post to the course that has the most holes, and commensurate tees.

 

Yeah… That's not the right thing to do either.

[nsxguy]

9 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

As odd as what the OP shares, maybe not so...  There are tournament venues that have two different courses, but the tournament committee mixes holes across each course, so visitors won't focus play on the course used by the tournament; thus no rating.  When I encounter that, I post to the course that has the most holes, and commensurate tees.

 

Sorry, but maybe not so,,,,,,, what ? (quoting is everybody's friend)

 

If you're referring to a Tour stop, ratings are irrelevant, so who cares ?

 

If you're talking about some other kind of tournament, where I can't imagine the course even doing that, again, who cares ? I wouldn't think those rounds wouldn't be postable anyway.

 

But you seem to be saying you've played one of those "mixed up" courses and figured out your own rating to post to GHIN manually - which, as mentioned above, I would think is non-postable.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

the Superintendent moved all Blue tee blocks up to where the White tees blocks normally are placed.  We played from the near grass covered blue plates and posted accordingly

 

Just to be clear, you played from the (permanent) blue markers (even though the movable blue tees were further up) and posted as playing from the blues, yes ?

[Pepperturbo]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

But you seem to be saying you've played one of those "mixed up" courses and figured out your own rating to post to GHIN manually - which, as mentioned above, I would think is non-postable.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

the Superintendent moved all Blue tee blocks up to where the White tees blocks normally are placed.  We played from the near grass covered blue plates and posted accordingly

 

Just to be clear, you played from the (permanent) blue markers (even though the movable blue tees were further up) and posted as playing from the blues, yes ?

Yes, over the years, played more than a few of them.  They seldom divide the holes evenly, so I posted to the course and tees with the most holes on the layout.  If I didn't do it that way, it would be a waste to play such a course.  I am not an anal-retentive guy, though some that know me might argue that point. 

 

Yes.  Most of the time, if they exist, I play from inground tee plates, which is where the rating was taken from, not where the blocks happen to be on any given day.  Otherwise, too often they shorten the course.  In some cases, blocks are moved to make holes ridiculously short.  

Edited February 13 by Pepperturbo

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Yes, over the years, played more than a few of them.  They seldom divide the holes evenly, so I posted to the course and tees with the most holes on the layout.  If I didn't do it that way, it would be a waste to play such a course.  I am not an anal-retentive guy, though some that know me might argue that point

 

So then your appreciation of such a course is your differential for that day ? Frankly, I kinda sorta get your point and might feel similarly.

 

But I wouldn't have posted the score as I'm relatively sure it's not postable and it's certainly unlikely to be an accurate of that day's round.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Yes.  Most of the time, if they exist, I play from inground tee plates, which is where the rating was taken from, not where the blocks happen to be on any given day.  Otherwise, too often they shorten the course.  In some cases, blocks are moved to make holes ridiculously

 

Well, as in the case of this thread, if they shorten the course by too much, they have INcorrectly placed the tee blocks; the same issue causing this kerfluffle.

 

One would hope the vast majority of courses would use the recommended formula of equal numbers of +10, -10, and 0-yard differences from the permanent markers to that day's location of the movable tee blocks. (Yeah, I know,,,,,,,,, )

 

Not to mention (Oops !) some courses are very touchy when it comes to teeing off outside the teeing area of any holes,,,,,, not to mention (#2 oops !) you're not playing by the ROG by teeing outside the teeing area.

 

Anal-retentive or not, from your posts, it is my general impression that you appear to be fairly conscious of playing by the ROG.

 

[Pepperturbo]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

So then your appreciation of such a course is your differential for that day ? Frankly, I kinda sorta get your point and might feel similarly.

 

But I wouldn't have posted the score as I'm relatively sure it's not postable and it's certainly unlikely to be an accurate of that day's round.

 

 

 

Well, as in the case of this thread, if they shorten the course by too much, they have INcorrectly placed the tee blocks; the same issue causing this kerfluffle.

 

One would hope the vast majority of courses would use the recommended formula of equal numbers of +10, -10, and 0-yard differences from the permanent markers to that day's location of the movable tee blocks. (Yeah, I know,,,,,,,,, )

 

Not to mention (Oops !) some courses are very touchy when it comes to teeing off outside the teeing area of any holes,,,,,, not to mention (#2 oops !) you're not playing by the ROG by teeing outside the teeing area.

 

Anal-retentive or not, from your posts, it is my general impression that you appear to be fairly conscious of playing by the ROG.

 

Even though some holes had different layouts from others, both courses from black/Blue plates close in rating, so wasn't cheating anyone.  My index will be affected by a superb or ugly round on a challenging course, not posting something is IMO, worse.  

 

By the rules, yes, but there comes a time when the rules don't apply (masks), so I may go off-book.  So far, I've not had one club have an issue with me choosing to play plates vs. forward blocks, like last week.  The specific times I've gone with moved blocks is when the tee itself is literally cordoned off from play, maybe growing turf, etc.   

 

Moving blocks IMO has more to do with course mgt that day, and less to do with ROG.  

 

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Even though some holes had different layouts from others, both courses from black/Blue plates close in rating, so wasn't cheating anyone.  My index will be affected by a superb or ugly round on a challenging course, not posting something is IMO, worse.  

 

By the rules, yes, but there comes a time when the rules don't apply (masks), so I may go off-book.  So far, I've not had one club have an issue with me choosing to play plates vs. forward blocks, like last week.  The specific times I've gone with moved blocks is when the tee itself is literally cordoned off from play, maybe growing turf, etc.   

 

Moving blocks IMO has more to do with course mgt that day, and less to do with ROG.  

 

I may have read that too quickly but …. my takeaway was it was treading close to “I’ll determine whether my score is ‘postable’ vs. what the Rules allow as the situation warrants”?

 

Again, maybe I missed the point.

Edited February 14 by Hawkeye77

[JohnB92]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I see TP has already responded but yes, if a course has undergone any sort of major alterations it has to be re-rated.

 

I don't recall but have you been posting as white tees ? Or as blue ? Regardless, your 'cap, EVEN IF you posted WHITE, never mind BLUE, while being closer to being correct, given all those (6) MUCH shorter tees, would seem to be non-postable.

 

Wonder how TSA will resolve that ?

TGA said that I should continue posting as blue because its consistent with what I've been doing and what it's assumed most other players are doing. Everyone I've talked to at the course posts based on the tee colors. A few realize it affects their HDCP, but the attitude is "I don't like it, but who would listen to me?"

So yea, I have no idea how they are going to resolve that. The choices seem to be:
A) deny that nearly 1000 yards shorter makes a course easier 🤣 (maybe "oh look! It's time for your every decade rerate")
B) adjust only my historical scores as the person who's concerned, new posting rules to be implemented (stealth implementation)
C) adjust everyone's historical scores, new posting rules to be implemented. Agreement from management to better align course setup with the rules. Maybe add more tee box colors/options/lengths when the course re-opens from the PGA event?

I'm personally for Option C since that's probably the best solution for the HDCP system and most closely aligns to the rules as written. However, that's going to be public relations nightmare for TGA and USGA when people get their scores adjusted and it raises their HDCP. Although it would be confined primarily to those who play here often, so maybe it's not that big of an issue? I think the bigger problem would be how upset course management would be. I totally see a world where they get really upset at TGA/USGA for "telling us how to run our course. it's our course, not theirs".

I'm expecting B. But honestly deep down, I don't have a lot of faith in systems to uphold themselves so it's probably going to be A. That's the easiest course of action, deny the issue and move on. Maybe get management to more closely align the tees with the posted CRs/re-rate the course if it hasn't been done recently and act like the issue never existed. Just "thank you for your participation and desire to uphold WHS integrity. We have evaluated the situation and determined that no changes are required. Thank you for your continued support of TGA/USGA/WHS. For the good of the game."
 

6 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Yes, over the years, played more than a few of them.  They seldom divide the holes evenly, so I posted to the course and tees with the most holes on the layout.  If I didn't do it that way, it would be a waste to play such a course.  I am not an anal-retentive guy, though some that know me might argue that point. 

 

Yes.  Most of the time, if they exist, I play from inground tee plates, which is where the rating was taken from, not where the blocks happen to be on any given day.  Otherwise, too often they shorten the course.  In some cases, blocks are moved to make holes ridiculously short.  

I get where you're coming from on playing from the blocks and wanting to play the layout as designed. I wish the ROG made it clear (and more publicized) that playing from +/- 10 yards of the stone markers is required for a score to be posted. I understand why course management would hate that. A lot of courses have pretty small tee boxes compared to their level of traffic and the course feels a need to rotate them more often. As for the pace of play issue, the rule should also say that if you're ordered by marshals to move up a tee box (stone markers in this alternate world) then you will check a "split tee box" mark in posting your score, and maybe denote which hole you were forced to move up on. Then there can be some adjustments on the backend if required. Maybe a weighted average of holes? The USGA does allow individual hole score posting now.

Maybe someone who knows more about CR could educate me on why this wouldn't work?

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, JohnB92 said:

TGA said that I should continue posting as blue because its consistent with what I've been doing and what it's assumed most other players are doing. Everyone I've talked to at the course posts based on the tee colors. A few realize it affects their HDCP, but the attitude is "I don't like it, but who would listen to me?"

So yea, I have no idea how they are going to resolve that. The choices seem to be:
A) deny that nearly 1000 yards shorter makes a course easier 🤣 (maybe "oh look! It's time for your every decade rerate")
B) adjust only my historical scores as the person who's concerned, new posting rules to be implemented (stealth implementation)
C) adjust everyone's historical scores, new posting rules to be implemented. Agreement from management to better align course setup with the rules. Maybe add more tee box colors/options/lengths when the course re-opens from the PGA event?

I'm personally for Option C since that's probably the best solution for the HDCP system and most closely aligns to the rules as written. However, that's going to be public relations nightmare for TGA and USGA when people get their scores adjusted and it raises their HDCP. Although it would be confined primarily to those who play here often, so maybe it's not that big of an issue? I think the bigger problem would be how upset course management would be. I totally see a world where they get really upset at TGA/USGA for "telling us how to run our course. it's our course, not theirs".

I'm expecting B. But honestly deep down, I don't have a lot of faith in systems to uphold themselves so it's probably going to be A. That's the easiest course of action, deny the issue and move on. Maybe get management to more closely align the tees with the posted CRs/re-rate the course if it hasn't been done recently and act like the issue never existed. Just "thank you for your participation and desire to uphold WHS integrity. We have evaluated the situation and determined that no changes are required. Thank you for your continued support of TGA/USGA/WHS. For the good of the game."

 

While I think "A" could be the result, I hope not.

 

"C" is impossible. You can't just change everybody's score because you don't know if they did the scores according to the movable or the permanent markers without contacting all of them - and that ain't likely.

 

So "B" is really the only viable option since you're the only one who's recognized the issue. For all you know the other guys, playing the movable blues, realized they were actually on the white tee box and posted from the whites.

 

Now, the 6 holes that seem to make the entire course non-postable due to the shortened length..........

 

For THAT, I might see them saying it would be "impractical" (as opposed to impossible) to simply delete all affected rounds, adjust the handicaps, and the course will correct the situation going forward.

 

If they don't delete all those rounds, many of the players' handicaps will be lower, maybe considerably so, than they should be, and those players will be giving away too many strokes.

 

There would also be 12-month ramifications with soft and hard caps.

 

Now this part "I totally see a world where they (Memorial) get really upset at TGA/USGA for "telling us how to run our course. it's our course, not theirs".

 

I don't know all the synergies that go into the various connections; i.e. who's the dog and who's the tail. I'm sure some here do.

 

But the USGA/WHS issues the Rules of Golf and the Rules of Handicapping. If the course doesn't like it they can remove the course ratings and slopes as I believe those are authorized strictly under USGA/WHS auspices.

 

Additionally, the course can remove any "USGA Member Course" designations, etc., etc., etc., GHIN can take the course out of its system. And so on.

 

Now the TSA. No doubt beholden to both the course and the USGA; a go-between.

 

So who controls what exactly, I don't know, but the course certainly has some obligation to follow TSA and USGA guidance. They all need each other - to what degree ? Don't know.

 

Did TSA give you any idea of when you might hear from them ? And if they choose Option A, will you take it higher up ? To the USGA ?

 

This is a very interesting and unique situation, at least to me.

 

[JohnB92]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

While I think "A" could be the result, I hope not.

 

"C" is impossible. You can't just change everybody's score because you don't know if they did the scores according to the movable or the permanent markers without contacting all of them - and that ain't likely.

 

So "B" is really the only viable option since you're the only one who's recognized the issue. For all you know the other guys, playing the movable blues, realized they were actually on the white tee box and posted from the whites.

 

Now, the 6 holes that seem to make the entire course non-postable due to the shortened length..........

 

For THAT, I might see them saying it would be "impractical" (as opposed to impossible) to simply delete all affected rounds, adjust the handicaps, and the course will correct the situation going forward.

 

If they don't delete all those rounds, many of the players' handicaps will be lower, maybe considerably so, than they should be, and those players will be giving away too many strokes.

 

There would also be 12-month ramifications with soft and hard caps.

 

Now this part "I totally see a world where they (Memorial) get really upset at TGA/USGA for "telling us how to run our course. it's our course, not theirs".

 

I don't know all the synergies that go into the various connections; i.e. who's the dog and who's the tail. I'm sure some here do.

 

But the USGA/WHS issues the Rules of Golf and the Rules of Handicapping. If the course doesn't like it they can remove the course ratings and slopes as I believe those are authorized strictly under USGA/WHS auspices.

 

Additionally, the course can remove any "USGA Member Course" designations, etc., etc., etc., GHIN can take the course out of its system. And so on.

 

Now the TSA. No doubt beholden to both the course and the USGA; a go-between.

 

So who controls what exactly, I don't know, but the course certainly has some obligation to follow TSA and USGA guidance. They all need each other - to what degree ? Don't know.

 

Did TSA give you any idea of when you might hear from them ? And if they choose Option A, will you take it higher up ? To the USGA ?

 

This is a very interesting and unique situation, at least to me.

 

Well remember, there aren't any permanent markers on the tee boxes lol. I checked all the blue tee locations on Sunday, I'm going to do white on Friday. I would assume the only way C would be possible is an adjustment ONLY for Blue tee scores, since those are the most off. They would probably need to do some data analytics comparing Diffs at different courses to identify people who are really affected. It still wouldn't be anyone. I agree its very unlikely.

I honestly don't know what I'll do if TGA goes with Option A. Not going to worry about that now. I really doubt course management is going to want to remove CR/Slope info and all the USGA member designations from a course that hosts a PGA event. I really don't think the money people at Chevron, Astros and the large private donors would like to get that update in the donor meeting. It's just not a good look.

I hope they don't solve the issue quickly. Because with the tournament coming up at the end of March and the course being closed for completely for 2 weeks, and partially for another 2 weeks, there's time to come up with a long-term, sustainable solution. While it might sound kind of dumb and over the top, hopefully someone from TGA and Memorial says "Hey, we are all going to have officials from USGA/TGA/Course all here from the event. Either officially or just to watch. Why don't we all meet up one afternoon and go around the course so we can all see what the card says, versus what management thinks is reasonable for the average playing public. Then go from there"? 

I think they really are in this spot because the only options on the scorecard are 7400, 6550 & 5900. That's a pretty large length spread compared to other courses in the area and weighted to the long side of the average. I bet if everyone was discussing things objectively and looking at the available options it would be really easy to find a 7100, 6700, 6300, 5900 setup. They could then re-rate, place the stone markers (which seem to be missing right now) and now everyone can move forward with something that's sustainable. If management wants to tell people, that they can't play 7100 yards without permission I assume they could do that. But I really doubt many people will play from back there more than once unless they really can handle it. I know when the wind is howling, I'd probably play from 6700 myself. 

But that's most likely wishful dreaming for the perfect solution. I'm guessing it'll be somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, as long as it's fair and in compliance with ROG/ROH going forward, I wouldn't have anything to talk with USGA about. What would I do? "Umm yes USGA it's not fair that a course won't let me play from as far back as I like!!!" 🤣 they'd laugh at me, and they'd be right to do so. They should laugh at me, viciously and then forward the email around the office so more people can laugh.
 

[Pepperturbo]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Yeah… That's not the right thing to do either.

Maybe so.  After the fact, it's easy to say that isn't right; but sometimes there isn't a rating for certain playing situations, plus the configuration exists for a limited window after the event is done; making it my call.  Otherwise, back when this was common, many scores wouldn't get posted.  

For example, before Desert & TPC Stadium course revamp, The Phoenix Open was played over the Stadium and old much shorter Desert course, now both are configured differently, and it's called the Champions.

Edited February 14 by Pepperturbo

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, JohnB92 said:

Well remember, there aren't any permanent markers on the tee boxes lol. I checked all the blue tee locations on Sunday, I'm going to do white on Friday. I would assume the only way C would be possible is an adjustment ONLY for Blue tee scores, since those are the most off. They would probably need to do some data analytics comparing Diffs at different courses to identify people who are really affected. It still wouldn't be anyone. I agree its very unlikely.

I honestly don't know what I'll do if TGA goes with Option A. Not going to worry about that now. I really doubt course management is going to want to remove CR/Slope info and all the USGA member designations from a course that hosts a PGA event. I really don't think the money people at Chevron, Astros and the large private donors would like to get that update in the donor meeting. It's just not a good look.

I hope they don't solve the issue quickly. Because with the tournament coming up at the end of March and the course being closed for completely for 2 weeks, and partially for another 2 weeks, there's time to come up with a long-term, sustainable solution. While it might sound kind of dumb and over the top, hopefully someone from TGA and Memorial says "Hey, we are all going to have officials from USGA/TGA/Course all here from the event. Either officially or just to watch. Why don't we all meet up one afternoon and go around the course so we can all see what the card says, versus what management thinks is reasonable for the average playing public. Then go from there"? 

I think they really are in this spot because the only options on the scorecard are 7400, 6550 & 5900. That's a pretty large length spread compared to other courses in the area and weighted to the long side of the average. I bet if everyone was discussing things objectively and looking at the available options it would be really easy to find a 7100, 6700, 6300, 5900 setup. They could then re-rate, place the stone markers (which seem to be missing right now) and now everyone can move forward with something that's sustainable. If management wants to tell people, that they can't play 7100 yards without permission I assume they could do that. But I really doubt many people will play from back there more than once unless they really can handle it. I know when the wind is howling, I'd probably play from 6700 myself. 

But that's most likely wishful dreaming for the perfect solution. I'm guessing it'll be somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, as long as it's fair and in compliance with ROG/ROH going forward, I wouldn't have anything to talk with USGA about. What would I do? "Umm yes USGA it's not fair that a course won't let me play from as far back as I like!!!" 🤣 they'd laugh at me, and they'd be right to do so. They should laugh at me, viciously and then forward the email around the office so more people can laugh.
 

 

They can't just adjust/delete blue tee scores in GHIN as, if a player registered their score from the whites, how would GHIN know whether it was the blue (movable) tees (correct diff) the person played from or the white movable tees (wrong diff) they played from.

 

For the Tour it may be a non-issue. The Tour doesn't need the USGA's approval. They play where they want and do what they want. They have no use for course ratings, slope, or handicaps. And if the course lost its USGA accreditation, it probably wouldn't hurt the course's popularity very much, if at all.

 

And let's not forget those 6 holes you've mentioned, which seemingly makes ALL rounds non-postable, regardless of tee sets. Can't see how the USGA can "tolerate" that.

 

Based on your observations, it sounds like you've done a pretty good job, and based on your observations, it doesn't matter whether or not they walk around and see what's what. Assuming you're even close, this course is non-compliant for handicap purposes.

 

Re-rate and place permanent markers. That's what seemingly needs to be done going forward. And they can add tee sets at the same time. Problem(s) solved.

 

And then there's no need to go higher up the chain. I would think the handicap situation is the only one the USGA/WHS would care about. Closing the tips ? I can't see how the USGA would care about that. I expect that's totally up to the course.

 

 

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Maybe so.  After the fact, it's easy to say that isn't right; but sometimes there isn't a rating for certain playing situations, plus the configuration exists for a limited window after the event is done; making it my call.  Otherwise, back when this was common, many scores wouldn't get posted.  

For example, before Desert & TPC Stadium course revamp, The Phoenix Open was played over the Stadium and old much shorter Desert course, now both are configured differently, and it's called the Champions.

 

 

C'mon Pep, you KNOW you're wrong. You know you DON'T get to make up your own ratings. Those rounds are non-postable.

 

You dug the hole. Stop digging.

[Pepperturbo]

Just now, nsxguy said:

 

 

C'mon Pep, you KNOW you're wrong. You know you DON'T get to make up your own ratings. Those rounds are non-postable.

 

You dug the hole. Stop digging.

I don't see it like you or others.  I didn't make up a rating either. 

[nsxguy]

26 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I don't see it like you or others.  I didn't make up a rating either. 

 

Keep digging. 

 

OK, I get it. You DIDN'T make up a rating. My bad. You played a round for a course that had NO rating and used a rating for a different "course".

 

It doesn't matter how you "see it". You either play by the WHS Handicapping Rules and have a valid handicap or you don't.

 

"There are tournament venues that have two different courses, but the tournament committee mixes holes across each course, so visitors won't focus play on the course used by the tournament; thus no rating.  When I encounter that, I post to the course that has the most holes, and commensurate tees."

 

So you appear to have played a combo course that wasn't rated and posted a score with the ratings/slope that didn't apply to those 18 holes.

 

Or did you mean something else ?

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

14 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Keep digging. 

 

OK, I get it. You DIDN'T make up a rating. My bad. You played a round for a course that had NO rating and used a rating for a different "course".

 

It doesn't matter how you "see it". You either play by the WHS Handicapping Rules and have a valid handicap or you don't.

 

"There are tournament venues that have two different courses, but the tournament committee mixes holes across each course, so visitors won't focus play on the course used by the tournament; thus no rating.  When I encounter that, I post to the course that has the most holes, and commensurate tees."

 

So you appear to have played a combo course that wasn't rated and posted a score with the ratings/slope that didn't apply to those 18 holes.

 

Or did you mean something else ?

 

 

Think as you wish.  I am not going to argue with you. 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Maybe so.  After the fact, it's easy to say that isn't right; but sometimes there isn't a rating for certain playing situations, plus the configuration exists for a limited window after the event is done; making it my call. 

 

No, that's not right before the fact, either. You didn't play a rated course. It's pretty simple.

[Newby]

2.1 Acceptability of Scores
A score is acceptable for handicap purposes if the round has been played:

* On a golf course with a current Course Rating and Slope Rating, where length
and normal playing difficulty is maintained at a consistent level (see Appendix G),

If one or more of the requirements set out above is not met, the score is not
acceptable for handicap purposes.

 

Appendix G: The Golf Course,
Course Rating and Slope Rating, and Modification of Courses
d. Display of Ratings and Par
The Course Rating, Slope Rating and par for each set of tees must be readily
available so that it is easy for a player to convert their Handicap Index to a Course
Handicap and Playing Handicap to submit an acceptable score.

[sui generis]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

2.1 Acceptability of Scores
A score is acceptable for handicap purposes if the round has been played:

* On a golf course with a current Course Rating and Slope Rating, where length
and normal playing difficulty is maintained at a consistent level (see Appendix G),

If one or more of the requirements set out above is not met, the score is not
acceptable for handicap purposes.

 

Appendix G: The Golf Course,
Course Rating and Slope Rating, and Modification of Courses
d. Display of Ratings and Par
The Course Rating, Slope Rating and par for each set of tees must be readily
available so that it is easy for a player to convert their Handicap Index to a Course
Handicap and Playing Handicap to submit an acceptable score.

 

Surely there's some fine print which makes an exception for a self-described captain of industry who deals with 3,000 emails a day. 😉

[JohnB92]

On 2/14/2024 at 10:17 AM, nsxguy said:

 

They can't just adjust/delete blue tee scores in GHIN as, if a player registered their score from the whites, how would GHIN know whether it was the blue (movable) tees (correct diff) the person played from or the white movable tees (wrong diff) they played from.

 

For the Tour it may be a non-issue. The Tour doesn't need the USGA's approval. They play where they want and do what they want. They have no use for course ratings, slope, or handicaps. And if the course lost its USGA accreditation, it probably wouldn't hurt the course's popularity very much, if at all.

 

And let's not forget those 6 holes you've mentioned, which seemingly makes ALL rounds non-postable, regardless of tee sets. Can't see how the USGA can "tolerate" that.

 

Based on your observations, it sounds like you've done a pretty good job, and based on your observations, it doesn't matter whether or not they walk around and see what's what. Assuming you're even close, this course is non-compliant for handicap purposes.

 

Re-rate and place permanent markers. That's what seemingly needs to be done going forward. And they can add tee sets at the same time. Problem(s) solved.

 

And then there's no need to go higher up the chain. I would think the handicap situation is the only one the USGA/WHS would care about. Closing the tips ? I can't see how the USGA would care about that. I expect that's totally up to the course.

 

 

Ok I see what you're saying there.

And yea, of course the Tour wouldn't care, I just mean as an opportunity for people to physically discuss things. My job involves telling very important people (or at least they think so lol) things they've done wrong every single day. In my field's experience, when you have to tell someone important, they or people who work for them are doing something wrong, its best to do it in a semi-casual small group setting. It generally leads to more fruitful and less contentious discussions than phone or email.

But we shall see what happens.

[mark m]

On 2/15/2024 at 8:01 PM, JohnB92 said:

Ok I see what you're saying there.

And yea, of course the Tour wouldn't care, I just mean as an opportunity for people to physically discuss things. My job involves telling very important people (or at least they think so lol) things they've done wrong every single day. In my field's experience, when you have to tell someone important, they or people who work for them are doing something wrong, its best to do it in a semi-casual small group setting. It generally leads to more fruitful and less contentious discussions than phone or email.

But we shall see what happens.

Hi John,

 

I am curious about 2 things:

 

1. Did anything change regarding the ratings - perhaps a temporary rating for the Blue tees - to use until the Tour event occurs?

 

2. Did you find any permanent yardage plates on any of the forward tees?

 

Thank you

 

Edited February 22 by mark m

[JohnB92]

18 hours ago, mark m said:

Hi John,

 

I am curious about 2 things:

 

1. Did anything change regarding the ratings - perhaps a temporary rating for the Blue tees - to use until the Tour event occurs?

 

2. Did you find any permanent yardage plates on any of the forward tees?

 

Thank you

 

No on both accounts, but I can't swear that I've checked every forward tee perfectly. They also didn't post anything relating to changing #17 from a Par 4 to temporary Par-3 that uses the maintenance green (where they grow extra grass for hole plugs and test stuff).