Politics in Slope / Course Rating?

[ButterCutter2]

All,

 

I'm wondering if you think there are politics in the slopes and course ratings of certain courses. I cant help but think out here in Southern California that some of the more upscale public courses have higher slopes and course ratings than those that are more low frills.

 

Perfect example, from the back tees, olivas links is a 73.7 135 on a par 72, roughly 6850.... victoria lakes at river ridge is a 72.2 130 on par 72, roughly 6850...

 

i don't see how olivas links is that much harder than this other course.

 

i'm wondering if you all think there is some politicking when it comes to this. do you think who the course operator and owner affects this stuff?

 

 

just my two cents but it seems that this is the case.

 

thoughts?

[abc]

I wouldn't be surprised. Politics has a way of working its way into everything.

I know the owner of a local course tried to lobby the evaluators to increase his course's rating. Threw some big names around supposedly.

[raynorfan1]

[quote name=' bnr204' timestamp='1313173477' post='3477832']

I'm wondering if you think there are politics in the slopes and course ratings of certain courses. I cant help but think out here in Southern California that some of the more upscale public courses have higher slopes and course ratings than those that are more low frills.

[/quote]

I think the slope/rating system is pretty objective. If you had two courses with identical layouts, I would expect the "more upscale" one to have a slightly higher rating and slope on the basis of better maintenance. On better maintained courses, the greens are faster, the rough is more punitive, bunkers are more plentiful and more challenging, fairways may be a bit narrower, etc. All of that is going to contribute to higher slope and rating.

[ButterCutter2]

[quote name='raynorfan1' timestamp='1313183638' post='3478432']
[quote name=' bnr204' timestamp='1313173477' post='3477832']

I'm wondering if you think there are politics in the slopes and course ratings of certain courses. I cant help but think out here in Southern California that some of the more upscale public courses have higher slopes and course ratings than those that are more low frills.

[/quote]

I think the slope/rating system is pretty objective. If you had two courses with identical layouts, I would expect the "more upscale" one to have a slightly higher rating and slope on the basis of better maintenance. On better maintained courses, the greens are faster, the rough is more punitive, bunkers are more plentiful and more challenging, fairways may be a bit narrower, etc. All of that is going to contribute to higher slope and rating.
[/quote]



i think you may be right, but you know what happens is either the rough burns out or the greens slow down and then the course isn't neccesarily worthy of its rating. you make a very valid point though, the courses are rated on the conditions around the time of the rating, conditions are inconsistent they ebb and flow over time and as a result you find courses that are either under evaluated or over evaluated. as a result, you find public courses, truly city munis, that are underrated b/c say the rough has gotten more penal.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='raynorfan1' timestamp='1313183638' post='3478432']
[quote name=' bnr204' timestamp='1313173477' post='3477832']
I'm wondering if you think there are politics in the slopes and course ratings of certain courses. I cant help but think out here in Southern California that some of the more upscale public courses have higher slopes and course ratings than those that are more low frills.

[/quote]

I think the slope/rating system is pretty objective. If you had two courses with identical layouts, I would expect the "more upscale" one to have a slightly higher rating and slope on the basis of better maintenance. On better maintained courses, the greens are faster, the rough is more punitive, bunkers are more plentiful and more challenging, fairways may be a bit narrower, etc. All of that is going to contribute to higher slope and rating.
[/quote]

Not sure how plentiful and/or challenging bunkers are a function of maintenance.

But anyhow, I do fully believe that most owners value a higher rating because in the minds of too many, harder is better.

[raynorfan1]

[quote name='tjy355' timestamp='1313450032' post='3489698']

Not sure how plentiful and/or challenging bunkers are a function of maintenance.

[/quote]

You've never played a course where there's an area that's depressed as though it should be a bunker (i.e. was clearly designed to be one), but years of neglect have rendered it just another part of the rough? They seem to be a pretty common feature of the "low frill" public courses that I've seen.