or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by rogolf

When I'm doing set up, which includes both hole location and tee location, I'm very aware of where the tees are set with respect to hole location.  It may not make much difference on a very long par five, but it certainly does on shorter par fours and always on par threes.  If I set up a potentially drivable par 4, I will always make it a very tough hole location - typically short and just over a bunker or near a drop off (if you really want to drive low handicappers nuts,...
And permitted by the Rules of golf, see Decision 27/20.  Note that the Decision clearly states that without such a local Rule, the ball is in bounds.
No, not the same circumstances.
I agree that could be an issue.  In such a competition, it would be very worthwhile to ensure that all of the tee markers are placed at their respective stone markers or within a couple paces thereof.  Imo, tournament set ups should not be left to the greens crew unless they have been provided specific instructions by the Committee.  Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the organizing Committee, not the greens crew.
AFAIK, the course ratings are done ignoring any non-conforming local Rules (such as the one above regarding bunkers).If you really want to do research, visit     http://www.popeofslope.com/index.html Also, in the area where I am (Pacific Northwest), the state and provincial associations hold annual meetings of the course raters to ensure there is consistency in rating amongst the group. Perhaps an explanation for the change in rating could be obtained from the association...
This isn't nickel and dime stuff!  I was always taught that two things not the same are different - and that's the case here - handicaps and course ratings are not the same as nickels and dimes.  There's a lot more significance to handicaps than a three cent difference in change.  I'm old enough to remember when getting change from a nickel was significant - nobody would ever round $0.03 up to $0.05 when I was growing up.  I will stay with the USGA perspective, tenths of...
I've stated my opinions, and am happy to continue with them.  If you consider that a difference of 0.3 in course rating isn't significant, why doesn't the USGA just give ratings to the nearest 0.5, ie, never have a course rating other than 69.5, 70.0, 70.5 etc?  Maybe they do the number to the nearest tenth of a stroke because they consider a tenth to be significant?
Yes, I have also rated courses using the USGA system, and, imo, 90 yards short is significant.  It can be equalized by being 90 yards long the next day, but do courses really keep track of such settings?  I doubt it very much.  It's very frustrating when the white tees (example only) are consistently set up short, often in a foolhardy attempt to improve pace of play (people are responsible for slow play, course set up won't improve it to any great extent).  Those who play...
A quote from the post above from the USGA handicap manual:A difference of 22 yards for men or 18 yards for women will change the USGA course rating 0.1 of a stroke. Five yards short on every hole is 90 yards short in total, and the course rating for those tees would be 0.4 low for men, 0.5 low for women - that's significant in my opinion.  If you play the course set up like that every day, your handicap will be artificially low, since you're playing a course with a lower...
Not necessary to have them all positioned in relation to the stone markers, so long as the total course yardage is at/near the rated length.  Think of it this way - if the white tee markers on hole no. 1 are 5 yards in front of the stone markers, it's a minus 5; on hole two the white markers are 15 yards behind the stone marker, that's a plus 15.  Total to date is plus 10.  Do that for all eighteen holes and if the sum is near zero, the course is playing to its rated...
New Posts  All Forums: