• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
baw1

Reconciling moving tee markers with handicap scoring

13 posts in this topic

I am a relative newbie to the game so apologies if this is a basic question/s. I searched for clues on it but could not find much info.

When entering your score into a handicap system, you need to also specify the tees that were used (back, middle, or front). The slope/rating for each is different and therefore has an impact. As an example,  a par-3 hole distance for the middle-tees is listed on the scorecard as 207. The distance for the back tees on that same hole is listed as 233. I believe that these distances are measured from the ‘plates’ in the tee area ground to the ‘center’ of the green (generally speaking)?

So when the tee markers are moved around and not aligned with the ‘plates’, is that so they will derive the same expected distance (for the given tees) based on flag/hole location movement? So in other words using the example above, would the distance between the middle tees and the flag be 207 and the back tees and the flag be 233? Yesterday I played a course where on several holes the middle and back tee markers were together. That would seem to contradict the above assumption. Also, if the middle/back are teeing off from same spot, then how is this reflected when entering the score (per above). The total distance difference between middle and back tees (according to the score card) is supposed to be ~600 yards…?

Thanks in advance for feedback on this..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I am a relative newbie to the game so apologies if this is a basic question/s. I searched for clues on it but could not find much info.

When entering your score into a handicap system, you need to also specify the tees that were used (back, middle, or front). The slope/rating for each is different and therefore has an impact. As an example,  a par-3 hole distance for the middle-tees is listed on the scorecard as 207. The distance for the back tees on that same hole is listed as 233. I believe that these distances are measured from the ‘plates’ in the tee area ground to the ‘center’ of the green (generally speaking)?

So when the tee markers are moved around and not aligned with the ‘plates’, is that so they will derive the same expected distance (for the given tees) based on flag/hole location movement? So in other words using the example above, would the distance between the middle tees and the flag be 207 and the back tees and the flag be 233? Yesterday I played a course where on several holes the middle and back tee markers were together. That would seem to contradict the above assumption. Also, if the middle/back are teeing off from same spot, then how is this reflected when entering the score (per above). The total distance difference between middle and back tees (according to the score card) is supposed to be ~600 yards…?

Thanks in advance for feedback on this..

A "properly" set up course keeps approximately the same total yardage as stated on the card for each set.  Sometimes that means lengthening one hole to compensate for shortening another one.  My home course does it as recommended - that is, they move the tee up in the box when the hole is cut toward the back of the green, and the move the tee back when the hole is front.

Some variability is irrelevant, since 100 or so yards plus or minus from the card yardage won't change the rating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah usually close to card yardage and typically staggered. Pretty much a necessity to keep the boxes in decent condition. However I have seen a few courses that were really far off. A popular course here usually plays quite a bit shorter than card yardage and I have no doubt it's and deliberate attempt to speed up the pace of play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Yeah usually close to card yardage and typically staggered. Pretty much a necessity to keep the boxes in decent condition. However I have seen a few courses that were really far off. A popular course here usually plays quite a bit shorter than card yardage and I have no doubt it's and deliberate attempt to speed up the pace of play.

Not only to speed play, but also to fool the players into thinking that they are playing the full length rather than being honest and publicizing what they are doing.  I've known a few courses which don't seem to care what the card says, they just set the course up with no plan.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only to speed play, but also to fool the players into thinking that they are playing the full length rather than being honest and publicizing what they are doing.  I've known a few courses which don't seem to care what the card says, they just set the course up with no plan.

Riverdale was honest about it when I asked. They had the gold tee markers pulled with "tee closed" signs on the boxes. Both the whites and blues were significantly shorter than card yardage. Slow play can be a problem there. It's the closest course to me and I rarely go. Shame because it's a cool course.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not only to speed play, but also to fool the players into thinking that they are playing the full length rather than being honest and publicizing what they are doing.  I've known a few courses which don't seem to care what the card says, they just set the course up with no plan.

Riverdale was honest about it when I asked. They had the gold tee markers pulled with "tee closed" signs on the boxes. Both the whites and blues were significantly shorter than card yardage. Slow play can be a problem there. It's the closest course to me and I rarely go. Shame because it's a cool course.

Yes it's a nice one.  I played it at least once almost every year from the year it opened.  I have a good friend who designed and made the sign for the Dunes course, and part of the deal he worked for payment was a break on green fees for several years.  We generally went together once a year - from unincorporated south Jeffco to the Adams County Fairgrounds is an hour drive on a good day, so I didn't do it often.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "properly" set up course keeps approximately the same total yardage as stated on the card for each set.  Sometimes that means lengthening one hole to compensate for shortening another one.  My home course does it as recommended - that is, they move the tee up in the box when the hole is cut toward the back of the green, and the move the tee back when the hole is front.

Some variability is irrelevant, since 100 or so yards plus or minus from the card yardage won't change the rating.


Thanks for your response. If I am following correctly, the "total" yardage when it is all said and done should be fairly close to the total on the scorecard (for those tees). Regardless if on several holes there is no distance difference between middle and back tees (tee markers together for those holes).

It sounds like my other assumption that the "207" distance or "233" distance are maintained may not be necessarily true though. In other words the distance number on the scorecard does not equate to the distance between the tee-marker and the flag?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A "properly" set up course keeps approximately the same total yardage as stated on the card for each set.  Sometimes that means lengthening one hole to compensate for shortening another one.  My home course does it as recommended - that is, they move the tee up in the box when the hole is cut toward the back of the green, and the move the tee back when the hole is front.

Some variability is irrelevant, since 100 or so yards plus or minus from the card yardage won't change the rating.

Thanks for your response. If I am following correctly, the "total" yardage when it is all said and done should be fairly close to the total on the scorecard (for those tees). Regardless if on several holes there is no distance difference between middle and back tees (tee markers together for those holes).

It sounds like my other assumption that the "207" distance or "233" distance are maintained may not be necessarily true though. In other words the distance number on the scorecard does not equate to the distance between the tee-marker and the flag?

There is certainly no Rule that would make such a thing necessary, but that would be a course I wouldn't play again if I didn't like how they were setting it up.  If they are truly messing with the course to the extent that the rating is going to invalid and your handicap will be adversely affected, then then I'd ask if there was an unpublished rating for way the course was set up.  If not then I wouldn't return a score if I thought that it would impact my handicap.

I can't imagine having to play a course which set up a par 3 hole at 233 yards when I planned my round based on the card telling me that the longest par 3 was 207.  For me, 207 would be the longest I'd consider, and I'd be more than a bit upset to find that they had gotten that free with the setup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My home course does it as recommended - that is, they move the tee up in the box when the hole is cut toward the back of the green, and the move the tee back when the hole is front.

Hmmm, I think if I played one course often, I'd hope they would go against this recommendation and be more creative.  I get that they have to keep the overall yardage the same, but I'd prefer more variation in the individual holes.  It would be OK if they occasionally made that Par 3 play 250, and other days 175.  On those respective days the following par 5 that says 520 on the card can be 470 and then 560.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The course he's talking about is older without enough room to accommodate a 75 yard change. At least that is the way it was when I was there years ago. Here some of the new courses have as many 5-6 tees with combo ratings for those wanting to mix it up. But they typically don't vary hole lengths that much. The span at our course is 10-15 yards of the plaques at the most. But they don't move the markers up if the hole is cut back and vice versa, it appears random with regard to length and just an effort to allow tee boxes to heal. The markers are always on the same box.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

My home course does it as recommended - that is, they move the tee up in the box when the hole is cut toward the back of the green, and the move the tee back when the hole is front.

Hmmm, I think if I played one course often, I'd hope they would go against this recommendation and be more creative.  I get that they have to keep the overall yardage the same, but I'd prefer more variation in the individual holes.  It would be OK if they occasionally made that Par 3 play 250, and other days 175.  On those respective days the following par 5 that says 520 on the card can be 470 and then 560.

If I ever saw a 250 yard par 3 I'd never play that course again. :blink: That said, I'm also not interested in a 250 yard par 4.  For me, a course has a lot more than just length to make it fun to play.

I played the same course as my home course (not exclusively) for nearly 30 years, but I never played 2 rounds that I could identify as being very similar.  I watched the course grow from a muni built on a tight budget in 1972 (I first played there in 1975) to a really pleasant parkland course that gives players good variety with reasonable playability.  The greens offer a decent challenge without being convoluted.  Bunkers are well placed but also aren't a dominant feature on the course.  Trees are situated where they will confound the errant shot but the course is not cut out of the primeval forest (this was once just high prairie).  Water is in play on 8 holes, but it won't bring on an attack of hydrophobia.  Holes play to just about every point on the compass, so you get wind from all directions during a round.  This is the layout from Google Earth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have indicated, the reality is that the total course length needs to be close to the rated length - the length of individual holes can and should be varied to create a course at the rated length.  Most courses have a front, center and back rotation of hole locations on greens - the average of front, center, back is center, so the hole locations for the day is irrelevant for the yardage, the difference can only originate from the tee locations versus the "plates", the starting measuring point.  The course should be set up so that the distance from tee markers to plates is close to zero.  This means that you can be shorter ( a minus number) on several holes but would need to longer (a positive number) on several holes to make the total of plus and minus close to zero.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have indicated, the reality is that the total course length needs to be close to the rated length - the length of individual holes can and should be varied to create a course at the rated length.  Most courses have a front, center and back rotation of hole locations on greens - the average of front, center, back is center, so the hole locations for the day is irrelevant for the yardage, the difference can only originate from the tee locations versus the "plates", the starting measuring point.  The course should be set up so that the distance from tee markers to plates is close to zero.  This means that you can be shorter ( a minus number) on several holes but would need to longer (a positive number) on several holes to make the total of plus and minus close to zero.


Thanks again for clarifying this. I guess one of may takeaways from this is not to pay TOO much attention to the listed scorecard distance for individual holes. It's only a starting reference point. I played at a course today that had special signs on many of the tees with exact tee-to-flag distances listed for each tee (as they were set up today). Have not seen that before. Since I don't use a range finder, this was helpful to know..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries