My home course slope and rating

[chasm]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/75714/my-home-course-slope-and-rating#post_1018040"] [@=/u/48322/Strandly]@Strandly[/@], you can't have a par 3.84. A hole can "rate out" at it though.[/QUOTE] So you're saying the difference between course rating and par is simply due to rounding?  Now that makes sense.

No. Think of it as the difference between rating each hole individually, and rating the course as a whole. Take the earlier example of a par 72 course consisting of 18 340-yard, uncomplicated holes. At 340 yards none of them can be considered a par 3, they're too long for even the best players to expect to make 3 every time. So they all have to be par 4s, and therefore the par on the card has to be 72. But because all the holes are straightforward, a good player will usually make several birdies. He won't be able to predict exactly where they'll occur, but over the course of a round he'll likely make four or five. So the rating of the course will be 67 or 68, becasue a scratch player will be expected to get round in that score. Does that help?

[Strandly]

No. Think of it as the difference between rating each hole individually, and rating the course as a whole.

Take the earlier example of a par 72 course consisting of 18 340-yard, uncomplicated holes. At 340 yards none of them can be considered a par 3, they're too long for even the best players to expect to make 3 every time. So they all have to be par 4s, and therefore the par on the card has to be 72.

But because all the holes are straightforward, a good player will usually make several birdies. He won't be able to predict exactly where they'll occur, but over the course of a round he'll likely make four or five. So the rating of the course will be 67 or 68, becasue a scratch player will be expected to get round in that score.

Does that help?

......................................

There has never been any confusing on my end of what the course rating is and where it comes from.  Never.

What I am saying (asking) is why use a value, par, that doesn't match anyone in particular.  Like I said before, it's not necessarily what an expert player can be expected to shoot and it's not what a bogey golfer can be expected to shoot so what is the significance of this number?  Why not have par be 150?  Or 1000?  No matter what number you make it's not gonna change how a player scores relative to a scratch player... so my point is why not just make par what a scratch player shoots and simply everything.

Does this make sense?

[Strandly]

And like I hinted at in a previous post maybe this is what the people who decide what par is going to be are trying to do.  If the course rating for a course is 69.1 and 3 of the holes are rated individually at something like 3.8, 4.6, and 3.7 then due to rounding these holes to pars of 4, 5, and 4, respectively, I could see how the course might end up with a par of 72.

[chasm]

What I am saying (asking) is why use a value, par, that doesn't match anyone in particular.  Like I said before, it's not necessarily what an expert player can be expected to shoot and it's not what a bogey golfer can be expected to shoot so what is the significance of this number?  Why not have par be 150?  Or 1000?  No matter what number you make it's not gonna change how a player scores relative to a scratch player... so my point is why not just make par what a scratch player shoots and simply everything.   Does this make sense?

No. Because as well as having an expected figure for the course as a whole (the rating) we have to have an expected figure for each hole (the par). And the par for the course is the sum of the pars for each hole. As was pointed out above, you might have a par four that is played, on average, in 3.84 strokes by scratch players. But it can't be a par 3.84, any more than a difficult par 3 can be a 3.23. All you are doing, by pointing out the shortcomings of the par figures, is advancing an argument for introducing a rating system. Which is why there is one. I wish we had adopted it over here.

[Strandly]

No. Because as well as having an expected figure for the course as a whole (the rating) we have to have an expected figure for each hole (the par). And the par for the course is the sum of the pars for each hole.

As was pointed out above, you might have a par four that is played, on average, in 3.84 strokes by scratch players. But it can't be a par 3.84, any more than a difficult par 3 can be a 3.23.

All you are doing, by pointing out the shortcomings of the par figures, is advancing an argument for introducing a rating system. Which is why there is one. I wish we had adopted it over here.

I think you are mistaken.  The course rating is the sum of the individual ratings of each hole and this is why the course rating often has a decimal.  Par appears to be an arbitrary number and is the reason I keep responding, to figure out where exactly it comes from.

If the reason par doesn't match the course rating is due to rounding the individual ratings of each hole then that explains it and my question would be answered but oddly there doesn't seem to be a straight up google answer to this.

[chasm]

I think you are mistaken.  The course rating is the sum of the individual ratings of each hole and this is why the course rating often has a decimal.  Par appears to be an arbitrary number and is the reason I keep responding, to figure out where exactly it comes from. If the reason par doesn't match the course rating is due to rounding the individual ratings of each hole then that explains it and my question would be answered but oddly there doesn't seem to be a straight up google answer to this.

Par figures for each hole are not set by rounding the ratings up or down. The par figures are set first, on the basis, essentially, of the length of the holes. And, obviously, they have to be whole numbers. Equally obviously, all par threes are not equally difficult. Which is where the ratings come in. I really don't understand your difficulty with this.

[Strandly]

Par figures for each hole are not set by rounding the ratings up or down. The par figures are set first, on the basis, essentially, of the length of the holes. And, obviously, they have to be whole numbers.

Equally obviously, all par threes are not equally difficult. Which is where the ratings come in. I really don't understand your difficulty with this.

My difficulty?  I've been asking the same simple question for at least the last 5 or 6 posts.  It appears the difficulty is yours.

The info I found seems to suggest the rating for the hole more or less determines par for the hole, of which distance is a factor.  It still doesn't explain something like this:

I stopped trying to understand it long ago, especially when I see courses that are rated/sloped way harder/easier than counterparts but incorrectly.  I do know I played a 77.5/147 the other day which was 7438 yards Par 71 and it kicked the living crap outta me and I shot 85 and putted like Crenshaw.  It showed me that I gotta get some more length

[tefunk]

Here is maybe a way to think about it... Par 3 - 1 stroke on, 2 putts Par 4 - 2 strokes on, 2 putts Par 5 - 3 strokes on, 2 putts That is pretty much what determines par on a given hole, then add all the holes up and you have par for the course. However, they are rated differently based on difficulty.

[chasm]

The info I found seems to suggest the rating for the hole more or less determines par for the hole

No, it doesn't.

[Strandly]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

[chasm]

Yes, it does.

Oh, please. Think about it for a moment. The par figures are set before the course is rated. Most of the most famous courses in the USA were built, and had par scores assigned to them, before the ratings system was ever thought of. Of course the ratings don't determine the par figures.

[tefunk]

Par and Rating are two totally separate things. Kind of like an apple versus an orange... They are not the same

[Pretzel]

Yes, it does.

Actually, distance is what determines par for the hole. Not the rating. Even if a scratch golfer averages 3.2 on a 300 yard par 4, that will not affect the par rating because it's still a 300 yard hole.

[Abu3baid]

I know that on the 2400 par 34 course I play hey have a box on the score card that says scratch is 30.. Basically they are saying you need to get at least 4 birdies with 5 pars or combination of to get to -4 to be considered a scratch player there! The thing is they don't include a rating or slope on the card.. Oh well.. I guess I'm shooting for the -4 because even is not good enough!

[chasm]

I know that on the 2400 par 34 course I play hey have a box on the score card that says scratch is 30.. Basically they are saying you need to get at least 4 birdies with 5 pars or combination of to get to -4 to be considered a scratch player there! The thing is they don't include a rating or slope on the card.. Oh well.. I guess I'm shooting for the -4 because even is not good enough!

That is similar to how it works in the UK. We don't have ratings and slope (though some of the big links courses that attract a lot of American visitors have had those assessments made) but the "Standard scratch score" will sometimes be different from the par. At my own home course, par is 70 but the standard scratch is 71 - a bit like a US par 70 being rated at 71, but (as far as I can see) less objectively measured.

[Abu3baid]

[quote name="Abu3baid" url="/t/75714/my-home-course-slope-and-rating/18#post_1018955"]I know that on the 2400 par 34 course I play hey have a box on the score card that says scratch is 30.. Basically they are saying you need to get at least 4 birdies with 5 pars or combination of to get to -4 to be considered a scratch player there! The thing is they don't include a rating or slope on the card.. Oh well.. I guess I'm shooting for the -4 because even is not good enough!

That is similar to how it works in the UK. We don't have ratings and slope (though some of the big links courses that attract a lot of American visitors have had those assessments made) but the "Standard scratch score" will sometimes be different from the par. At my own home course, par is 70 but the standard scratch is 71 - a bit like a US par 70 being rated at 71, but (as far as I can see) less objectively measured.[/quote] Very interesting.. I wouldn't have expected the scratch to be higher than the par, but that means it is a tough course then!

[tefunk]

There's a course back home that is rated 76.7 and is a Par 70. Very tough course, but beautiful course (probably why it's hosted every PGA major). My friend who is a member there is a +1, and usually shoots mid-70's there

[Abu3baid]

There's a course back home that is rated 76.7 and is a Par 70. Very tough course, but beautiful course (probably why it's hosted every PGA major). My friend who is a member there is a +1, and usually shoots mid-70's there

Which one is it? Sounds like one that I should visit if I ever get good at this game!