or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Course ratings......
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Course ratings...... - Page 3

post #37 of 57

^^^^^ :beer:

post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I don't know how important that is, particularly if one or two of the raters on the team is or once was a competent golfer.

 

If you had to be a 2 handicap or better to rate, they'd never have raters. :)

 

One of the guys on our squad rarely breaks 85 from 6000 yards, and the other probably hasn't broken 90 from 6000 yards in quite some time. And then there's me, of course, so they give my opinion a little more leeway on how "escapable" a stand of trees are relative to the length of the shot, etc. (which we balance against the guidelines in the books, of course).

 

Yes, it's a volunteer thing, but I'd investigate doing it sooner rather than later, David. It's customary to give the raters a free round after they've rated a course, and it's just one way I feel I can give back to the game.

2 definitely seems unreasonable.  But do you think there is some maximum handicap to be able to qualify as a rater?  And if so what ballpark do you think that maximum might be?

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

2 definitely seems unreasonable.  But do you think there is some maximum handicap to be able to qualify as a rater?  And if so what ballpark do you think that maximum might be?

 

I don't think there is one. Before I joined the team, I think they had no lower handicap players for awhile in this area (NW PA).

post #40 of 57

The team which rated our course several years back consisted of 3 team members.

One man and two women.

Just guessing, all were over 70 years old.

 

Seriously doubt they "Had to meet Handicap Requirements"

 

Club Rat

post #41 of 57

I've done course rating for the past 10 years in North Carolina and for the past 3 years have been the captain of our course rating team.  While there is some subjectivity in the rating work, a good bit of it is pretty much dictated by USGA standards that govern how we rate certain holes and the obstacles (trees, hazards, bunker depth, etc.) on these holes.  Our team rates 8-12 courses per year and at this point I have done probably 100 ratings.

 

         It's not uncommon when a course is rated for the course rating and/or slope to change (either up or down).  Most of these changes occur because of a change in course set-up,  Changes in green speed, width of fairways, height of rough can all make a course rating go up or down.  Quite often, we find that a course has added a new "back tee" to address the fact that today's golf balls are "juiced" a lot more than they used to be.

 

The following chart (tabulated by the USGA) shows the effect of changes in course set-up.  Seemingly minor changes, can make a course rating change more than one might think.

 

                                                                                                      Likely Changes to Ratings

Action Taken                                                                         Course               Slope

Reduce all fairway widths by 10 yards                                + 0.3                +2

Increase summer rough height by one inch                        + 0.7                +5  

Reduce water to greens to make them very firm                + 0.2                +1

Increase green stimpmeter speed by 1.5 feet                    + 0.2                 +1

Move all tee markers back an average of 10 yards            + 0.8                 +2

P.S.  until some health issues three years ago, my handicap index was 2.5 and in the past was lower than that.

There is no handicap maximum for being a course rater.  We find that keep a good mix of low and high handicaps as team members helps as keeping from getting a one sided perspective.

 

Cheers,

 

         Neb

post #42 of 57

Unfortunately the chart I put on my post did not quite fit the space.  The first number you see after each indicated action is the change in course rating.  The second number you see if the change in slope.

post #43 of 57
Thread Starter 

This past weekend I asked the GM at the course that I referenced in my OP if he knew what drove the change. He was adamant that there had been no substantive changes and was equally surprised at the reduction in CR. Says that he intends to have the course re-rated when he can. I believe he said that the course cannot be rated again for another 2 years.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neb Tiffam View Post
 

I've done course rating for the past 10 years in North Carolina and for the past 3 years have been the captain of our course rating team.  While there is some subjectivity in the rating work, a good bit of it is pretty much dictated by USGA standards that govern how we rate certain holes and the obstacles (trees, hazards, bunker depth, etc.) on these holes.  Our team rates 8-12 courses per year and at this point I have done probably 100 ratings.

 

         It's not uncommon when a course is rated for the course rating and/or slope to change (either up or down).  Most of these changes occur because of a change in course set-up,  Changes in green speed, width of fairways, height of rough can all make a course rating go up or down.  Quite often, we find that a course has added a new "back tee" to address the fact that today's golf balls are "juiced" a lot more than they used to be.

 

The following chart (tabulated by the USGA) shows the effect of changes in course set-up.  Seemingly minor changes, can make a course rating change more than one might think.

 

                                                                                                      Likely Changes to Ratings

Action Taken                                                                         Course               Slope

Reduce all fairway widths by 10 yards                                + 0.3                +2

Increase summer rough height by one inch                        + 0.7                +5  

Reduce water to greens to make them very firm                + 0.2                +1

Increase green stimpmeter speed by 1.5 feet                    + 0.2                 +1

Move all tee markers back an average of 10 yards            + 0.8                 +2

P.S.  until some health issues three years ago, my handicap index was 2.5 and in the past was lower than that.

There is no handicap maximum for being a course rater.  We find that keep a good mix of low and high handicaps as team members helps as keeping from getting a one sided perspective.

 

Cheers,

 

         Neb

 

Great insight.  Thanks Neb!

post #44 of 57

I do like this as a way to see what the USGA thinks is most important in the golfers game. Clearly distance, 10 yards would mean an average of hitting one club more on each hole is nearly 3 times as significant as requiring +/- 1.0-1.5 degrees more accuracy on tighter fairways. 

 

I think some people might think green speed would influence score a lot as well, it really doesn't impact the golf game that much. I know a few courses were the Stimp can fluctuate up to 2-3 during the week. They are just inconsistent. It would be interesting to know the official standard by which the course was originally rated on.

post #45 of 57

David,

 

We rated a course back in early May and the course rating and slope went up by similar amounts to your situation.  The head professional at the course questioned whether we had done something different and asked us to re-look at all our assumptions.  Our state golf association keeps all worksheets from previous ratings, so we were able to go back and lay the set-up assumptions for 2006 and 2014 side by side and do a comparison.  As it turned out, this course had increased it's green speed from 9.0 on the stimp to 10.5.  They had also had added new back tees on four holes which added about 110 yards to the length of the course.  Finally, there were two holes that have sharp doglegs (one right, one left) where a scratch player in 2006 could drive the ball across the corner of the dogleg (cause trees were not very tall) and thus reduce the Effective Playing Length of the hole.  Those trees in the corner of the dogleg have now grown up and greatly reduce the probability of cutting safely across the dogleg.  So, that added and about 55 yards back to the Effective Playing Length.  Those three things added approximately .90 strokes to the course rating.

Once we showed that comparison to the head pro and the membership, the consternation with our rating quieted down.

 

It would be a good step to get the Florida State Golf Association to do the same type of analysis on your course's rating.  They should still have the old rating worksheets and should be able to generate that analysis in less than a day.  If the course set-up turns out to be the same and the rating team has made assumptions (subjectively) that caused the change in rating, then a re-do of the rating should be done.  You should not have to wait 2 years to get it done.

 

Good luck.

post #46 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb Tiffam View Post
 

David,

 

We rated a course back in early May and the course rating and slope went up by similar amounts to your situation.  The head professional at the course questioned whether we had done something different and asked us to re-look at all our assumptions.  Our state golf association keeps all worksheets from previous ratings, so we were able to go back and lay the set-up assumptions for 2006 and 2014 side by side and do a comparison.  As it turned out, this course had increased it's green speed from 9.0 on the stimp to 10.5.  They had also had added new back tees on four holes which added about 110 yards to the length of the course.  Finally, there were two holes that have sharp doglegs (one right, one left) where a scratch player in 2006 could drive the ball across the corner of the dogleg (cause trees were not very tall) and thus reduce the Effective Playing Length of the hole.  Those trees in the corner of the dogleg have now grown up and greatly reduce the probability of cutting safely across the dogleg.  So, that added and about 55 yards back to the Effective Playing Length.  Those three things added approximately .90 strokes to the course rating.

Once we showed that comparison to the head pro and the membership, the consternation with our rating quieted down.

 

It would be a good step to get the Florida State Golf Association to do the same type of analysis on your course's rating.  They should still have the old rating worksheets and should be able to generate that analysis in less than a day.  If the course set-up turns out to be the same and the rating team has made assumptions (subjectively) that caused the change in rating, then a re-do of the rating should be done.  You should not have to wait 2 years to get it done.

 

Good luck.

 

More good insight.  I'll mention it to the GM.  Thanks.....and welcome to the site.  Stick around!   :beer:

post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

I'm pretty unfamiliar with the rating process and would like to pick the brains of those who are.  One question in particular, and then maybe just a general discussion thread.....

 

One of my local courses was just re-rated and the rating dropped quite a bit.  From 71.6/124 to 71.1/121.  Is that usual?  I can see a slight variance from rater to rater, but a half stroke on the CR strikes me as a lot.  I've played it from the day it opened, so I can assure you that there hasn't been any changes in yardages, layout, hazards, etc...

 

One item.  The course has a lot of sand, and for some unknown reason, has a local rule that designates ALL sand areas as through-the-green.  Even what you would normally call greenside bunkers.  They're all maintained, and rakes are provided, but nonetheless, are not played as hazards.......though I'd bet not one golfer in 100 knows that.   Could that local rule affect the CR?

 

Thanks.

Here is a link to the latest issue of "Fore" magazine, which has an article about the rating process.  http://editiondigital.net/publication/?i=229777

 

The article starts on Page 40.  (I haven't read it yet)

post #48 of 57

Interesting, simplified but comprehensive enough.

post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

Interesting, simplified but comprehensive enough.


Yeah, about the only thing they could have added that I'd consider somewhat important is to stress the importance of length.

 

Some of the course rating "things" literally have about 0.1 effect on course rating or 1-2 points on slope from the tamest to the toughest (over all 18 holes).

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 


Yeah, about the only thing they could have added that I'd consider somewhat important is to stress the importance of length.

 

Some of the course rating "things" literally have about 0.1 effect on course rating or 1-2 points on slope from the tamest to the toughest (over all 18 holes).

I agree. A club can get a temporary rating for new tees based simply on the length difference from an already rated set of adjacent tees. Or at least we can over here whilst the USGA rating is being introduced.

post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 


Yeah, about the only thing they could have added that I'd consider somewhat important is to stress the importance of length.

 

Some of the course rating "things" literally have about 0.1 effect on course rating or 1-2 points on slope from the tamest to the toughest (over all 18 holes).

Something I have never understood, given the importance of length in course ratings, is how altitude isn't taken into account, at least as far as I can figure.

 

A 6200 yard course, all things being equal, isn't the same from San Diego where I live now (let's use a 6200 yard course here as a baseline), to say Mesa, AZ where I lived for 10 years. Equivalent length there maybe 6600 yards.  Then Denver, where I grew up, maybe 6900 yards equivalent or more.  Those are big differences in drives and clubs into the greens.  When I go back to Denver to play I'm a relative big hitter. For all those who live at altitude and then go to sea level, you can't hit it out of your shadow. I remember that too.

 

No comment about altitude in that article.

 

Has the USGA ever made comment of this issue in course rating (and thus handicaps as well)? Any different guidance they give rating teams in say Colorado vs California or Florida?

post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFlipper View Post
 

Something I have never understood, given the importance of length in course ratings, is how altitude isn't taken into account, at least as far as I can figure.

 

A 6200 yard course, all things being equal, isn't the same from San Diego where I live now (let's use a 6200 yard course here as a baseline), to say Mesa, AZ where I lived for 10 years. Equivalent length there maybe 6600 yards.  Then Denver, where I grew up, maybe 6900 yards equivalent or more.  Those are big differences in drives and clubs into the greens.  When I go back to Denver to play I'm a relative big hitter. For all those who live at altitude and then go to sea level, you can't hit it out of your shadow. I remember that too.

 

No comment about altitude in that article.

 

Has the USGA ever made comment of this issue in course rating (and thus handicaps as well)? Any different guidance they give rating teams in say Colorado vs California or Florida?

 

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/

 

 

Effective Playing Length Factors

The following correction factors are evaluated to determine if the hole is effectively longer or shorter than the actual measured length: 

Roll: Roll is an evaluation of how far full shots for scratch and bogey golfers roll, and the effect that has on the playing length of the course.

Elevation:  Elevation is a measure of how changes in elevation from tee to green affect the playing length of a hole.

Dogleg/forced lay up: Dogleg/forced lay-up is a measure of how much longer or shorter a hole is played because it has a bend (allowing players to cut the corner or forcing them to lay up), or because it has obstacles, such as water or deep bunkers, crossing the fairway in the players' landing zones (which force the scratch or bogey golfer to hit less than a full shot). Prevailing Wind:   Prevailing wind is a measure of the effect of constant wind on seaside courses, plains courses, or other courses unprotected from the wind.

Altitude : Altitude is an evaluation for courses at 2,000 feet or more altitude that will play shorter than their measured length because shots fly farther in the thin air.

post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/

 

 

Effective Playing Length Factors

The following correction factors are evaluated to determine if the hole is effectively longer or shorter than the actual measured length: 

Roll: Roll is an evaluation of how far full shots for scratch and bogey golfers roll, and the effect that has on the playing length of the course.

Elevation:  Elevation is a measure of how changes in elevation from tee to green affect the playing length of a hole.

Dogleg/forced lay up: Dogleg/forced lay-up is a measure of how much longer or shorter a hole is played because it has a bend (allowing players to cut the corner or forcing them to lay up), or because it has obstacles, such as water or deep bunkers, crossing the fairway in the players' landing zones (which force the scratch or bogey golfer to hit less than a full shot). Prevailing Wind:   Prevailing wind is a measure of the effect of constant wind on seaside courses, plains courses, or other courses unprotected from the wind.

Altitude : Altitude is an evaluation for courses at 2,000 feet or more altitude that will play shorter than their measured length because shots fly farther in the thin air.

Hey thanks. Clicked that link. Other than the bolded words above, nothing more specific. Do they guide on a sliding scale based on the altitude, or is it just binary above/below 2,000 feet? And does anyone know the adjustment factors they use?

 

Maybe they are already on top of this and I am pushing a non-point, but I'm not giving up yet :-) 

post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFlipper View Post

Hey thanks. Clicked that link. Other than the bolded words above, nothing more specific. Do they guide on a sliding scale based on the altitude, or is it just binary above/below 2,000 feet? And does anyone know the adjustment factors they use?

Maybe they are already on top of this and I am pushing a non-point, but I'm not giving up yet a1_smile.gif  

It's not just binary.

The formula takes into account how high you are and many many many other things. The formula is not public, the documents referred to above are just the public facing simplified explanations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Course ratings......