A Rules Question about Missing Tee Markers

[iacas]

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.

No, because they don't have to: if they stick to the proper tee boxes, they'll equalize themselves. Plus the odds of a course being five yards short on EVERY hole is basically nil. Again, so long as they stick to the proper tee boxes. Keeping records would be busywork.

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).

It's OT, but I disagree that yardage can't help slow play. It too has to be more extreme than five yards to make a difference, though, so maybe that's what you're saying: a few yards won't matter.

Those who play this shortened course consistently then end up with lower indexes than their capability and complain when players from other courses consistently whup them in net events.  For handicap indexes to truly reflect the player's capability, the courses must be set up to average the rated length over a relatively short period of time (maybe every week).

Shoot 84 and your index is off by about 0.3 if you play a course with about a 139 slope that's 90 yards short of its rated yardage. It's still not a very big difference.

[rogolf]

No, because they don't have to: if they stick to the proper tee boxes, they'll equalize themselves. Plus the odds of a course being five yards short on EVERY hole is basically nil. Again, so long as they stick to the proper tee boxes. Keeping records would be busywork.

It's OT, but I disagree that yardage can't help slow play. It too has to be more extreme than five yards to make a difference, though, so maybe that's what you're saying: a few yards won't matter.

Shoot 84 and your index is off by about 0.3 if you play a course with about a 139 slope that's 90 yards short of its rated yardage. It's still not a very big difference.

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?

[iacas]

I've stated my opinions, and am happy to continue with them.

As have I, and as am I.

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?

Those aren't equivalent situations.

They go to the nearest tenth because that's what the place holder is for. But their definition of what's significant and what I call significant are different.

If you're owed $12.22 in change and you get $12.25 back because it's easier on the waitress to give you a quarter, do you consider that change to be significant? Unlikely. But to say that we should just round everything to dimes because of that is not the same.

And… Here's the beauty of this all: you get to keep your opinion, and I get to keep mine! And it's all good, and golf still exists and is enjoyed by millions!

[ilikefishes]

Great points.

[rogolf]

As have I, and as am I.

Those aren't equivalent situations.

They go to the nearest tenth because that's what the place holder is for. But their definition of what's significant and what I call significant are different.

If you're owed $12.22 in change and you get $12.25 back because it's easier on the waitress to give you a quarter, do you consider that change to be significant? Unlikely. But to say that we should just round everything to dimes because of that is not the same.

And… Here's the beauty of this all: you get to keep your opinion, and I get to keep mine! And it's all good, and golf still exists and is enjoyed by millions!

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 stroke ratings are important.

[iacas]

[QUOTE name="rogolf" url="/t/76757/a-nit-picking-rules-question/18#post_1046100"]   This isn't nickel and dime stuff!  I was always taught that two things not the same are different [/QUOTE] I didn't say they were the same or "not different." I said the change was small. Let's stick to the topic, eh?

[Rulesman]

tenths of stroke ratings are important.

But they are spurious accuracy.

Put 5 rating teams on a course and you'll get at least two ratings which vary by more than 0.1

[iacas]

But they are spurious accuracy.

Put 5 rating teams on a course and you'll get at least two ratings which vary by more than 0.1

Still not the topic here.

There is probably enough interest (though perhaps only amongst a few people) to have a separate ratings discussion thread.

[David in FL]

Still not the topic here.

There is probably enough interest (though perhaps only amongst a few people) to have a separate ratings discussion thread.

Yes please!

[turtleback]

Yes please!

I agree, as now that I am retired it is something I might look into as a volunteer activity.

[Club Rat]

@rogolf & @iacas & @Rulesman

Thanks to each of you for making very valid statements in regards to the effects which determine a course rating by course setup.

However, a point which I was attempting to describe is "creating a level playing field" in events which have players at different tee boxes.

My beef is on several occasions, a player at the back (Black Tees) and forward (White Tees) the markers would be several yards in front of the stones (near front sections of tee boxes)

and the middle (Blue Tees) would be located at the back of the box, several yards behind the stone marker.

On just a single hole, it's not a big deal. But when this occurred with four or more holes, then one needs to address the situation.

This seems to occur fairly often at our course, enough to inquire if would give an advantage or a disadvantages to players?

I have always felt in any event, everyone should play at the same tees boxes and allow seniors to play forward tees.

Sorry to get OT and thanks for the many viewpoints about tee placement.

Club Rat

[rogolf]

@rogolf & @iacas & @Rulesman

Thanks to each of you for making very valid statements in regards to the effects which determine a course rating by course setup.

However, a point which I was attempting to describe is "creating a level playing field" in events which have players at different tee boxes.

My beef is on several occasions, a player at the back (Black Tees) and forward (White Tees) the markers would be several yards in front of the stones (near front sections of tee boxes)

and the middle (Blue Tees) would be located at the back of the box, several yards behind the stone marker.

On just a single hole, it's not a big deal. But when this occurred with four or more holes, then one needs to address the situation.

This seems to occur fairly often at our course, enough to inquire if would give an advantage or a disadvantages to players?

I have always felt in any event, everyone should play at the same tees boxes and allow seniors to play forward tees.

Sorry to get OT and thanks for the many viewpoints about tee placement.

Club Rat

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.

[iacas]

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.

Yep. The head pro should be in charge of both hole locations and tee marker locations.

[Club Rat]

The Pro's usually dot the greens for pin placements and hands out pin sheets on each day of our club events.

But very rarely do they indicate tee placements or course setup.

Tee's are generally rotated or moved every other day, sometimes only from side to side.

I play almost everyday and the tees may move a foot or two. The assistant green keeper sets the tee locations when they are moved.

When the club hosts District or USGA events, they set pins and tees.

Rarely will they ask for rough length or green speed to any specs.

Our course is a Nicklaus Championship course which plays to tournament conditions pretty much everyday, which is a real treat.

We have the best back pin positions in comparison to other courses in the area.

I feel tee locations are never considered as an intricate part of the days event.

When in fact, they could change the difficultly of every hole with wind conditions or when the course is played after heavy rains.

Club Rat

[rogolf]

The Pro's usually dot the greens for pin placements and hands out pin sheets on each day of our club events.

But very rarely do they indicate tee placements or course setup.

Tee's are generally rotated or moved every other day, sometimes only from side to side.

I play almost everyday and the tees may move a foot or two. The assistant green keeper sets the tee locations when they are moved.

When the club hosts District or USGA events, they set pins and tees.

Rarely will they ask for rough length or green speed to any specs.

Our course is a Nicklaus Championship course which plays to tournament conditions pretty much everyday, which is a real treat.

We have the best back pin positions in comparison to other courses in the area.

I feel tee locations are never considered as an intricate part of the days event.

When in fact, they could change the difficultly of every hole with wind conditions or when the course is played after heavy rains.

Club Rat

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, put out 18 short hole locations).  On other holes, I'll always try to find a way to hide the bottom of the flag stick.  It's fun trying to tease the players.  However, in the final analysis, the hole locations need to be balanced between left and right (to me, a center hole location is "neutral"), but there is no need to balance front, center and back.