The 'accuracy' of course ratings and slope

[hollabachgt]

38 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

The pros play at ~25x their median driving distance. A player averaging 280 yds off the tee should be playing 7000 yds.

 

 

Median driving distance on the PGA Tour is ~300.6 yards. Average course length on the PGA Tour this year is 7,324. Keeping in mind that this number is based on the max length for a course, not actual playing length. At a place like Torrey Pines the listed length is 7,765, but the average distance they played the course at this year was 7,640. So really the number is closer to 24x than 25x.

Based on this a player averaging 280 off the tee should be playing closer to 6,700 yards.

[vandyfan]

5 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

Based on this a player averaging 280 off the tee should be playing closer to 6,700 yards.

 

Not that I am going to change anyone's mind but....I'll take the bait on this one. 

 

The PGA Tour is a competitive, professional competition series that is attempting to identify the best players in the world. So if they are playing at 24x their driving distance, that's great. Why is that the standard that we would then project onto mid-handicap ams like me? These guys are the best in the world, practice every day, have endless equipment options, etc. Also, they don't just hit their driver farther, they hit everything farther/straighter/closer/etc. It is the same way I wouldn't try to base my max deadlift off an elite deadlifter's body weight as a % of the weight they lift. They are more efficient and better at it. 

[hollabachgt]

1 minute ago, vandyfan said:

 

Not that I am going to change anyone's mind but....I'll take the bait on this one. 

 

The PGA Tour is a competitive, professional competition series that is attempting to identify the best players in the world. So if they are playing at 24x their driving distance, that's great. Why is that the standard that we would then project onto mid-handicap ams like me? These guys are the best in the world, practice every day, have endless equipment options, etc. Also, they don't just hit their driver farther, they hit everything farther/straighter/closer/etc. It is the same way I wouldn't try to base my max deadlift off an elite deadlifter's body weight as a % of the weight they lift. They are more efficient and better at it. 

Oh I don't think 24x should be any sort of standard used to determine distance.  I was just pointing out that if you are using the PGA tour as a metric, that metric would actually lead you to a much shorter distance than expected.

The average amateur hits their drive around 225, so to provide them a similar distance challenge to the PGA Tour they would need to play a course only 5,400 yards long. How many players out there would see than and think the distance is way to short for them? There is a fantastic number of amateurs  who probably play golf courses that are comparatively much harder (distance wise) than the PGA Tour courses.

[vandyfan]

12 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

The average amateur hits their drive around 225, so to provide them a similar distance challenge to the PGA Tour they would need to play a course only 5,400 yards long. How many players out there would see than and think the distance is way to short for them? There is a fantastic number of amateurs  who probably play golf courses that are comparatively much harder (distance wise) than the PGA Tour courses.

 

I misunderstood but I totally agree with your sentiment. I think the amount of times I have played with someone and thought "they should play farther back" is like 2% of the time vs the opposite (play farther forward) probably 30-40% of the time but that has been debated endlessly on here. I am now with the "play wherever you have fun" spot and, for me, that is 6,000 - 6,400 yds. 

Edited May 8 by vandyfan

[Argonne69]

26 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

 

I misunderstood but I totally agree with your sentiment. I think the amount of times I have played with someone and thought "they should play farther back" is like 2% of the time vs the opposite (play farther forward) probably 30-40% of the time but that has been debated endlessly on here. I am now with the "play wherever you have fun" spot and, for me, that is 6,000 - 6,400 yds. 

 

The topic of the thread is course rating, not fun. I agree that moving forward should make the round more fun, but it's also going to eliminate a lot of trouble, and make it appear that the course is playing easier.

 

[WesternRacing]

2 hours ago, vandyfan said:

 

That will make my vanity handicap EVEN WORSE haha. No, no, I am good at 6,500 and would be more likely to move up to the 6,100 yds tees than back to the 6,850 tees. Ultimately I want to have fun and have an accurate handicap. 

 

 

I don’t think so.  I think the reason your handicap is so low is because you’re driving the ball 288 on a 6500 yard course.  If I did that on our 6500 yard course, I’d be hitting gap/sand/lob wedges into almost every green that wasn’t a par 3.

 

If you back up to 7,000 yards, you’re going to be at least bringing some mid irons into play, maybe even a long iron or two, and you’re going to start scoring materially worse.  Your score will probably go up more than the rating indicates, at least at first, and your index will go up. 

 

My comments aren’t addressing fun.  I’m simply commenting on your concern that your index is too low.  Driving the ball close to 290 and playing 6,500 yards will lead to that.

 

Edited May 8 by WesternRacing

[Dancin]

This ^^. The rating/slope do not accurately adjust for distance variation on a lot of courses. There are a few courses I play where if I move up 1 tee box I will shoot exponentially better every time while the slope and rating say it should only be 1.5-2 strokes difference. If I play tees that put a wedge in my hand for approach the majority of the time, I am shooting lights out compared to my handicap from the regular tee. Same thing if you put me over a certain yardage. Once it gets that long I am playing exponentially worse than what the slope/rating adjustment says it should be.

[WesternRacing]

1 hour ago, Dancin said:

This ^^. The rating/slope do not accurately adjust for distance variation on a lot of courses. There are a few courses I play where if I move up 1 tee box I will shoot exponentially better every time while the slope and rating say it should only be 1.5-2 strokes difference. If I play tees that put a wedge in my hand for approach the majority of the time, I am shooting lights out compared to my handicap from the regular tee. Same thing if you put me over a certain yardage. Once it gets that long I am playing exponentially worse than what the slope/rating adjustment says it should be.

 

I don’t disagree with this from the standpoint of different tee boxes on a single course.  But similar yardages across different courses, I think the rating system works pretty well.

[vandyfan]

Played the 6,000 yd tees yesterday and had more fun. Could reach all the par 5s with a good drive. Only scored one shot better so my differential was higher. I think the 6,000 yd tees are more accurately rated so I will play those until my course gets re-rated, in protest.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, vandyfan said:

Played the 6,000 yd tees yesterday and had more fun. Could reach all the par 5s with a good drive. Only scored one shot better so my differential was higher. I think the 6,000 yd tees are more accurately rated so I will play those until my course gets re-rated, in protest.

What's the CR/slope?

[James the Hogan Fan]

I thought that course ratings were based on a prototypical scratch golfer who is assumed to drive it 250 and can reach 470 yard holes in 2. I figure it follows if you hit the ball farther than Mr. Prototypical Scratch, the easier a longer course will play relative to its rating. (Or at a minimum, the less pressure is on your approach and recovery games to achieve the same differential).

 

But for me I feel the only differences from moving up a box come from par 5s being gettable, forced layups becoming hittable-overable, or par 4s becoming drivable. It turns out I can miss a green from 70 yards or 130 yards or 180 yards, and while there may be some small statistical advantage for a 145 yard par 3 over a 160 yard par 3, it's certainly not noticeable during a given round. I have also had certain courses where I have a lower scoring average from a longer set of tees, simply because certain hazards moved out of my landing zone.

 

Perhaps for a tour player being closer is always better, but for a 6 cap like me, things like bunkers are almost guaranteed added strokes. 

[teejaywhy]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:54 AM, angler99 said:

... Players can put in final scores or put hole by hole scores. If you are trying to get your handicap down, it makes sense to do a hole by hole score if you have any blowup holes. If you have blowup holes and only put in your final round score, the GHIN system wouldn't know to adjust your score if you have one or more blowup holes so it will assume that you were at your max or better for each hole played. Of course, you could do your own max hole calculation and then put that score into the GHIN app.

 

Required, in fact.  If you are entering a total score, it's your responsibility by the rules to apply adjustments.  

[WesternRacing]

When I joined my latest club, I was averaging 275 off the tee and our blue tees were 6,400.  It felt too short for me, as I was constantly hitting wedges and short irons into everything except our three long par threes.  Our tips were 6,900 then, which felt too far for my game and age, particularly on a few of our really difficult holes.  Since then, I’ve lost 15-20 yards off the tee and our course has been lengthened to 6500 yards from the blue tees, and now it feels just right.  When I move up to our whites, which are 6,150, the course feels way too short again.

[vandyfan]

On 5/10/2025 at 1:47 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

What's the CR/slope?

6,100 at 70/130. Still seems high but I don’t really score any better so my resulting differential is higher AND it is more fun. Albeit less of an “examination” of my game.

 

Further update: Played the 5,800 yd tees (might be addicted to the shorter course) and it was a blast. Forced myself to hit driver everywhere which made it tough in a different way, hit about 80% GIR though and got a taste of what rory does into par 5s hitting 7/8 iron into several of them. Definitely not “proper golf” but very fun. Going to be hard to convince myself to go back. May not!

Edited May 11 by vandyfan

[tstephen]

My dad was on NCGA rating committee. Manual used looked like advanced engineering. Simply put ratings should be done during times of decent weather. Back tees rated by scratch golfers and whites by the higher index golfers. I’ve seen courses so far off it’s insane and that’s when conditions are tame. I have found 2 common themes with handicaps way too low for big egos and too high sandbaggers who win 2nd flight when should be in 1st or championship. Simplicity would be great going back to no slope and no fractions just rated 74 from black tees for example. Also, like tennis and other league play just have A, B, C, and D players. When you win twice in lower division you move up.

[Warrior42111]

On 6/7/2025 at 12:40 PM, tstephen said:

 Manual used looked like advanced engineering. 

That's the point, to have a repeatable process between courses and rater to limit

 

On 6/7/2025 at 12:40 PM, tstephen said:

 Back tees rated by scratch golfers and whites by the higher index golfers. I’ve seen courses so far off it’s insane and that’s when conditions are tame.

Because golfers especially average one's don't have wild swings in scoring based on the day? 

 

I'm not saying courses ratings are perfect, but at least having a hard set of rules that you get uniformity out of it. Sure there can be outliers, but that's true in everything data driven. 

[ClarkGrswld4]

I have never played a course and thought to myself, "wow that rating seems inflated, this course is easier than that" 🤣

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, ClarkGrswld4 said:

I have never played a course and thought to myself, "wow that rating seems inflated, this course is easier than that" 🤣

I have. More than a few times, but It isn't real common though. Much more common going the other way.