Dave Lee

I ran into an interest situation late last week. I was playing a course in
our area that I don't play often. But it is a decent course available at a
good price - would probably play it regularly if I wasn't a member at
another club.

By my standards I had a VERY good round shooting an even par 72 from the
middle (white) tees. I dropped by our club computer to post my score and was
surprised to see four tee selections

- Blue
- Combo
- White
- Forward

The card had only 3 selections (no Combo selection). So I got onto the local
(Carolinas - CGA) website to look the course up, and they also had the same
four selections. But it got most confusing when CGA website 'Combo' tees
yardage matched the card 'White Tee' yardage, but the card 'Combo' tees
rating/slope matched the CGA White Tees rating/slope. They were about 400
yards different - that is alot. We were playing in 25+ mph winds so yardage
was hard to judge, but quite frankly the Combo tees as defined by CGA seemed
too long and the White tees as defined by the CGA seemed too short.

So I sent an email to CGA asking for an explanation and they said that the
'Combo' tees were a combination of Blue and White tees that the members
sometimes play - he didn't have the exact mix readily available. But when I
asked for the hole yardages for each hole from the White Tees (mostly out of
curiousity) I got a very interesting response. He said that these are
considered "private" and that they have had problems in the past when making
those public.

I didn't push any further, but it is abundantly clear to me that this
particular course has yardage numbers that are significnatly longer than
reality. I've never (to my knowledge) run into that before. But it would
seem to be a problem that our local USGA representative organization has run
into.

Anyone else aware of something like this on their courses?

dave

ps. I ran into another interesting scenario. The 18th hole is an
interesting, sharp dogleg left par 4. The dogleg is guarded by a big, sandy
waste area and this area is bordered all around by an EXTREMELY HEAVY
mixture of wiregrass and never mowed bermuda. I hit the line that I wanted
off the tee. But instead of my usual ballflight of straight or very slight
draw, I got a big, sweeping draw. I didn't know if I cleared the dogleg or
not.

When I got to the relevant area there was no ball to be found. I assumed
that it was buried somewhere in the really thick stuff on the far side of
the waste area. Damn - a really good round and I'm standing there looking at
going back to the tee (with a foursome waiting to tee off) or just taking my
ESC double bogey and letting the group behind us finish their round.

I decided to take the ESC choice and was driving off when I saw a white spot
in the rough on the far side of the fairway. It was my ball in a very
playable lie only 80 yards from the pin - I had carried the junk and run
through the fairway. Now THAT is a turnaround! I hit a great little SW but
missed the 8' birdie putt, finishing at even par 72 which is a very good
round for me even from middle tees.

Kev

On Sep 29, 9:49 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't push any further, but it is abundantly clear to me that this
> particular course has yardage numbers that are significnatly longer than
> reality. I've never (to my knowledge) run into that before. But it would
> seem to be a problem that our local USGA representative organization has run
> into.
>
> Anyone else aware of something like this on their courses?
[snip]

That the whole handicap system in the US is out of whack
is probably not a particularly surprising observation. Probably
what is less noticed is the whole slope/rating methodology. On
paper it probably is just fine, but there are numerous courses where
I am very suspicious about their ratings. There are courses that
particular holes will be vastly more difficult depending upon which
tee box is chosen for the day, or even where on that box the tees
are placed. There are courses where the have been trees
removed that changed the hole in very significant ways, and the
rating has not changed at all. There is one course that changed the
fairway significantly, and the course rating has not changed. The
course I play the most lost something on the order of 250 trees
about 4 years ago during a hurricane. Although there has been an
effort to replace many of them, they are mere seedlings and many
did not "take". The slope/rating has not change one bit.

A rigourous system would probably require that courses be re-rated
annually. I'm suspicious that this is not widely done.

Dave Lee

"Kev" <> wrote in message
news:91f94852-0d15-421f-ae6d-...
On Sep 29, 9:49 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't push any further, but it is abundantly clear to me that this
> particular course has yardage numbers that are significnatly longer than
> reality. I've never (to my knowledge) run into that before. But it would
> seem to be a problem that our local USGA representative organization has
> run
> into.
>
> Anyone else aware of something like this on their courses?
[snip]

That the whole handicap system in the US is out of whack
is probably not a particularly surprising observation. Probably
what is less noticed is the whole slope/rating methodology. On
paper it probably is just fine, but there are numerous courses where
I am very suspicious about their ratings. There are courses that
particular holes will be vastly more difficult depending upon which
tee box is chosen for the day, or even where on that box the tees
are placed. There are courses where the have been trees
removed that changed the hole in very significant ways, and the
rating has not changed at all. There is one course that changed the
fairway significantly, and the course rating has not changed. The
course I play the most lost something on the order of 250 trees
about 4 years ago during a hurricane. Although there has been an
effort to replace many of them, they are mere seedlings and many
did not "take". The slope/rating has not change one bit.

A rigourous system would probably require that courses be re-rated
annually. I'm suspicious that this is not widely done.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This actually all had nothing to do with the USGA rating system. If you used
the tees marked on the cards and posted your scores similarly (ignoring the
"Combo" option), you got the correct rating and slope. It was just the card
yardages that were (apparently) screwed up.

In an ideal world courses would have different ratings in the winter and
summer, would vary when tees moved up and back, would change when you
encountered a really wet couple of weeks and the mowers couldn't get into
the rough, the pins moved up and back, it was windy or not, cold or not,
etc.

I can imagine a number of issues with the USGA Handicap System, but issues
that you have pointed out seem to me to be fundamentally impossible to solve
in any practical sense.

dave

ps. Based on my experience the USGA re-rates courses in our area every 3-5
years plus anytime that they are aware of significant changes being made to
the courses. In the case that you stated I believe that the USGA would
re-rate the course if asked. IMHO the USGA under-values issues like bunkers,
trees, etc when establishing ratings.

Dave Lee

"Kev" <> wrote in message
news:91f94852-0d15-421f-ae6d-...
On Sep 29, 9:49 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't push any further, but it is abundantly clear to me that this
> particular course has yardage numbers that are significnatly longer than
> reality. I've never (to my knowledge) run into that before. But it would
> seem to be a problem that our local USGA representative organization has
> run
> into.
>
> Anyone else aware of something like this on their courses?
[snip]

That the whole handicap system in the US is out of whack
is probably not a particularly surprising observation. Probably
what is less noticed is the whole slope/rating methodology. On
paper it probably is just fine, but there are numerous courses where
I am very suspicious about their ratings. There are courses that
particular holes will be vastly more difficult depending upon which
tee box is chosen for the day, or even where on that box the tees
are placed. There are courses where the have been trees
removed that changed the hole in very significant ways, and the
rating has not changed at all. There is one course that changed the
fairway significantly, and the course rating has not changed. The
course I play the most lost something on the order of 250 trees
about 4 years ago during a hurricane. Although there has been an
effort to replace many of them, they are mere seedlings and many
did not "take". The slope/rating has not change one bit.

A rigourous system would probably require that courses be re-rated
annually. I'm suspicious that this is not widely done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One other comment here. This really is up to your club to be sure that
course rating/slope is up-to-date. When the US Amateur was held at our club
this summer it changed the tees on the first hole of two of our courses. We
actually got temporary/new ratings/slopes for those two courses that were
effective for just one, single week.

dave

Firstname MI Lastname

"Dave Lee" <> writes:

> "Kev" <> wrote in message
> news:91f94852-0d15-421f-ae6d-...
> On Sep 29, 9:49 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I didn't push any further, but it is abundantly clear to me that this
> > particular course has yardage numbers that are significnatly longer than
> > reality. I've never (to my knowledge) run into that before. But it would
> > seem to be a problem that our local USGA representative organization
> > has run
> > into.
> >
> > Anyone else aware of something like this on their courses?
> [snip]
>
> That the whole handicap system in the US is out of whack
> is probably not a particularly surprising observation. Probably
> what is less noticed is the whole slope/rating methodology. On
> paper it probably is just fine, but there are numerous courses where
> I am very suspicious about their ratings. There are courses that
> particular holes will be vastly more difficult depending upon which
> tee box is chosen for the day, or even where on that box the tees
> are placed. There are courses where the have been trees
> removed that changed the hole in very significant ways, and the
> rating has not changed at all. There is one course that changed the
> fairway significantly, and the course rating has not changed. The
> course I play the most lost something on the order of 250 trees
> about 4 years ago during a hurricane. Although there has been an
> effort to replace many of them, they are mere seedlings and many
> did not "take". The slope/rating has not change one bit.
>
> A rigourous system would probably require that courses be re-rated
> annually. I'm suspicious that this is not widely done.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This actually all had nothing to do with the USGA rating system. If
> you used the tees marked on the cards and posted your scores similarly
> (ignoring the "Combo" option), you got the correct rating and
> slope. It was just the card yardages that were (apparently) screwed up.
>
> In an ideal world courses would have different ratings in the winter
> and summer, would vary when tees moved up and back, would change when
> you encountered a really wet couple of weeks and the mowers couldn't
> get into the rough, the pins moved up and back, it was windy or not,
> cold or not, etc.
>
> I can imagine a number of issues with the USGA Handicap System, but
> issues that you have pointed out seem to me to be fundamentally
> impossible to solve in any practical sense.
>
> dave
>
> ps. Based on my experience the USGA re-rates courses in our area every
> 3-5
> years plus anytime that they are aware of significant changes being
> made to the courses. In the case that you stated I believe that the
> USGA would re-rate the course if asked. IMHO the USGA under-values
> issues like bunkers, trees, etc when establishing ratings.

Generally speaking, the rating is done by the state or regional golf
association (not the USGA) per USGA specifications.

Alan Baker

In article <>,
"Dave Lee" <> wrote:

> ps. Based on my experience the USGA re-rates courses in our area every 3-5
> years plus anytime that they are aware of significant changes being made to
> the courses. In the case that you stated I believe that the USGA would
> re-rate the course if asked. IMHO the USGA under-values issues like bunkers,
> trees, etc when establishing ratings.

I have to agree with this.

It seems that the system doesn't take into account how bad things get
when you're off line.

A great example in my area is Furry Creek Golf and Country Club:

<http://www.golfbc.com/courses/furry_creek>
<http://www.golfbc.com/resources/webcontent/furry_creek/fc_scorecard.pdf>

While I agree that it's a pretty easy course for a scratch golfer, for
bogey golfers (and even 10 handicaps <g>) it gets more difficult
*really* quickly. There are a lot of holes where being a little off the
fairway means a lost or out of bounds ball.

Kev

On Sep 29, 3:36 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <oKCdncyptL1UdH3VnZ2dnUVZ_onin...@earthlink.com> ,
>  "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> > ps. Based on my experience the USGA re-rates courses in our area every 3-5
> > years plus anytime that they are aware of significant changes being made to
> > the courses. In the case that you stated I believe that the USGA would
> > re-rate the course if asked. IMHO the USGA under-values issues like bunkers,
> > trees, etc when establishing ratings.
>
> I have to agree with this.
>
> It seems that the system doesn't take into account how bad things get
> when you're off line.
>
> A great example in my area is Furry Creek Golf and Country Club:
>
> <http://www.golfbc.com/courses/furry_creek>
> <http://www.golfbc.com/resources/webcontent/furry_creek/fc_scorecard.pdf>
>
> While I agree that it's a pretty easy course for a scratch golfer, for
> bogey golfers (and even 10 handicaps <g>) it gets more difficult
> *really* quickly. There are a lot of holes where being a little off the
> fairway means a lost or out of bounds ball.
>
[snip]

Ah, yes. Hallway courses. I've played a few. Fairways mowed
right up to dense
woods or other places to lose ball or have severe unplayable lies.
Very
challenging. I hate them places.

Dave Lee

"Firstname MI Lastname" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Dave Lee" <> writes:
>
snip
>
> Generally speaking, the rating is done by the state or regional golf
> association (not the USGA) per USGA specifications.
>
> --
>
> -- Firstname MI Lastname

FWIW, that is the case - at least in the Carolina's where the Carolina's
Golf Association does that stuff.

dave

Firstname MI Lastname

"Dave Lee" <> writes:

> "Firstname MI Lastname" <> wrote in
> message news:...
> > "Dave Lee" <> writes:
> >
> snip
> >
> > Generally speaking, the rating is done by the state or regional golf
> > association (not the USGA) per USGA specifications.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -- Firstname MI Lastname
>
> FWIW, that is the case - at least in the Carolina's where the
> Carolina's Golf Association does that stuff.

And yet your p.s. uses 'USGA' 3 times when 'CGA' should
have been used.

Dave Lee

"Firstname MI Lastname" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Dave Lee" <> writes:
>
>> "Firstname MI Lastname" <> wrote in
>> message news:...
>> > "Dave Lee" <> writes:
>> >
>> snip
>> >
>> > Generally speaking, the rating is done by the state or regional golf
>> > association (not the USGA) per USGA specifications.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > -- Firstname MI Lastname
>>
>> FWIW, that is the case - at least in the Carolina's where the
>> Carolina's Golf Association does that stuff.
>
> And yet your p.s. uses 'USGA' 3 times when 'CGA' should
> have been used.
>
> --
>
> -- Firstname MI Lastname

Sorry to offend you, but from my perspective the CGA is a proxy for the
USGA.

dave