My Experience with the WSGA Course Rating Committee

[cksurfdude]

Scanned through the USGA manual - wow! Definitely involved.

 

Good to know, though, that's there's an allowance / adjustment for "Psychological" factors...

 

Psychological is an evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other obstacles on a player's score.

 

The location of many punitive obstacles close to a target area creates uneasiness in the mind of the player and thus affects his or her score.

 

and even "Extraordinary Psychological" factors -- if there are 3 or more obstacles rated 5 = "Obstacle is more significant than average" or greater.

[Kenny B]

Hey Kenny - 

Just saw this and read through it. Great info! Thanks for posting! I had also been curious about the derivations of the Rating and Slope numbers, and this shed a lot of light on the process.

 

It's also a great way to get a bit of an "insider's" view on course and hole layout (and strategy!). 

 

Couple of questions:

1. Does course/hole length have a larger effect on the Rating number or the Slope number?

2. You mentioned 'stance in the fairway' - if a course is predominantly uneven lies (I guess in the 'landing zone') does that increase the Slope number (vs the Rating)?

 

Thanks!

That was a long time ago!  I've slept since then.  Makes my head hurt just trying to remember.

 

Length affect both.  Length of the course is the major effect on course rating with a rating for obstacles thrown in.  The course rating you see on a card is the scratch golfers rating with obstacles.   Slope is determined by the determining the bogey golfer rating - scratch golfer rating times a factor.  The rating for each golfer in addition to length, include consideration of a number of factors including "stance in fairway".  Those factors affect both rating and slope, but I think it has more of an affect on slope.  

 

The difficulty of a hole may be different for bogey and scratch golfers if the landing area in a fairway has uneven lies for one and not the other.   I think I mentioned it (not sure), but one course put in a new sand trap on one hole and asked the raters what difference it made in the course rating.  This was a story related to me by the WSGA Handicap Chairman.  He told the course superintendent that it made no difference at all.  The trap was put in at a location that was not in the landing zone for either the scratch or bogey golfer, so it's not considered in the calculation.  Moral is before a course spends money on "improvements", check with the rating committee first to see if it justifies the expense.

[Kenny B]

Scanned through the USGA manual - wow! Definitely involved.

 

Good to know, though, that's there's an allowance / adjustment for "Psychological" factors...

 

and even "Extraordinary Psychological" factors -- if there are 3 or more obstacles rated 5 = "Obstacle is more significant than average" or greater.

If you watched the SBS Tournament of Champions this past weekend, remember hole #11?  Par 3 towards the ocean; when I played that hole, I remember a strong psychological effect teeing off to the green with what seemed like the ocean right behind it.  I knew the water wasn't even close, but it affected my shot.  

 

These factors are real, but they have very little effect on golfers that routinely play the course.  While I think they play a little into the rating criteria, my guess is that combined, they probably don't move a rating by even 0.1.  

[cksurfdude]

Kenny -

Thx for all that add'l info. Really interesting how the whole process works, and certainly gives you new insight into both course design and (maybe possibly hopefully) your own on-course strategy? Good stuff!!

[Kenny B]

Kenny -

Thx for all that add'l info. Really interesting how the whole process works, and certainly gives you new insight into both course design and (maybe possibly hopefully) your own on-course strategy? Good stuff!!

It was actually kind of fun.  The guys that I followed around were great and shared a lot of knowledge.  I know I have forgotten a lot of what they said, but I understand the basics of what they look for and where.  I think they might have thought that I wold take the training and be a course rater, but I think I would get tired of it quickly.  However, I do suggest that you contact your Golf Association has see if they are going to rate any courses and ask if you can join them.  One course would be sufficient; takes most of a day.  It's worth it.  The guys get to play the courses too when the are done.  Not bad if you are rating a private course that you would otherwise never get to play.

[cksurfdude]

It was actually kind of fun. The guys that I followed around were great and shared a lot of knowledge. I know I have forgotten a lot of what they said, but I understand the basics of what they look for and where. I think they might have thought that I wold take the training and be a course rater, but I think I would get tired of it quickly. However, I do suggest that you contact your Golf Association has see if they are going to rate any courses and ask if you can join them. One course would be sufficient; takes most of a day. It's worth it. The guys get to play the courses too when the are done. Not bad if you are rating a private course that you would otherwise never get to play.

Good suggestion! There are an over-abundance of high-end private tracks on the North Shore of Long Island .. will check it out!