callaway92 wrote: » Wanted to have a look at pictures of the European Club Checked out their website and . . . .
GreeBo wrote: » Make it seem harder than it is and scoup up all the interclub comps
First Up wrote: » Mostly they want to play the courses they have heard about - famous ones. Price doesn't come into it much; they expect to pay top dollar. I don't think slope comes into it at all.
Johnny_Fontane wrote: » think the marketers of big courses want the highest slope rating possible. Because the big money yanks want to play the toughest courses. Its mad, but thats what they want.
prawnsambo wrote: » But surely the whole point of the exercise is to level the courses for the average golfer? Make it seem a bit easier and you actually make it harder for the average golfer to score on it because the slope rating is artificially low.
paulanthony wrote: » The European Club is 10 points higher am I likely to stay away?
paulanthony wrote: » I think rather than having these aspects at their "absolute best" is there a danger that these aspects (or anything else which can be changed) could be amended in the run up to the grading to either raise or lower the number? It depends on how you look at it, but I'm sure there are a few courses who would like to avoid a very low number for fear of this being perceived as meaning the course is too easy / straightforward / boring? Eg, if a society are deciding between two courses might they choose the one with the higher slope rating on the basis that it would be a better challenge or more interesting? Equally it could be argued that some may choose the lower rating as an easier round might be more enjoyable - depends on the perspective. Some courses might not want to be perceived as too difficult for fear of putting mid-handicappers off and losing green fee revenue. If I find Druids Heath very difficult / not enjoyable and see The European Club is 10 points higher am I likely to stay away? Maybe these factors will have such little effect on the rating that it will make no difference - obviously they won't be moving the lakes or bunkers or mounds but the difficulty of the rough, width of fairway and green speed can all affect the score...
slave1 wrote: » That seems like a good detailed approach but if a course knows it's going to be rated by outsiders then surely it will do everything to have conditioning and bunkers along with fairway height, green speed and secondary cuts at their absolute best which may not reflect reality
prawnsambo wrote: » Not sure why they would want to do this. Course rating isn't about best or worst, just a measure of difficulty. Some of the questions about greens and fairways seem to indicate that it's not just about their condition on the day of rating.
downthemiddle wrote: » The ratings will be available in the summer of 2020. Amongst the items taken into consideration for a rating are Tees to be rated: MEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other: WOMEN’S BACK: MIDDLE: FORWARD: Other: Elevation above sea level: feet Adjusted shot distance: EXPERT MEN 250y 470y BOGEY MEN 200y 370y 440y EXPERT WOMEN 220y 400y 520y BOGEY WOMEN 160y 300y 440y Prevailing wind DIRECTION Speed mph Weather on day of course rating: TEMPERATURE / WIND DIRECTION SPEED mph/ SUNNY/ CLOUDY/ RAINY? COURSE INFORMATION Green Mowing: when were the greens last cut? DAY HOUR Cut to what height? Inch Green Speed (stimpmeter) on rating date: feet: inches (measured on greens at holes number ) at midseason (if different from above): feet inches (date provided by ) Green Hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM How was green hardness determined? Green surface condition: EXCELLENT(smooth, true) GOOD (some bumps, generally true) FAIR (many bumps, inconsistent) POOR (very bumpy, in poor condition) Fairway mowing: How often are fairways cut? Cut to what height? Inch Contour mowed? YES/NO Fairway hardness: VERY SOFT SOFT AVERAGE FIRM VERY FIRM Fairway condition: EXCELLENT (no bad lies) Good (some bad lies) FAIR (many bad lies) POOR (all bad lies) Intermediate cut (if any): how wide? yards, How often is it cut? To what height? Inches Rough condition: Normally HEAVY Average LIGHT Recoverability normally DIFFICULT AVERAGE EASY Trees: number MANY AVERAGE FEW / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL Bunkers: total number (approx) / size LARGE AVERAGE SMALL / depth DEEP AVERAGE SHALLOW Sand condition SOFT AVERAGE HARD / maintenance EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR Course condition overall (describe):
prawnsambo wrote: » To be fair, the trend has been to design longer courses worldwide since the turn of the century. I can't think of any new course since then that hasn't been in or around the 7000 yard mark or more from the back tees.
prawnsambo wrote: » I don't know. Ratings have probably stopped once the Winter conditions set in, so I assume they'll start into them again around April next year. I'd say they'll be close enough to current SSS for the course rating, but to one decimal place. Slope will be a different matter as it's based on the bogey golfer.
Big dog daly wrote: » When can we expect the slope ratings to be released? I presume they will try judge then off the sss
prawnsambo wrote: » I suspect the back tees will be up near the maximum slope rating when it's done. :eek:
FixdePitchmark wrote: » it's funny how the Celtic Tiger courses come up a good bit. sort of sums up the hubris of the time. So many of these places are useless for amateurs, except for a fun day out. Also many of the fun day outs are with societies making them even more useless as you face a 5 hour round +. you couldn't exactly join as a members club and run around in 2.5 hours.
willabur wrote: » Maccreddin is a beast, I have never played it without a cart never will
Big dog daly wrote: » I always thought Macreddin off the back sticks to be extremely difficult. Have to hit driver on every hole and with furs and big slopes both sides of the fairway trouble is never too far away.
willabur wrote: » Really not sure about opening shoulders on links, if the rough is up then its the last thing you can do
