First of a Two-Part Series on the USGA's Co
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
First of a two-part series on the USGA’s Co HHooww WWee RRaattee The USGA Course Rating SSyystem affects your MGMGA/USGA Course Handndicap... here ’s whahat you neneed to know abouutt how the system works for you. 12 M A S S G O L F E R e Winter 2006-07 Course Rating and USGA Handicap Systems NEGOTIATIONS NORMALLY begin on the first tee for the number of ‘handicap strokes’ each of your playing partners will be accorded. It’s a key moment, the consequences of which may likely tip the scale in determining the bragging rights for the day’s round. Yet some golfers lack an understanding of the foundation for these negotiations — the USGA Course Rating System, which ee is the standard upon which the USGA Handicap System is built. In short, Course Ratings affect the calculation of your MGA/USGA Course Handicap. What follows is a brief history of golf’s rating and handicap systems, how the MGA rates the courses you play and — perhaps most importantly in terms of the first tee — an explanation of how USGA Slope Ratings affect your Course Handicap. CHARTING A COURSE With clipboards in hand, three [Part 2 of this series — a broader treatment members of the MGA’’s Boston regional course rating team of the USGA Handicap System — will run in survey the characteristics of The Country Club’s 8th hole MassGolfer’s Spring 2007 issue.] (Championship Course): (from left) George LamberLambert,t, Equitable rating and handicap systems for Dick Chagnot and Boston regional course rating team players of differing abilities are a unique captain ArArthurthur Phillips. aspect of the game of golf... read on to ensure that you always receive the full number of handicap strokes to which you are entitled. wB Y M A X W E L L M . C A R E Y BRIAN SMITH Wi n ter 2006-07 e M A S S G O L F E R 13 How We Rate A Brief History of the Fair Game “An Equitable Basis” “THE PURPOSE OF the USGA Handicap System is to stocks — for example, “a stock may be above or below make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling golfers of its normal or par figure.” When Young Tom Morris d i f f ering abilities to compete on an equita ble ba s i s . scored two strokes over par for three rounds (36 holes) The System provides fair Course Handicaps for players to win the championship, the term stuck. regardless of ability, and adjusts a player’s Handicap Index up or down as his game changes.” l 1890s: The Concept of Bogey — another measure [Excerpt from the USGA Course Rating System Guide.] for scoring difficulty of a golf course — becomes pop- Golfers may take the phrase “an equitable basis” for ular. ‘Bogey’ was the expected score of Colonel Bogey, granted these days. But during golf ’s early history, a fictitious low handicap golfer who usually made 4 on flaws in regulating the game made handicapping an long par-3 holes and 5 on long par-4 holes but other- inequitable art form , wise played nearly flaw- not a quantitative sci- less golf. Bogey scores ence. Enter the USGA usually ranged from 76 Course Rating System to 80 on most courses and the USGA Slope during this period. Ratings. These two rat- ings have become vital l Early 1900s: The in accurately calculating First Course Rating a golfer’s handicap for System is developed by any given course — that the Ladies Golf Union is, a Course Handicap (LGU), the governing (see pages 20-21). body for ladies’ amateur Course Ratings mea- golf in Great Bri t a i n sure how tough a course and Ire l a n d . R o b e r t is for a scratch player, B rowning said of the while Slope Ratings are LGU in A Hi s t o ry of G o l f: an evaluation of the rel- “Their biggest achieve- a t i v e difficulty of a MGA course raters evaluate characteristics of each golf hole. ment was the gradual course for players other establishment of a than scratch. Using Slope Ratings, a golfer’s handicap national system of handicapping. No doubt it was established at one course is adjusted for another course. uphill work at the start but within eight or ten years the The result: handicap portability and equitability. LGU had done what the men had signally failed to do The search for an equitable basis handicap system — had established a system of handicapping that was has evolved dramatically over the years, and the MGA reasonably reliable from club to club.” has often been at the epicenter of change and progress. Below are 10 significant breakthroughs in the history l 1912: The First USGA Handicap System is intro- of handicapping and course rating. duced as a procedure to determine eligibility for entry into the U.S. Amateur. Based on a British par-based l 1870: The Concept of Par — the first measure of procedure, it introduced a very significant change — course difficulty — enters golf ’s lexicon when a British the concept of course rating, which was based on the golf writer asks two professionals what score would be expected scores of Jerome Travers, arguably the best required to win the 1870 British Open at Prestwick, a American amateur golfer in this era. 12-hole course at the time. The response was that per- fect play should produce a score of 49 and the writer l 1920s: The First U.S. Course Rating System is called this “par.” The word derives from the sale of created by the MGA (see sidebar on page 15 ). 14 M A S S G O L F E R e Winter 2006-07 BRIAN SMITH “Course Ratings measure how tough a course is for a scratch player while Slope Ratings a re an evaluation of the relative difficulty of a course for players other than scratch.” T H E B AY S TAT E ’ S l 1947: The MGA’s Course Rating System for men — which has been refined over the years — is adopted by the USGA Handicap Committee. F i rst Rate Pioneer This method called for rating courses on a hole- by-hole basis where each hole was rated in BILL BL A N EY — an MGA president and USGA handicap tenths of a stroke. The USGA Handicap Manual committee chairman (see pages 22 - 2 3) — was the strongest contained descriptions of golf holes that typified voice in the efforts to improve course rating and handicap holes of a specific rating and noted that hole rat- systems. Below is an excerpt from his 1980 letter, written at ings were totaled and rounded off to the nearest age 75, to the USGA in which he advocates further change. whole number as follows: “The rating of the entire course is the total of the separate hole rat- “If memory serves me correctly, the Massach u s e t t s ings, with the final figure being the nearest Golf Association created the first course rating system whole number, such as 69 or 72, and never in in the mid or late 1920s. Each hole on a course was fractions, such as 69.4 or 71.8.” rated for the ease or difficulty a scratch golfer could score on said hole by reducing or increasing the hole l 1947: The Basic-Ability System is adopted par in steps of two-tenths of a stroke. The individual by the USGA. This system introduced the con- hole ratings were then totalled, with the final course cept that handicaps should be based on a golfer’s rating being the nearest whole number to said total. potential — reflecting the player’s best 10 of last (Example: 69.8 would revert to 70, as would 70.4.) 50 rounds. The procedure was implemented and This, I believe, was the first “fractional par” rating improved by Bill Blaney, chairman of the USGA system. As it proved to have handicap committee (see sidebar on this page as some inequities, it was later well as pages 22-23). modified and refined several times until the USGA adopted a l 1960: The Concept of Effective Playing system of its own, which, in turn, Length Factors for each hole is introduced by was altered for improvement. The present [1980] USGA rating the USGA for its Course Rating System. A Blaney h o l e ’s so-ca lled “p r e l i m i n a r y yardage ra t i n g ” system is based almost entirely in 1934 could now be modified, if necessary, in the light on yardage, with limited adjust- of significant course conditions (see page 16). ments permitted for the very easy or difficult courses. While this is a good, solid foundation on which to l 1982: The Concept of Obstacle Factors — base ratings, it does not, to my way of thinking, give now considered crucial to a systematic, quantita- enough consideration to other factors which affect the tive approach to course rating is incorporated, scoring efforts of players of less ability than the scratch after five years of testing, into the USGA Course g o l f e r. It does not evaluate properly the playing difficul- Rating System. Obstacle Factors can now pro- ties of, say, two courses of equal yardage when there are vide an adjustment to the distance rating for a wide differences between tightness and openness, many course (see pages 16-17).