Should the USGA "scratch golfer" get a distance boost?

[SNIPERBBB]

Just curious if this has distance has changed at all through the years since it's inception and whether it's time to adjust assuming no ball or club nerf is forthcoming.

[Newby]

I seem to remember seeing that about a year ago when the USGA looked at the standard driving length for scratch course rating, they determined that the distance had gone up by less than 5 yards in the last ten years. So they decided not to change the rating parameters.

[golfortennis]

The other issue is if you increase the distance, you now have to re-rate the courses. All of them. Want to sign up for that?

I think the item Newby mentioned is a bit of buck passing by the USGA, mainly due to what I said. By and large, the scratch player can generate the kind of clubhead speed that allows modern technology to disproportionately benefit them distance-wise. What I think we will see is far more plus handicaps, because it's an impossible task to rerate all courses.

Unless of course, the ball gets rolled back....

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Rerating is a given and the goal of the proposal. The gaps in course ratings on most courses should be narrowed, especially where distance between tees is negligible.

[mark m]

Random thoughts on this issue:

First, every action would have a reaction - which would basically be costly. As previously mentioned, all courses would need to be rated again. Some courses - if possible - would change the position of tees and tee markers and/or various obstacles like bunkers to maintain their rating.

From what I've read, club head speed with a driver has increased in the past 25 years. Of course this depends on when and at what age the players are tested. Even if you discount that player size and athletic ability is the cause, you have to admit the clubs and balls are much better. Drivers are longer in length and have the huge club head with trampoline effect and greater forgiveness - that wood did not have. All of this leads to people going at it harder because the risk of really poor shots has decreased from the smaller wood head. Instructive here is the case of Phil and Vijay both gaining 30 yards in driving distance in 10 years - between 1993 & 2003 - despite the fact they were 10 years older. There are many younger guys with much higher than scratch caps who have a high club head speed but rarely hit the ball square and straight - therefore do not show the distance they are capable of on a regular basis and this would show up in any numbers produced in testing overall distance. I see them all the time on the course and on the range.

Some of the info put out is a little misleading as it can say something like "<5 handicap average of 250." The question is scratch. I think you would see about 270 or more if the group tested was younger guys with handicaps between +3 to 3. Just go to your local state am and watch.

There are a lot of older guys (age 45+) who play at scratch (plus handicaps to 3) and probably do average closer to the 250 number. They tend to play around 6400 to 6600 yard tees.

The key is to play from a distance which is a good match for your abilities. If you hit it long - you will need a longer course. But this should put the bunkers and other obstacles like doglegs into play to challenge your game.

I believe the current rating and handicap system works well for the majority. it certainly isn't perfect, but changing it could create numerous other problems. I believe it would be easier to make some slight equipment rollbacks instead which would reduced the big spread between the younger elite players and the average scratch. But it looks to be unlikely as the average Joe is against it.

[davep043]

Just looking at the Distance Insights Report, Page 17 shows driving distance by Handicap Category. The lowest category shown is that for players 6 and lower. The data is up and down from year to year, but the trend is pretty level from about 2000 to 2019, around 240 yards. The first couple of years of data (1996-1999) show lower driving distance averages, a little over 230, but without even older data its hard to tell if that's simply a statistical anomaly or part of a trend. Scratch players will certainly be longer (on average) than the average of this entire group, but that data doesn't show much reason to revise the Course Rating criteria for the Scratch player. And of course, I'm assuming that the Scratch player criteria was reasonably valid in 1999.

I'm not sure how much effect revising the "standard" driving distance would have on ratings, or rather its relative effect. If the CR changes by the same amount for all courses, the effect is negligible. It might serve to increase the slope most places, assuming the Bogey rating doesn't change. I'm not sure that the gaps between tees would change significantly either, I just don't know enough details of the rating system.

I haven't seen it mentioned here, does anyone know when the "standard scratch golfer" criteria was last changed? I found an article at www.popeofslope.com that says 250 was the number used in 1994, but I can't find anything prior to that.

[Newby]

We are only considering a drive length variation of 5 yards in 250. There are other factors involved in the drive result (eg slope, altitude, fairway grass length). In addition there are other elements (obstacles etc) in the full rating calculation. The effect is most unlikely to have any effect on the resultant rating.

Given that 5 yards extra (ie shortening each hole by 5 yards) would make a maximum reduction of 90 yards In practice probably a lot less due to par3s, short par4s, dog legs & layups. Further, actual tee marker positions may well vary by up to 10 yards in either direction.

I don't see any justification for a wholesale reassessment.