Forums

Course ratings

• easternguy 301 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 6:55 PM

  Isn't it time WGT used course ratings and slopes to make the game more realistic? Surely a 65 on Oakmont is a better score than a 65 on St Andrews...

• andrewmca 447 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 7:08 PM

  ^^ agreed.

• LeonDelBosque 1,551 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 7:24 PM

  First we need handicaps; that's what ratings and slopes are for.

• easternguy 301 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 8:47 PM

  Handicaps are based on course ratings, not the other way around.

  It would be like scoring average vs adjusted scoring ave. and more of an indication of your true number.

   

   

• philking62 40 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 2:36 AM

• LeonDelBosque 1,551 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 8:18 AM

  easternguy:

  Handicaps are based on course ratings, not the other way around.

  It would be like scoring average vs adjusted scoring ave. and more of an indication of your true number.

   

   

  Yes, but course ratings exist because of the handicap system. So, first we need that... otherwise there is no reason to have them.

• easternguy 301 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 9:52 AM

  Leon,

  The PGA scoring leader is based on "adjusted scores", adjusted to the course rating.

  If Tiger Woods shoots four rounds of 70 at Bethpage and Luke Donald shoots four rounds of 70 at the Kapalua, Woods' average would be lower. Handicaps have nothing to do with it...