Bureaucracy, Augusta National, and Tiger Woods Revisited

Two attributes of the game of golf are honor and courage.  In its handling of the controversy surrounding the incorrect drop by Tiger Woods at the 2013 Masters, the USGA displayed neither.  It would have taken honor and courage to make the correct ruling of disqualification even though such an action would question the integrity of those who currently run the Masters.  While making a tough but fair ruling would have been in the tradition of Bobby Jones, the USGA decided not to go down that path. Instead it chose to defend the Master Tournament Committee’s ruling by arguing there were “rare facts” that made waiving the disqualification penalty the right call.[1]  As discussed elsewhere, no knowledgeable and independent rules expert agreed with or could even follow the logic put forward in the joint statement issued by the USGA and R&A. [2]

There was some hope the USGA would eventually get it right when it wrote “the Rules of Golf Committees of the USGA and the R&A will review the exceptional situation that occurred at the 2013 Masters Tournament, assess the potential implications for other types of situation, and determine whether any adjustment to the Rule and/or the Decision is appropriate.[3]”

As I wrote back in May of 2013,[4] it would be unlikely for the governing bodies to memorialize the “rare circumstances” in a Decision.  To do so would further expose the weakness in the argument for waiving disqualification.  I predicted the 2014-2015 Decision on the Rules of Golf would not contain any reference to the Masters ruling.  The best way for the bureaucracy to bury this unfortunate incident is to act like it never occurred.  It turns out, unfortunately, I was right.  The 2014-2015 Decisions on the Rules of Golf makes no mention of a “simultaneous error” by the competitor and the Committee that would overrule the disqualification penalty.  Nor is there is a listing of the “rare facts” that can guide a Committee’s action in the future.  The applicable Decision 33-7/4.5 (Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified) remains virtually unchanged.[5]  And so it goes… 

---

[1] USGA, “The R&A Issue Statement Addressing Tiger Woods Ruling at the 2013 Master,” United State Golf Association, Far Hills, NJ, May 1 2013.

[2] Dougharty, Laurence, “Bureaucracy, Augusta National, and Tiger Woods,” www.ongolfhandicaps.com, May 3, 2013

[3] USGA, loc. cit.

[4] Dougharty, loc. cit.

[5] A new subsection grants relief when television footage shows a ball has moved, but a competitor could not reasonably be expected to see such movement.  

Is Your Course Overrated?

Introduction

            Errors in estimating the course and slope rating can lessen the equity of competition between players from different clubs.  Players will have either more or less handicap strokes than they deserve because of these errors.  The complexity of estimating these ratings, however, makes it difficult for the player to assess their accuracy. 

            This paper presents two simple methods a player can use to assess the accuracy (reasonableness might be a better word) of golf course ratings.  The methods are based only on knowing the course yardage, course rating, and slope rating of the courses under consideration.

            The first method calculates the Obstacle Stroke Values (the subjective judgment on the difficulty presented by obstacles such as rough and water hazards) for courses.  The player can then use his own judgment on whether the relative size of these values is consistent with his own playing experience. 

            Second, courses are ranked by their Obstacle Stroke Values for women and compared with a similar ranking for the men.  In Southern California these rankings are done by different organizations, and can serve as a rough check against each other.  The rankings should be similar though the placement of tees (e.g., women's tees are placed in front of potential hazards) could explain any disparity.  Major differences in rankings, however, may be evidence of an error in the ratings (men's or women's).

            While neither of these methods can definitively pinpoint errors, taken together they can provide evidence on whether a course is over or underrated.

Obstacle Values

            Course and Bogey Ratings consist of two components.  The first component measures the effect of course yardage on the ratings.  The second component measures difficulty factors such as rough, topography, water hazards, out-of-bounds, etc.  This second component is called the Obstacle Stroke Value and represents the increase or decrease in course rating due to difficulty factors.

            Estimating these Obstacle Stroke Values is a subjective process. A final step in establishing a course rating is to make sure that the proposed rating for a course is consistent with other courses.  For example, the Ratings Committee will check the proposed rating against courses which are similar in nature.  A discrepancy in the comparisons is then a call for further review.

            One way to check on your course rating, then, is to see if the Obstacle Stroke Values are consistent with other courses you play.  Let’s look at the women’s ratings at a number of courses in Southern California as an example.  The Obstacle Stroke Values for these courses were calculated,[1] and are shown in Table 1.[2]

            Using Table 1, a player can judge whether the estimates of Obstacle Stroke Values correspond with her own playing experience.  For example, does she believe that obstacle factors should make SeaCliff play 1.1 strokes higher than Mesa Verde for the scratch player?  Does she believe Table 1 expresses the correct rank order of obstacle difficulty from SeaCliff being the toughest to Dove Canyon being the easiest?  Obviously opinions will vary, but if a consensus differs from the ranking presented in Table 1 there may be cause for reexamining some ratings.

Table 1

Obstacle Values for Women's Rating

Course	Scratch Obstacle Value	Bogey Obstacle Value
SeaCliff	1.9	4.2
Coto de Caza	1.7	6.7
Mission Viejo	1.4	4.1
Santa Ana	1.0	3.0
Big Canyon	1.0	2.8
Mesa Verde	0.8	3.6
Newport Beach	0.7	2.2
Old Ranch	0.7	3.3
El Niguel	0.6	1.6
Dove Canyon	-0.8	0.8

            Another approach is to use Table 1 to look for anomalies.  Coto de Caza, for example, has an unusually large Bogey Obstacle Value (6.7 strokes).  What is more unusual is that the Obstacle Value for women from the White Tees (700 yards longer) is lower (5.9 strokes) than from the Red Tees.  Typically, obstacle values go up with yardage at the same course because approaches to greens require longer clubs, and carries over hazards are more difficult.  In any event, this methodology red flags Coto de Caza for further examination.

Comparison with Men’s Obstacle Values

            A course that is difficult for women is usually difficult for men.  Therefore, the rank order of the Obstacle Values should be similar for men and women.  This is not necessarily true.  A course could be made relatively easy for women by placing their tees in front of hazards that the men have to carry.  Differences in rank order, however, should pinpoint areas for more investigation.  Table 2 presents the ranking of courses by Obstacle Stroke Values for both women and men.

            The women's and men's rankings are similar with two exceptions.  SeaCliff is ranked high in Obstacle Stroke Value for women, but is near the bottom for men.  This can be partly explained by SeaCliff being a relatively short course for men and a course of medium length for women. -- remember that Obstacle Values are usually higher the longer the course.  The other exception is El Niguel which is ranked low in Obstacle Values for women, but high for men.

            The Table cannot prove that the ratings at SeaCliff and El Niguel are in error.  The comparisons in Table 2 can only raise questions.  Why, for example, is the women’s Course Rating relatively low at El Niguel when it is 200 yards longer than SeaCliff?  Are the Obstacle Stroke Values at El Niguel really that minimal?

Table 2

Ranking of Courses by Obstacle Values

	Scratch Obstacle Value Ranking		Bogey Obstacle Value Ranking
Course	Women	Men	Women	Men
SeaCliff	1	8	2	8
Coto de Caza	2	1	1	1
Mission Viejo	3	5	3	5
Santa Ana	4	7	6	7
Big Canyon	5	3	7	4
Mesa Verde	6	2	4	2
Old Ranch	8	9	5	9
Newport Beach	8	10	8	10
El Niguel	9	4	9	3
Dove Canyon	10	6	10	6

What Difference Do Errors Make?

            Errors in estimating Obstacle Stroke Values only have an effect when players from different clubs are competing.  Take for example, a player from SeaCliff and Mesa Verde.  Assume that SeaCliff is overrated, and that it should have the same Scratch and Bogey Obstacle Stroke Values as Mesa Verde.  Table 3 shows the change in index and home course handicap for a SeaCliff Player under this assumption.

The Table indicates the SeaCliff player would gain 1-stroke on her home handicap if the Mesa Verde values were used.  Since her index also rises, she would also gain strokes depending on the Slope Rating of the course when playing away.  The impact of a one-stroke swing on any individual player may not be great.  The cumulative impact in competitions such as team play, however, could be decisive.

Table 3

Differences in Index and Home Course Handicap

Using Current SeaCliff Obstacle Values		Using Mesa Verde Obstacle Values
Index	Home Handicap	Index	Home Handicap
0.0	0	.9	1
5.0	5	5.8	6
10.0	11	10.7	12
15.0	16	15.7	17
20.0	22	20.6	23
25.0	27	25.5	28
30.0	33	30.4	34

There is nothing to prove, however, that an error has been made.  This paper is only intended to document a methodology for highlighting possible errors, and stressing the impact on the equity of competition that such errors can have.

APPENDIX

Course Rating Information

WOMEN'S RATING
Course	Yardage	Slope Rating	Course Rating	Scratch Obstacle Value		Bogey Obstacle Value
Mesa Verde	5486	124	71.4	0.8		3.6
SeaCliff	5587	123	73.0	1.9		4.2
Big Canyon	5788	123	73.3	1.0		2.8
Old Ranch	5877	128	73.4	0.7		3.3
Mission Viejo	5698	126	73.2	1.4		4.1
Santa Ana	5866	125	73.7	1.0		3.0
Newport Beach	5790	122	73.0	0.7		2.2
Dove Canyon	5472	117	69.7	-0.8		0.8
El Niguel	5787	120	72.8	0.6		1.6
Coto De Caza	5369	132	71.6	1.7		6.7
MEN'S RATING
Course	Yardage	Slope Rating	Course Rating	Scratch Obstacle Value		Bogey Obstacle Value
Mesa Verde	6285	129	70.7	1.2		4.7
SeaCliff	6060	115	68.7	0.3		1.5
Big Canyon	6362	123	70.9	1.0		3.2
Old Ranch	6201	114	69.4	0.3		1.1
Mission Viejo	6464	124	71.1	0.8		3.0
Santa Ana	6213	120	69.6	0.5		2.4
Newport Beach	6232	112	68.9	-0.3		0.0
Dove Canyon	6034	121	68.8	0.5		2.9
El Niguel	6483	125	71.2	0.8		3.2
Coto De Caza	6082	127	69.9	1.4		4.8

---

[1]Obstacle Stroke Values can be calculated from the formulas used in estimating the ratings for women:

            Course Rating = Effective Yardage/180 + 40.1 + Scratch Obstacle Stroke Value

            Bogey Rating  = Effective Yardage/120 + 51.3 + Bogey Obstacle Stroke Value

Therefore,

            SOV = CR -YARD/180 - 40.1

where,

                                       SOV   = Scratch Obstacle Stroke Value

                                         CR   = Course Rating

                                    YARD   = Effective Playing Length

            BOV = SLOPE/4.24 - CR + (YARD/120 + 51.3)

where,

                                       BOV   = Bogey Obstacle Stroke Value

                                   SLOPE   = Slope Rating

Obstacle Stroke Values for men are found by using the course rating formulas for men.

[2]Course yardage was used for "effective" length.  The calculation of obstacle values will be in error where course yardage and effective length vary significantly.  Ratings and yardages for each course are presented in the appendix.