I actually think course ratings in Canada were to high ( courses rated tougher than they should be). It seems that golf Canada is rectifying this as our course was re rated (down) and now the rating appears to be in line with the courses that I have played in the U.S. By rating the courses more in line with the USGA's ratings handicaps will travel better.

I will have to wait and see... Golf Canada has been out to our course and is doing their re-rating for the first time since it was opened in 2003. Looking forward to seeing how they adjust the ratings with the changes in tees as well as the growth in vegetation. I will try to remember this post when the new ratings come out so I can update :)

I think the entire handicap, course rating & slope system leads to a bigger question about golf itself. That is how the game is now more focused on length over everything else.

I've played courses that are rated higher than others yet it does not seem to make too much sense. The lower rated course may be a bit shorter in length, but is more difficult when considering the number of "forced carries" over watercourses, bunkering, doglegs, and strategic tree placement, etc.

While length is a big factor, it really should not be the "primary" factor in terms of establishing the course rating - or rather it should not be "weighted" so heavily in favour of the course rating.

I do think that one of the driving factors behind that though is that in competitions, there is usually a maximum handicap index required. It is much easier to achieve a lower handicap index on a shorter course than it is on a longer course. There are some players that I know that have a low single digit handicap that has been achieved primarily by the scores achieved on a 4,500 yard course but when we play the longer courses (5,900 - 6,500 yards), the length puts plenty of pressure on their game and their scores balloon.

think the entire handicap, course rating & slope system leads to a bigger question about golf itself.  That is how the game is now more focused on length over everything else.  


I've played courses that are rated higher than others yet it does not seem to make too much sense.  The lower rated course may be a bit shorter in length, but is more difficult when considering the number of "forced carries" over watercourses, bunkering, doglegs, and strategic tree placement, etc. 


While length is a big factor, it really should not be the "primary" factor in terms of establishing the course rating - or rather it should not be "weighted" so heavily in favour of the course rating.   


I do think that one of the driving factors behind that though is that in competitions, there is usually a maximum handicap index required.   It is much easier to achieve a lower handicap index on a shorter course than it is on a longer course. 

There are some players that I know that have a low single digit handicap that has been achieved primarily by the scores achieved on a 4,500 yard course but when we play the longer courses (5,900 - 6,500 yards), the length puts plenty of pressure on their game and their scores balloon.