Alterations to WHS?

[rulefan]

You're meaning slope right? Course ratings haven't changed, my home course hasn't been re-rated since 2012

I said and meant Bogey Rating which of course determines Slope.
I don't know what country you are in but all courses (except men's in England) would have been rated under the USGA system (now adopted in England for WHS). I believe a few men's tees in England are not yet done but have been allocated temporary ratings.
As both the USGA and the old EGU SSS required courses to be rated at least every 10 years (or whenever significant changes are made) I cannot understand why yours hasn't been done since 2012. I suggest you check.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I said and meant Bogey Rating which of course determines Slope.
I don't know what country you are in but all courses (except men's in England) would have been rated under the USGA system (now adopted in England for WHS). I believe a few men's tees in England are not yet done but have been allocated temporary ratings.
As both the USGA and the old EGU SSS required courses to be rated at least every 10 years (or whenever significant changes are made) I cannot understand why yours hasn't been done since 2012. I suggest you check.

Covid. We were due 2022 re-rating but they have a backlog (Scottish Golf)

Yes I thought you meant slope, I didn't, I meant course rating, which under the UHS determined your handicap aftyer CSS adjustment. It's why some clubs had strong handicaps and some weak, it was the elemnt on handicapping that needed changing, if that had been done the rest would have been unecessary, instead everything got changed except the bit that needed

 

[rulefan]

I'm a bit puzzled. I understood that prior to 2020 all Scottish clubs were rated to the USGA standard. That means a Bogey Rating would have been done and a Slope assigned. The CONGU SSS would have been set as the USGA Course Rating (rounded). Unless major changes have been made to the course those figures would have been assigned on the introduction of WHS.

 

[wjemather]

I'm a bit puzzled. I understood that prior to 2020 all Scottish clubs were rated to the USGA standard. That means a Bogey Rating would have been done and a Slope assigned. The CONGU SSS would have been set as the USGA Course Rating (rounded). Unless major changes have been made to the course those figures would have been assigned on the introduction of WHS.

His argument is that ratings (and/or the rating system) are wrong.

More likely, individual clubs haven't been setting their course up within the defined rating parameters; most commonly because they are measured and rated from permanent distance markers at the rear of tee boxes (to maximize the headline yardages) but for daily play, almost every hole is setup many yards ahead of them, reducing the overall length by >>100 yards.

 

[Genu9]

I said and meant Bogey Rating which of course determines Slope.
I don't know what country you are in but all courses (except men's in England) would have been rated under the USGA system (now adopted in England for WHS). I believe a few men's tees in England are not yet done but have been allocated temporary ratings.
As both the USGA and the old EGU SSS required courses to be rated at least every 10 years (or whenever significant changes are made) I cannot understand why yours hasn't been done since 2012. I suggest you check.

This is the equation that determines Course Slope. (Bogey Golfer - Scratch Golfer) x Slope Multiplying Factor (5.381 fixed) = Course Slope

Where the strokes expected to play the course by a Bogey Golfer (18 Strokes) less the strokes expected to play the course by a Scratch Golfer (zero Strokes) give you a bogey vs scratch differential. The factor is fixed. That's how the Course Slope is arrived at. It's not just some arbitary figure dragged out of the air.

These figures are obviously different from different tees.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I'm a bit puzzled. I understood that prior to 2020 all Scottish clubs were rated to the USGA standard. That means a Bogey Rating would have been done and a Slope assigned. The CONGU SSS would have been set as the USGA Course Rating (rounded). Unless major changes have been made to the course those figures would have been assigned on the introduction of WHS.

Yes, that's exactly what I've said.

But, we didn't use slope under UHS, we had/have course ratings that lead to soft and weak handicaps, that was what was required to be changed, the rating system was well off. My two clubs, the easier of the two has a rating of 0.9 under par, the much harder of the two has a rating of 1.8 under par, 2.3 for the yellows which is a harder par of 70 than the 72 off the whites in the view of most members.

That's what I'm referring to, and it was what was needed to be fixed but wasn't.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

This is the equation that determines Course Slope. (Bogey Golfer - Scratch Golfer) x Slope Multiplying Factor (5.381 fixed) = Course Slope

Where the strokes expected to play the course by a Bogey Golfer (18 Strokes) less the strokes expected to play the course by a Scratch Golfer (zero Strokes) give you a bogey vs scratch differential. The factor is fixed. That's how the Course Slope is arrived at. It's not just some arbitary figure dragged out of the air.

These figures are obviously different from different tees.

I think rulie knows this, it's rubbish, different handicaps at different courses is a nonsense

 

[sweaty sock]

I dont think anyone can claim they totally understand WHS, unless they've released the pcc calc?

As usual two camps refusing to accept logical argument from either side, should this thread not be classed as politics and closed henceforth...

 

[rulefan]

Yes, that's exactly what I've said.

But, we didn't use slope under UHS, we had/have course ratings that lead to soft and weak handicaps, that was what was required to be changed, the rating system was well off. My two clubs, the easier of the two has a rating of 0.9 under par, the much harder of the two has a rating of 1.8 under par, 2.3 for the yellows which is a harder par of 70 than the 72 off the whites in the view of most members.

That's what I'm referring to, and it was what was needed to be fixed but wasn't.

How do the course/hole pars stack up. They are purely arbitrary.
Are you saying the CRs and BRs are wrong?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

How do the course/hole pars stack up. They are purely arbitrary.
Are you saying the CRs and BRs are wrong?

Yes.

 

[rulefan]

Yes.

Has CR changed from old SSS?

What is/are the length/s and current CR/s?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Has CR changed from old SSS?

What is/are the length/s and current CR/s?

Nope, just the decimal showing because we haven't been re-rated since 2012

White - Par 72 / CR 70.2 / 118 - 6232yds
Yellow - Par 70 / CR 67.8 / 113 - 5706yds

Easier away course -
White - Par 69 / CR 68.3 / 126 - 5864yds
Yellow - Par 68 / CR 67.1 / 123 - 5567yds

 

[rulefan]

Nope, just the decimal showing because we haven't been re-rated since 2012

White - Par 72 / CR 70.2 / 118 - 6232yds
Yellow - Par 70 / CR 67.8 / 113 - 5706yds

Easier away course -
White - Par 69 / CR 68.3 / 126 - 5864yds
Yellow - Par 68 / CR 67.1 / 123 - 5567yds

On length alone without any knowledge of positioning and number of obstacles (bunkers, PAs, rough etc), the CRs are pretty well what I would expect.
I would be interested in the Bogey Ratings to see how handicaps are affected for non-scratch players

 

[Banchory Buddha]

On length alone without any knowledge of positioning and number of obstacles (bunkers, PAs, rough etc), the CRs are pretty well what I would expect.
I would be interested in the Bogey Ratings to see how handicaps are affected for non-scratch players

Yes, I know, they are correct (on length), that's the point, CR does not work, it was the part - the only part - of the old system that needed reviewed, yet it was the only part to be retained.

I'd love to see the bogey ratings too, because the "easier" course has masses of thick rough everywhere which kills everyone but especially wild higher handicaps, the "tougher" course has none, it's light short semi rough everywhere except a few small areas that are nowhere near play for anyone

 

[nickjdavis]

Yes, I know, they are correct (on length), that's the point, CR does not work, it was the part - the only part - of the old system that needed reviewed, yet it was the only part to be retained.

I'd love to see the bogey ratings too, because the "easier" course has masses of thick rough everywhere which kills everyone but especially wild higher handicaps, the "tougher" course has none, it's light short semi rough everywhere except a few small areas that are nowhere near play for anyone

bogey ratings can be found at https://ncrdb.usga.org

 

[cliveb]

Yes, I know, they are correct (on length), that's the point, CR does not work, it was the part - the only part - of the old system that needed reviewed, yet it was the only part to be retained.

I'd love to see the bogey ratings too, because the "easier" course has masses of thick rough everywhere which kills everyone but especially wild higher handicaps, the "tougher" course has none, it's light short semi rough everywhere except a few small areas that are nowhere near play for anyone

You're flogging a dead horse.

It's obvious to many that course ratings are too heavily based on length.
The other factors that are taken into account are not given nearly enough weight.

But the powers that be appear to have their heads in the sand, believing the system is fine and nothing needs to change.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

bogey ratings can be found at https://ncrdb.usga.org

Cheers, so:


White - Par 72 / CR 70.2 / 118 - 6232yds - BR 92.2
Yellow - Par 70 / CR 67.8 / 113 - 5706yds - BR 89.0

Easier away course -
White - Par 69 / CR 68.3 / 126 - 5864yds - BR 91.7
Yellow - Par 68 / CR 67.1 / 123 - 5567yds - BR 90.0


That's even worse, as they're saying the easier course is harder for higher handicaps than the harder course. Shambles

 

[rulefan]

Yes, I know, they are correct (on length), that's the point, CR does not work, it was the part - the only part - of the old system that needed reviewed, yet it was the only part to be retained.

I'd love to see the bogey ratings too, because the "easier" course has masses of thick rough everywhere which kills everyone but especially wild higher handicaps, the "tougher" course has none, it's light short semi rough everywhere except a few small areas that are nowhere near play for anyone

If your course has not been rated since 2012 it was probably not rated under the current standards. I wasn't involved in rating then but I know there have been changes.

 

[wjemather]

You're flogging a dead horse.

It's obvious to many that course ratings are too heavily based on length.
The other factors that are taken into account are not given nearly enough weight.

But the powers that be appear to have their heads in the sand, believing the system is fine and nothing needs to change.

The overwhelming influence on scoring ability is length - and always will be. Other factors are minor in comparison. This is supported by all the data, and isn't going to change.

The USGA CR system is updated regularly every few years, with changes that include the weighting of the various measured factors. The most recent update was this year, and there have been at least 3 updates since BB's course was apparently last rated.

I'll also note that BB's opinion on which course is easier is a very subjective one. The opinion is also apparently skewed by their reference to par as a benchmark for difficulty (which it isn't) and is unlikely to be shared by everyone, or even most.

 

[cliveb]

The overwhelming influence on scoring ability is length - and always will be. Other factors are minor in comparison. This is supported by all the data, and isn't going to change.

This is precisely the attitude that I was referring to - the refusal to acknowledge that length is not the be-all and end-all.

I am intimately familiar with a short course that is very tricky and has an unrealistically low CR.
Even if you hit greens in regulation, they have such severe slopes that it's easy to three putt - even for scratch players.
The rough is quite short, but is patchy and "grabby".
If these factors were taken into consideration properly, the CR would be accordingly higher.
But it isn't, because "The overwhelming influence on scoring ability is length".

Maybe this course is an outlier, but there must surely be others like it.
And if the rating system really does work well, it would cope with such outliers.
But it doesn't.