Course assessors

[louise_a]

We had them at ours today, so we should soon have a course and slope rating for the course.

 

[D4RK1]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does that mean?

Mark

 

[louise_a]

They are from England golf, they check the course and calculate what SSS should be, but in light of the forthcoming course rating system similar to the USGA one they were working out both the course rating and the slope rating.

 

[D4RK1]

Sounds like a great job to me
Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Shooter McPowick]

Good stuff! Hope they sort out mine soon too.

 

[Tashyboy]

Louise ant idea when they are supposed to be starting the slope system. Sooner the better for me. Will it be phased in do you know or what.

 

[louise_a]

I don't know, I did go to the Congu roadshow back in February when they said they would be introducing course rating by 2020 but that it might be as early as 2018. I don't know if the slope will be introduced at the same time or later.

 

[rulefan]

Louise ant idea when they are supposed to be starting the slope system. Sooner the better for me. Will it be phased in do you know or what.

Handicapping involving slope can't realistically be done until all courses (ie all tees) are rated. That's the best part of 2000 clubs.

A few counties with few courses are progressing quite well but the bigger counties with lots of courses are struggling.
eg Yorkshire has nearly 200 men's courses to rate (many having 4 tees - blue, white, yellow & red) and many ladies's courses are due for a rerate. Rating can only be done in the playing season.

A rating typically takes over 4 hours for one set of tees. One of my teams took 5 1/2 hours for a 4 tee course last week and had to go back to rate the greens. The paperwork alone can take a couple of hours. The USGA specify 3 man teams and the logistics of matching qualified raters and club tee time availability is a nightmare. Costs have been significantly underestimated.

The original announcement was for 2020 but the progress on the world wide system has been better than expected and now EG is targeting 2018. Unless there is dispensation for temporary paper ratings that will be almost impossible to achieve.

Of course the counties were never consulted about this. It is just being imposed.

The only bonus(?) is that some raters were given a Nikon laser to help measure. Not that much help because the rater needs to know 'where is 200 yards from the tee?' not 'how far is that bunker?' A subtle but significant difference which costs time.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

rulefan.....are you saying that each course has to be played from each set of tees or is the assessment done by walking the course? This is a really interesting process, I'd like to understand it a bit better :thup:

 

[DCB]

rulefan.....are you saying that each course has to be played from each set of tees or is the assessment done by walking the course? This is a really interesting process, I'd like to understand it a bit better :thup:

Have a read of this

or in laymans terms this

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Have a read of this

or in laymans terms this

Cheers David :thup:

 

[DCB]

All courses are re-rated within a specific timescale, can't remember what it is, but I was on our Greens Committee during the run up and during the last re-rating visit three years ago. They walk the course and fill in a form detailing various aspects of the course and it's layout and difficulty. On a re-rating, the course will more than likely come out the same rating as before unless obvious changes have been made. Bit of a paperwork nightmare for the assessors as they have to do courses within specified summer months.

 

[louise_a]

It certainly is a time consuming job, I got out for a round in a 3 ball a little before they started, we closed the first tee for 90 minutes, and the men caught me up on the 17th, they were doing the course and the greens, the ladies team were just doing the course but were quite a few holes behind the men.

 

[cliveb]

Have a read of this

Interesting. I immediately homed in on the section about rough (for reasons that should become clear). I was interested to see that the difficulty of rough seems to be based on its length. Is there really no consideration as to the type of grass?

I've played courses where the rough is more than 6 inches tall but sufficiently wispy that you can make good contact. Meanwhile, at my home course, the rough is fairly short (typically a couple of inches), but the grass is fairly lush - although not lush enough for the ball to sit up. As a consequence, any ball ending in the rough tends to sit right down and (provided you are lucky enough to find it), the grass "grabs" the club as you try to play it. Do course assessors take that sort of thing into account?

 

[Tashyboy]

Interesting. I immediately homed in on the section about rough (for reasons that should become clear). I was interested to see that the difficulty of rough seems to be based on its length. Is there really no consideration as to the type of grass?

I've played courses where the rough is more than 6 inches tall but sufficiently wispy that you can make good contact. Meanwhile, at my home course, the rough is fairly short (typically a couple of inches), but the grass is fairly lush - although not lush enough for the ball to sit up. As a consequence, any ball ending in the rough tends to sit right down and (provided you are lucky enough to find it), the grass "grabs" the club as you try to play it. Do course assessors take that sort of thing into account?

Funny you should say that Clive because I was gonna start a blog on this when we went away last week. Some of the grass that our balls ended up in were A, a Royal pita to find unless stood right over them, B a right Royal pita to play them. Three times the ball went sideways over the week because the grass twisted the club because I never gripped the club tighter. At our course that never really happens. Having said that the greens were not as severely sloped or quick as ours so maybe it is swings and roundabouts.

 

[rulefan]

Have a read of this

or in laymans terms this

I'm afraid that is all out of date.

The EGU system was only latterly used by England men. It only produced a rating for a 'model' scratch player (Hence Standard Scratch Score). Other CONGU unions rated with the USGA system but only used the scratch Course Rating for the SSS. The Rating for the 'model' bogey player (20 h'cap) is not yet generally used other than for American tourists (!).

The USGA system was adopted by EG in 2015 (but to all practical purposes effective from 2016).

The old system only determined a rating for the 'model' scratch player. The addition of bogey rating provides the opportunity for the wholesale introduction of 'slope' when all the work is done.

The old system was different in detailed procedures but measured the same 'obstacles' and features of the course.
As it happens the SSS produced by the EGU process is the same as the Course Rating produced by the USGA system in almost every case. The variance is mainly down to decimal rounding. This was by design. The EGU spent a lot of effort in simplifying the method to achieve the same objective.

 

[rulefan]

I've played courses where the rough is more than 6 inches tall but sufficiently wispy that you can make good contact. Meanwhile, at my home course, the rough is fairly short (typically a couple of inches), but the grass is fairly lush - although not lush enough for the ball to sit up. As a consequence, any ball ending in the rough tends to sit right down and (provided you are lucky enough to find it), the grass "grabs" the club as you try to play it. Do course assessors take that sort of thing into account?

They do.

 

[rulefan]

rulefan.....are you saying that each course has to be played from each set of tees or is the assessment done by walking the course? This is a really interesting process, I'd like to understand it a bit better :thup:

The rating is done by walking (or riding) the course.
It is based on where a 'model' scratch or bogey is expected to hit a good shot (ie where his target is), not on where randomly skilled assessors happen to hit.

These targets are based on 0000s of samples. They are where players actually reach not where where everyone does once in a blue moon with a tailwind downhill or believes they do when noone is watching.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

So who are these assessors, who do they work for, what qualifications do they have etc etc? This is all interesting informative stuff!

 

[rulefan]

So who are these assessors, who do they work for, what qualifications do they have etc etc? This is all interesting informative stuff!

They are all experienced players from affiliated clubs. They are volunteers and don't get paid but may or may not claim small mileage expenses from their county and get a coffee and perhaps a sandwich from the course they are rating.
They have all been nominated by their county unions, trained by their national unions and attend revision or follow up courses as required.