Course Rating

[D-S]

Thankyou…BIB…Correct assumptions. I’ll keep that excellent explanation tucked in my back pocket for use as and when.

On the bunkering…generally a lot tougher to get out of and in many instances tighter to the green or moved with additional ground shaping, to catch or gather mishit shots, especially when hit short.

I believe bunkers are rated just for depth not ‘gathering’. % of green surrounded by them and whether you need to carry them is also assessed but ‘difficulty’ to get out is only covered by bands of depth.

 

[wjemather]

Thankyou…BIB…Correct assumptions. I’ll keep that excellent explanation tucked in my back pocket for use as and when.

On the bunkering…generally a lot tougher to get out of and in many instances tighter to the green or moved with additional ground shaping, to catch or gather mishit shots, especially when hit short.

Moving bunkers that are already within 10 yards of the green closer to the green wouldn't change anything.

I believe bunkers are rated just for depth not ‘gathering’. % of green surrounded by them and whether you need to carry them is also assessed but ‘difficulty’ to get out is only covered by bands of depth.

Greenside bunkers are rated based on the green target rating (length of approach shot and green size, plus any adjustments), fraction of green closely bordered (any gathering that increases the effective size of the bunkers would be assessed here), and difficulty of recovery (principally depth, with adjustments for any extreme difficulty, e.g. pot bunkers).

 

[Deleted member 30522]

There are many in my area that are wrong, courses that simply don't stack up against each other.

My two clubs for example, the one I've been a member at for 40 years has a CR of 1.8 under par, the other where I've only been a member 3 years is only 0.9 under par, yet there's no doubt the "harder" course is ther "easier course.

Today is the day, re-rating team are out this morning, lead member had already been across on Monday to make sure we were ready, has ridden round the course and has already said "no way this plays two under par". Nothing has changed since our rating in 2012, so this will be very interesting to see what comes along....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Generally how long does it take for the club to receive its revised rating from the review team…or whoever coordinates these things. And is there then a process that the club goes through/can go through with that team before things are finalised?…especially if the club disagrees with any aspect of the revised rating.

 

[rulefan]

Generally how long does it take for the club to receive its revised rating from the review team…or whoever coordinates these things. And is there then a process that the club goes through/can go through with that team before things are finalised?…especially if the club disagrees with any aspect of the revised rating.

Currently itis taking over 8 weeks to get a new rating processed. I suspect a rating following an appeal would be much quicker depending on the findings. An appeal to an appealed review (negotiations?) would depend on the specific issues. But unless it could be demonstrated that the last review was faulty, that would be the end of it IMO.

 

[phoboter]

I have a question about the course rating which I don't think there's an answer for (!), but I think it's an interesting point: With course rating being based on the difficult of the course for a scratch golfer, why is this done by a team of volunteers, and not instead gathered from data?

Presumably the majority of golf clubs have had ten's of thousands of rounds played and recorded in various competitions and general play cards over the years. In which case the true difficulty of a golf course could be assessed objectively by looking at what scratch golfers actually shoot on average at that golf course.

I guess the assessors / EG would argue their method is objective. But clearly the ratings would suggest that these are weighed heavily in favour of length of course. Plus I just don't believe 4-5 hours driving a buggy around a course with a range finder and looking at where OB / hazards are tells you how difficult a course is.

 

[wjemather]

I have a question about the course rating which I don't think there's an answer for (!), but I think it's an interesting point: With course rating being based on the difficult of the course for a scratch golfer, why is this done by a team of volunteers, and not instead gathered from data?

Presumably the majority of golf clubs have had ten's of thousands of rounds played and recorded in various competitions and general play cards over the years. In which case the true difficulty of a golf course could be assessed objectively by looking at what scratch golfers actually shoot on average at that golf course.

I guess the assessors / EG would argue their method is objective. But clearly the ratings would suggest that these are weighed heavily in favour of length of course. Plus I just don't believe 4-5 hours driving a buggy around a course with a range finder and looking at where OB / hazards are tells you how difficult a course is.

How are you selecting the scratch golfers whose scores you are using? How do you know they are scratch golfers without having assessed them using a standard measure?

The USGA Course and Slope Rating System results in scratch golfers with a much narrower range of abilities than other rating systems. For example, the course rating systems we used previously in GB&I resulted in scratch golfers at shorter, easier courses that would struggle to maintain single figures at longer, more difficult courses.

 

[phoboter]

Course Rating

👍 Thankyou…BIB…Correct assumptions. I’ll keep that excellent explanation tucked in my back pocket for use as and when. On the bunkering…generally a lot tougher to get out of and in many instances tighter to the green or moved with additional ground shaping, to catch or gather mishit shots...

forums.golfmonthly.com

How are you selecting the scratch golfers whose scores you are using? How do you know they are scratch golfers without having assessed them using a standard measure?

The USGA Course and Slope Rating System results in scratch golfers with a much narrower range of abilities than other rating systems. For example, the course rating systems we used previously in GB&I resulted in scratch golfers at shorter, easier courses that would struggle to maintain single figures at longer, more difficult courses.

All scratch (-0.4 to 0.4) golfers who have played the course scores would be included in the assessment.

I appreciate that these "scratch golfers" would have to be based on the current course assessors ratings. And likewise that's its 'easier ' to get a scratch handicap nowadays (my home county implements a pretty strict GP card ruling for bigger amateur events, I'm guessing for this reason).

Although considering we currently define scratch golfer as drive it 260, hits 56% GIR etc, which may or may not be accurate, I don't believe a tiny number "vanity scratch" players who may or may not truly be scratch would create huge issues in course ratings assessed this way.

 

[rulefan]

I have a question about the course rating which I don't think there's an answer for (!), but I think it's an interesting point: With course rating being based on the difficult of the course for a scratch golfer, why is this done by a team of volunteers, and not instead gathered from data?

Presumably the majority of golf clubs have had ten's of thousands of rounds played and recorded in various competitions and general play cards over the years. In which case the true difficulty of a golf course could be assessed objectively by looking at what scratch golfers actually shoot on average at that golf course.

I guess the assessors / EG would argue their method is objective. But clearly the ratings would suggest that these are weighed heavily in favour of length of course. Plus I just don't believe 4-5 hours driving a buggy around a course with a range finder and looking at where OB / hazards are tells you how difficult a course is.

There many clubs that do not have any scratch golfers.

I'm pretty sure few clubs have much in the way of any 'old' information. The UHS did not receive data from clubs. Physical cards were only kept for a year (and it would be a mammoth task to key it all in anyway). I suspect most clubs purged their pre WHS score records from their ISV software.
Further, how would you collect all the data needed to determine one of the best parts of WHS, Slope?

 

[D-S]

There many clubs that do not have any scratch golfers.

I'm pretty sure few clubs have much in the way of any 'old' information. The UHS did not receive data from clubs. Physical cards were only kept for a year (and it would be a mammoth task to key it all in anyway). I suspect most clubs purged their pre WHS score records from their ISV software.
Further, how would you collect all the data needed to determine one of the best parts of WHS, Slope?

WHS contains all the rounds played over nearly 4 years. Given the additional amount of GP scores, that surely would be enough to go on if you wanted to take a statistical look. There is an awful lot more data available for Bogey golfers than for scratch.
I’m not sure how you would model it but a statistical verification would be interesting/ useful.

 

[doublebogey7]

Course Rating

👍 Thankyou…BIB…Correct assumptions. I’ll keep that excellent explanation tucked in my back pocket for use as and when. On the bunkering…generally a lot tougher to get out of and in many instances tighter to the green or moved with additional ground shaping, to catch or gather mishit shots...

forums.golfmonthly.com

All scratch (-0.4 to 0.4) golfers who have played the course scores would be included in the assessment.

I appreciate that these "scratch golfers" would have to be based on the current course assessors ratings. And likewise that's its 'easier ' to get a scratch handicap nowadays (my home county implements a pretty strict GP card ruling for bigger amateur events, I'm guessing for this reason).

Although considering we currently define scratch golfer as drive it 260, hits 56% GIR etc, which may or may not be accurate, I don't believe a tiny number "vanity scratch" players who may or may not truly be scratch would create huge issues in course ratings assessed this way.

For this to provide any sort of accuracy each course will have needed to have a large number of scratch golfers froma wide variety of clubs where their scratch handicap had been derived. I'd wager that there are a number of clubs that have had no more than a handfull of such golfers play the course in the last 10 years.
I can see how you could use data going forward to monitor the accuracy of otherwise the effectiveness of assessments but not how you could provide such assessments in the first place.

 

[D-S]

There is a Course Rating Variance report available to the County which gives a differential for each tee set

The differential is calculated by score Handicap Index® minus score HD.

This is available by course, tee, gender, 9 hole and 18 hole and gives a median differential for all clubs as a reference.

However I have not seen it ever used.

 

[phoboter]

For this to provide any sort of accuracy each course will have needed to have a large number of scratch golfers froma wide variety of clubs where their scratch handicap had been derived. I'd wager that there are a number of clubs that have had no more than a handfull of such golfers play the course in the last 10 years.
I can see how you could use data going forward to monitor the accuracy of otherwise the effectiveness of assessments but not how you could provide such assessments in the first place.

So I would ask you, in regards to accuracy, is it accurate to have the assessors make a (at least partial) subjective assessment of a golf course based on the presumed ability of a player who hits is 260 yds with driver, hits 56% GIR, etc etc?

Couldn't even 10-20 scratch golfer rounds give more accuracy to rating a course?

Even if you combine the two methods - rate it with volunteers initially, then assess the rating once a year against the actual scores being put in.

 

[wjemather]

So I would ask you, in regards to accuracy, is it accurate to have the assessors make a (at least partial) subjective assessment of a golf course based on the presumed ability of a player who hits is 260 yds with driver, hits 56% GIR, etc etc?

Couldn't even 10-20 scratch golfer rounds give more accuracy to rating a course?

Even if you combine the two methods - rate it with volunteers initially, then assess the rating once a year against the actual scores being put in.

This isn't how ratings are done; and nor are these the parameters used for the model scratch golfer.

 

[clubchamp98]

So I would ask you, in regards to accuracy, is it accurate to have the assessors make a (at least partial) subjective assessment of a golf course based on the presumed ability of a player who hits is 260 yds with driver, hits 56% GIR, etc etc?

Couldn't even 10-20 scratch golfer rounds give more accuracy to rating a course?

Even if you combine the two methods - rate it with volunteers initially, then assess the rating once a year against the actual scores being put in.

In our scratch open 52 plus and low cappers only one broke par.
He was a +5 capper he shot 1 under and won.
But that is +9 on his handicap

We were reassessed recently and went from slope 129 to 120.
But have been assured by some on here that’s got nothing to do with it.
But most golfers I know quote slope to explain how tough a course is.

 

[phoboter]

This isn't how ratings are done; and nor are these the parameters used for the model scratch golfer.

Very cryptic!

How are the ratings done, and what are the parameters used for a modern scratch golfer?

 

[wjemather]

In our scratch open 52 plus and low cappers only one broke par.
He was a +5 capper he shot 1 under and won.
But that is +9 on his handicap

We were reassessed recently and went from slope 129 to 120.
But have been assured by some on here that’s got nothing to do with it.
But most golfers I know quote slope to explain how tough a course is.

We've covered extensively why the scoring in the scratch open was perfectly normal for such an event, and why scratch golf has (almost) nothing to do with Slope.

Most golfers you know do not understand what Slope is, but I expect most won't have had the benefit of having it explained to them countless times, in a dozen different ways.

 

[phoboter]

In our scratch open 52 plus and low cappers only one broke par.
He was a +5 capper he shot 1 under and won.
But that is +9 on his handicap

We were reassessed recently and went from slope 129 to 120.
But have been assured by some on here that’s got nothing to do with it.
But most golfers I know quote slope to explain how tough a course is.

CC98 - What is the rating of your course?

 

[clubchamp98]

We've covered extensively why the scoring in the scratch open was perfectly normal for such an event, and why scratch golf has (almost) nothing to do with Slope.

Most golfers you know do not understand what Slope is, but I expect most won't have had the benefit of having it explained to them countless times, in a dozen different ways.

Most just don’t care we all know that.

I was answering phoboter about 20 scratch golfers playing the course!

 

[clubchamp98]

CC98 - What is the rating of your course?

71.7 par 72 slope 120 now.

Nothing has changed on the course for years except the 7th was lengthened by 30 yds.