Course Rating

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,189
Visit site
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.
Why would anyone playing in a scratch competition be concerned with slope?
 

phoboter

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
11
Visit site
Please read this thread as this topic has been covered in many posts.

Thanks, I found this article the most useful in explaining the process for rating:


Still not convinced there isn't some subjectivity in the ratings. Example from the above article "How easy or difficult is the recovery if you miss the intended tee-shot landing zone or green?".

Also, noted your comments earlier in the thread about the man hours course ratings take from volunteers.

I am now more confused however why all this time and effort is required to 'manually' rate a course. The measurement of a bunker face height seems irrelevant; Tell me the scoring average of every scratch golfer who played in the course in the last 4 years post WHS = Course rating? I'm being facetious, but I do think one day in the future courses won't be rated by volunteers manually.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,189
Visit site
I am now more confused however why all this time and effort is required to 'manually' rate a course. The measurement of a bunker face height seems irrelevant; Tell me the scoring average of every scratch golfer who played in the course in the last 4 years post WHS = Course rating? I'm being facetious, but I do think one day in the future courses won't be rated by volunteers manually.
What about determining slope ?
A bogey player is defined as having a Course Handicap of approximately 20 on a course of standard difficulty.
What does approximately cover? 19-21, 17-23?
How would a CH be determined when it itself includes slope?
What is standard?
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,189
Visit site
Still not convinced there isn't some subjectivity in the ratings. Example from the above article "How easy or difficult is the recovery if you miss the intended tee-shot landing zone or green?".

The measurement of a bunker face height seems irrelevant;

The bunker face height is very significant if you have just missed the green (or fairway landing zone) and finished in a bunker.
 

doublebogey7

Head Pro
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,993
Location
Leicester
Visit site
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.
1)There is very little subjectively involved in assessments.
2) 10-20 rounds if golf is nowhere near enoufh rounds to provide statistally relevant numbers given that CR is to one decomal place.
3) Under which system have these 10-20 gokfers gained their scratch handicap and at which course.
4) How would slope be assessed.
 

phoboter

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
11
Visit site
The bunker face height is very significant if you have just missed the green (or fairway landing zone) and finished in a bunker.

My point is, it's irrelevant because it's subjective. At what height have the assessors decided that bunker face height becomes difficult?

Assessors spend hours and hours looking at every tiny facet of a golf course; every length of every patch of rough, every green slope, fairway lie, fairway width, fairway rollout, dogleg, hazard location, OOB proximity, green approach, bunker depth...all to find out what a scratch player should score.

My point - why don't we just look at what scratch players are actually scoring?
 

phoboter

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
11
Visit site
1)There is very little subjectively involved in assessments.
2) 10-20 rounds if golf is nowhere near enoufh rounds to provide statistally relevant numbers given that CR is to one decomal place.
3) Under which system have these 10-20 gokfers gained their scratch handicap and at which course.
4) How would slope be assessed.
1) some of the articles in this thread re. course rating assessment talk about difficulty of shot - if difficulty is considered, it's subjective.
2) genuine question, why is one visit from an assessor team enough?
3) it would have to be based on current rating, so it's not perfect. But needless to say for the most part, if you're scratch you're pretty good at golf (I don't think vanity handicaps are a big issue)
4) slope = what is the average of bogey golfers scores for the course. Lots of data for slope!
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,189
Visit site
Assessors spend hours and hours looking at every tiny facet of a golf course; every length of every patch of rough, every green slope, fairway lie, fairway width, fairway rollout, dogleg, hazard location, OOB proximity, green approach, bunker depth...all to find out what a scratch player should score.

My point - why don't we just look at what scratch players are actually scoring?
Not 'every'. Obstacles that that are not near a landing zone are ignored.
But how do you determine slope?
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,189
Visit site
4) slope = what is the average of bogey golfers scores for the course. Lots of data for slope!
You haven't specified what a bogey golfer is. Some say 20, some say 20-24 and some say 18-24

Incidentally, would you include PCC (and/or CSS) in the scores?
 

phoboter

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
11
Visit site
You haven't specified what a bogey golfer is. Some say 20, some say 20-24 and some say 18-24
Whatever handicap index WHS currently uses to define a "bogey golfer". I would use the all the data for that handicap index played at the course to determine slope.
 

doublebogey7

Head Pro
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,993
Location
Leicester
Visit site
1) I am no expert, but pretty sure difficulty of shot is not a direct part of any assessment.
2) It is not one visit from one assessor
3) You clearly do not understand how handicaps work, if those 10-20 players have played most of there golf at the course being assessed, then by definition assuming their handicaps are stable, there scores will reflect the CR so we will learn nothing.
4) Yes lots of data but from players who have been assessed under this system, so Bogey so by definition those with stable bogey handicaps will inevitably be scoring according to the bogey rating. Again we learn nothing.
 

phoboter

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
11
Visit site
1) I am no expert, but pretty sure difficulty of shot is not a direct part of any assessment.
2) It is not one visit from one assessor
3) You clearly do not understand how handicaps work, if those 10-20 players have played most of there golf at the course being assessed, then by definition assuming their handicaps are stable, there scores will reflect the CR so we will learn nothing.
4) Yes lots of data but from players who have been assessed under this system, so Bogey so by definition those with stable bogey handicaps will inevitably be scoring according to the bogey rating. Again we learn nothing.
So to assess the difficulty of a golf course, the difficulty of a each tee shot, approach shot and green is not a direct part of any assessment?

I guess the assessors will say playing length and obstacles can be objective ie. long par 4 with a 35 yd landing zone before deep rough either side, and 6 bunkers can be rated "hard".

I didn't say one assessor, I said "why is one visit from an assessor team enough?". Your point was that 10-20 rounds of golf is not enough for statistical significance - I agree, this was an example only to the response that some courses never have scratch golfers play their golf course. But I'm asking why one visit on one day from an assessor team is statistically significant?

Equally it's pretty obvious in my proposal if the golf course only has members playing, and those members only ever play their home course, we learn nothing - does this need saying? These golf courses simply don't get re-rated.

D-S said above there's a course rating variance report available - if for an individual course this variance is significant ie. it's clear that on average, scratch and bogey golfers in comps and GP, and members and visitors alike are shooting over or under the CR more than expected, this data is then used to adjust the CR.
 

mikejohnchapman

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
2,004
Location
Dorset
Visit site
One difficulty of using scores in the context of the event. If you had a major scratch even which provided the majority of the scores over multiple years the set-up for that event is not likely not reflect the normal playing condition of the course.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,847
Location
Bristol
Visit site
So to assess the difficulty of a golf course, the difficulty of a each tee shot, approach shot and green is not a direct part of any assessment?

I guess the assessors will say playing length and obstacles can be objective ie. long par 4 with a 35 yd landing zone before deep rough either side, and 6 bunkers can be rated "hard".

I didn't say one assessor, I said "why is one visit from an assessor team enough?". Your point was that 10-20 rounds of golf is not enough for statistical significance - I agree, this was an example only to the response that some courses never have scratch golfers play their golf course. But I'm asking why one visit on one day from an assessor team is statistically significant?

Equally it's pretty obvious in my proposal if the golf course only has members playing, and those members only ever play their home course, we learn nothing - does this need saying? These golf courses simply don't get re-rated.

D-S said above there's a course rating variance report available - if for an individual course this variance is significant ie. it's clear that on average, scratch and bogey golfers in comps and GP, and members and visitors alike are shooting over or under the CR more than expected, this data is then used to adjust the CR.
No, there is no direct assessment of difficulty. Difficulty is determined by proximity of the obstacle to centre of the target (and edge of the green where appropriate) or distance to carry the obstacle safely, factors increasing/reducing the risk posed by the obstacle, whether stroke and distance penalty applies, etc. Trees are also assessed for severity of impact based on clear criteria. (Note: this is far from an exhaustive list.)

Landing zones are 20 yards deep and are pre-determined by the standard distances acheived by the model golfers; how any intended landing zones were designed is irrelevant. Bunkers are assessed according to their position in relation to the landing zone/green and depth; additional adjustments are made for things like pot bunkers, exceptionally large bunkers, bunkers either side that reduce the width of the landing zone, bunkers that must be carried or force a layup, etc., or if they exist along the line of play but not in or near any landing zones. (Note: again, this is far from an exhaustive list.)

Courses change over the years without necessarily being by design (trees and bushes grow or are reduced/removed, fairway widths and green sizes shrink or expand, extreme rough changes, etc.) which is why they need to be re-rated regularly. Not rating courses would create divergence in handicaps.
 

nickjdavis

Head Pro
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
3,934
Visit site
My point - why don't we just look at what scratch players are actually scoring?
Because it's a circular calculation.

You are suggesting that we determine the CR and ultimately slope based on the scores submitted by scratch golfers.

However a scratch golfers index is based on the CR and Slope of the course(s) where they play golf.

There can't be an index without a CR or slope...but your vision is of a time when CR/slope is based on scores from a specific index.

It's a chicken/egg affair and we don't have enough eggs (or chickens) -I.e scoring data at many clubs, to determine either.

You would need many thousands of rounds of data and an understanding of the conditions of the day of each round, in order to be able to normalise those scores to come up with a reasonable estimate of CR.

If the current CR of a course was fundamentally wrong, then scratch players indexes would therefore be incorrect, therefore using their scores to determine CR would be meaningless.


You also asked... why one visit on one day from an assessor team is statistically significant....

... because everything that they assess is done objectively by measurement...and physically a course doesn't change much from day to day...no body is making subjective judgements as to whether (e.g. an escape from a bunker) something is easy or hard...it's all based on measurements.

Stuff that might change such as length of rough, typical speed of greens etc, is discussed with the green keeping staff. Typical weather/wind conditions can be obtained from meteorological reports.

The rating process might not be ideal....but it is at least standardised across the land.
 

tobybarker

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
428
Visit site
Because it's a circular calculation.

You are suggesting that we determine the CR and ultimately slope based on the scores submitted by scratch golfers.

However a scratch golfers index is based on the CR and Slope of the course(s) where they play golf.

There can't be an index without a CR or slope...but your vision is of a time when CR/slope is based on scores from a specific index.

It's a chicken/egg affair and we don't have enough eggs (or chickens) -I.e scoring data at many clubs, to determine either.

You would need many thousands of rounds of data and an understanding of the conditions of the day of each round, in order to be able to normalise those scores to come up with a reasonable estimate of CR.

If the current CR of a course was fundamentally wrong, then scratch players indexes would therefore be incorrect, therefore using their scores to determine CR would be meaningless.


You also asked... why one visit on one day from an assessor team is statistically significant....

... because everything that they assess is done objectively by measurement...and physically a course doesn't change much from day to day...no body is making subjective judgements as to whether (e.g. an escape from a bunker) something is easy or hard...it's all based on measurements.

Stuff that might change such as length of rough, typical speed of greens etc, is discussed with the green keeping staff. Typical weather/wind conditions can be obtained from meteorological reports.

The rating process might not be ideal....but it is at least standardised across the land.
Just look at gross scores.... The true measure of how tricky or easy people find the course
 
Top