Course Rating
- Thread starter rulefan
- Start date
D-S
Well-known member
Please read this thread as this topic has been covered in many posts.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I didn’t say they were.
I answered a question from phoboter about 10/20 scratch golfers cards being used for rating!
phoboter
New member
Thanks, I found this article the most useful in explaining the process for rating:
How Is Course Difficulty Measured?
We've all played golf courses we think are either hard or easy, but just how is course difficulty measured and how objective is it?
www.golfmonthly.com
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
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
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
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
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?
rulefan
Tour Winner
Depending on the fraction of the green being bordered by bunkers
>3' +1
>6' +2
>10' +3
>15' +4
phoboter
New member
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!
phoboter
New member
But why do we need to know this when the data exists to show what golfers are scoring on the course?
rulefan
Tour Winner
Not 'every'. Obstacles that that are not near a landing zone are ignored.
But how do you determine slope?
rulefan
Tour Winner
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Similar threads
