Course Rating

[Swango1980]

thanks, so its immaterial whether the condition is a 40kph wind or 18 hollow tined greens or selected white tee's moved back (for recovery) when yellow tees remain unchanged
How does it know what its calculating for ?

If golfers are playing in 40kph winds, or the greens especially difficulty, what impact do you think that may have on the scores?

And, if scores are worse than normal, what impact do you think that should have on PCC?

What would be worse would be for an individual person to decide what number to set it to at the end of the day. You'd need that person(s) to be at the course every day, and subjectively decide the value based on the factors you mentioned, and provably dozens more

 

[Slab]

If golfers are playing in 40kph winds, or the greens especially difficulty, what impact do you think that may have on the scores?

And, if scores are worse than normal, what impact do you think that should have on PCC?

What would be worse would be for an individual person to decide what number to set it to at the end of the day. You'd need that person(s) to be at the course every day, and subjectively decide the value based on the factors you mentioned, and provably dozens more

Thanks
Well i remain to be convinced it isn't simply a rough and ready calculation based on piles of averages
I've played in mixed comps where its been bleedin obvious one set of tees is favourable while another is set tough. That's a chunk of the field that have a chance to score better/worse and skew any effort PCC might have to work its 'magic'

 

[Slab]

It doesn't measure any conditions. It depends entirely on how the field has scored on the day. If the scores are better or worse than a set target the PCC will kick in.

So based on results, something may or may not have been 'in play' today that positively/negatively affected scoring. Doesn't matter what it was, the Av score returned suggests we apply +1/-1 etc calc to all scores

Can't deny I've got a 'why bother' feeling

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks
Well i remain to be convinced it isn't simply a rough and ready calculation based on piles of averages
I've played in mixed comps where its been bleedin obvious one set of tees is favourable while another is set tough. That's a chunk of the field that have a chance to score better/worse and skew any effort PCC might have to work its 'magic'

Is this not one of the reasons there are limitations as to how far tees can be moved from the measured distance?

I still don't know what would be a better method. Would you have an alternative suggestion as to how easy / difficult conditions could be better accounted for?

 

[rulefan]

Genuine question from someone who knows very little about the rating process.

Can someone explain what actually happens, and how long does a rating takes? This thread refers to numerous factors that affect difficulty, which could only be considered by extensive walking, or playing, of the course. Does a rating take the time to do that or is it largely a desk top exercise using data, algorithms etc?

I'm not up to date with the current processes but when I originally set the system for my county it generally took 4+ hours (depending on the number or tees being rated) for a 3 man (minimum) team. Ladies' & men's tees are usually rated by separate teams because the measurement parameters are different.
This first phase was simply to take and record measurements (eg proximity of obstacles to target areas, height of bunker faces).
The second phase, maybe an hour plus, (usually done by a team leader, though some work may have been delegated) is conversion of measurements to table values. The results would be sent to EG to produce the final figures.
I believe the process and original paperwork has been 'streamlined' since I retired from the job but certainly all the measurements and their conversion is still done.

Most clubs would allocate a block of tee times so that we and players wouldn't interfere with each other. But some would expect us to work as players 'played through' and we would have to stand aside. This of course would add to our time in the field. Some clubs would offer a meal or at least tea or coffee and biscuits but a minority didn't. Given there was no charge to the club (even though the couldn't operate without a rating) I though it rather mean.

 

[Slab]

Is this not one of the reasons there are limitations as to how far tees can be moved from the measured distance?

I still don't know what would be a better method. Would you have an alternative suggestion as to how easy / difficult conditions could be better accounted for?

There's (needed) loopholes on those limitations, meaning they can still move a tee back 40mtrs from measured course to next prepared area on stroke 1 par 5 when its playing into a 4-club wind
Despite the myth you can never get those extra shots need to play the hole, 'back' somewhere else on the course

 

[Swango1980]

There's (needed) loopholes on those limitations, meaning they can still move a tee back 40mtrs from measured course to next prepared area on stroke 1 par 5 when its playing into a 4-club wind
Despite the myth you can never get those extra shots need to play the hole, 'back' somewhere else on the course

The WHS manual states that the tee markers should not be placed more than 10 yards in front or behind the permanent distance marker on any hole.

Where is the loophole that says they can be placed 40 meters away? Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it.

 

[Slab]

The WHS manual states that the tee markers should not be placed more than 10 yards in front or behind the permanent distance marker on any hole.

Where is the loophole that says they can be placed 40 meters away? Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it.

Should, not must

 

[Orikoru]

Anyway, despite playing on days with tined greens, days with 40kph wind & days with tees moved back. PCC has never 'come in' for me this year
Looking back I see it 2-3 times in 2023 and same for 2022, but nowt so far this year

This just means everyone playing the course coped better with the conditions than you.

 

[Swango1980]

Should, not must

The instruction is clearly written in the manual for a reason, not to be blatantly ignored so that the club can do as it wishes. Otherwise, there would be no point in having it in the manual at all.

If a golf club IS setting their tees 40 metres away from the measured course, making the hole completely different to what the raters accounted for, then the problem is not with WHS. It is with the people in charge of setting up the golf course.

 

[Slab]

The instruction is clearly written in the manual for a reason, not to be blatantly ignored so that the club can do as it wishes. Otherwise, there would be no point in having it in the manual at all.

If a golf club IS setting their tees 40 metres away from the measured course, making the hole completely different to what the raters accounted for, then the problem is not with WHS. It is with the people in charge of setting up the golf course.

Can't disagree with that. But it doesn't change my score on that hole when the course can just say a prepared teeing area needs 'rested', treated or maintained in some way

 

[wjemather]

Genuine question from someone who knows very little about the rating process.

Can someone explain what actually happens, and how long does a rating takes? This thread refers to numerous factors that affect difficulty, which could only be considered by extensive walking, or playing, of the course. Does a rating take the time to do that or is it largely a desk top exercise using data, algorithms etc?

I'm not up to date with the current processes but when I originally set the system for my county it generally took 4+ hours (depending on the number or tees being rated) for a 3 man (minimum) team. Ladies' & men's tees are usually rated by separate teams because the measurement parameters are different.
This first phase was simply to take and record measurements (eg proximity of obstacles to target areas, height of bunker faces).
The second phase, maybe an hour plus, (usually done by a team leader, though some work may have been delegated) is conversion of measurements to table values. The results would be sent to EG to produce the final figures.
I believe the process and original paperwork has been 'streamlined' since I retired from the job but certainly all the measurements and their conversion is still done.

Most clubs would allocate a block of tee times so that we and players wouldn't interfere with each other. But some would expect us to work as players 'played through' and we would have to stand aside. This of course would add to our time in the field. Some clubs would offer a meal or at least tea or coffee and biscuits but a minority didn't. Given there was no charge to the club (even though the couldn't operate without a rating) I though it rather mean.

Not much has changed.

Accurate measurement of the course is done by a 3rd party in advance of the rating visit.
Clubs are requested to block out enough tee times to avoid interference with/from golfers.
Ratings are done on the course by a team. If there are enough raters, they will split into 2 or 3 sub-teams to collect the data (taking various measurements and assessing the severity of obstacles, slopes, etc.) for men and women, and the greens.
Rating an average 18-hole course with 3-4 sets of tees for both genders takes about 4-5 hours.
The collected data is then input into spreadsheets that automatically pull the table values through to generate provisional ratings; this takes an hour or so. To qualify as a team lead, you still have to complete the forms manually using the table values from the manual.
The completed spreadsheets are then sent to the regional lead for checking before being passed on to the national authority for verification and final calculation of the new ratings.

 

[Swango1980]

Can't disagree with that. But it doesn't change my score on that hole when the course can just say a prepared teeing area needs 'rested', treated or maintained in some way

When our club does that, they simply make the course unacceptable for handicapping. Generally only happens in the winter anyway.

There are a lot of things a golf club could do to make a mockery of the handicap system, which is why the WHS manual specifically documents various restrictions as to what isn't allowed in the golf course set up, and what can be changed within tolerances.

But, this simply becomes a conversation about the failure of certain golf clubs to stick to this guidance, rather than a flaw within WHS itself

 

[Slab]

When our club does that, they simply make the course unacceptable for handicapping. Generally only happens in the winter anyway.

There are a lot of things a golf club could do to make a mockery of the handicap system, which is why the WHS manual specifically documents various restrictions as to what isn't allowed in the golf course set up, and what can be changed within tolerances.

But, this simply becomes a conversation about the failure of certain golf clubs to stick to this guidance, rather than a flaw within WHS itself

Yeah much like pace of play in that respect. There's a lot players get blamed for but club actions are often forgotten/secondary
Issues with the WHS often highlighted as player manipulation of system etc when there's a lot can be due to club actions too

edit: we don't have that kind of winter so resting of a teeing area is more likely due to traffic levels (even though I can't see the damage but I'm no GK) and its not unusual to see it moved back every 10 days or so for 48hours

 

[jim8flog]

When SSS was still the nominal standard for men's courses in England but EG had started the USGA rating process, the SSS was converted to the rounded CR This would be from about 2018ish.
If the reds were rated for women the SSS was already the rounded CR as they had already used the USGA system.

I remember the course was rerated sometime in the late 2010s.

One of the funnies I was told by the then captain was that one of the guys doing the rating had done the last rating back last century one of his comments was "wow where did all these trees come from" apparently he had not seen the course in years

A lot of them had only just bee planted when I joined the club in the mid 80s and another few thousand were added in the late 90s (we had a grant from the the Forestry commission to do it provided we plant x1000s) when we removed all leylandliis from the course.

In the long term the trees made a huge difference most winning scores went up by around 5 shots. Pre trees I once shot a nett 11 under and came 5th with 3 scores sub 60.

 

[Swango1980]

I remember the course was rerated sometime in the late 2010s.

One of the funnies I was told by the then captain was that one of the guys doing the rating had done the last rating back last century one of his comments was "wow where did all these trees come from" apparently he had not seen the course in years

A lot of them had only just bee planted when I joined the club in the mid 80s and another few thousand were added in the late 90s (we had a grant from the the Forestry commission to do it provided we plant x1000s) when we removed all leylandliis from the course.

In the long term the trees made a huge difference most winning scores went up by around 5 shots. Pre trees I once shot a nett 11 under and came 5th with 3 scores sub 60.

I think I read courses need to be re-rated every 10 years at least? Not sure if that happens in practice.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I'd be interested to hear how @Banchory Buddha thought that the old SSS (which is what he directed his "flawed" comment towards and hence indirectly towards Course Rating) was flawed.

My own view is that CR's in my neck of the woods seem reasonable and I have no reason to think that any of them are wildly wrong. BB may have specific examples from his region that leads him to conclude there are flaws in the ratings.

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.

In the local handicap league, my "easy" course despite being the only 9 holer, has won a disproportionate amount of league titles, as have the other three that most would see as given a harsh CR that is tough to play to. The league was in operation for around 35 years before they decided to change the format, used to be two divisions, with one of six promoted and relegated each year. Due to the fact that four of the top six never got rlegated due to strong handicaps, they changed to divisions with play offs so that clubs got to mix it up with every other club in the league.

Yes the strong handicaps are all due to a CR that seems unjustly harsh. Maybe it's just a shot at each, but as any poker player will tell you, the fine margin calls with the correct odds are where you make the money in the long run.


I'd give you Murcar Links as a great example of a bad rating, the par off the whites is 71, CR is 71.8, it is the hardest course I know barring Trump, it's a nonsense rating, Royal Aberdeen literally next door gets a full 1.2 more against par, yet virtually everyone would say Murcar is tougher. But RA is longer by 200 yards, and there goes a rating based mostly on length, which is just so wrong.

 

[rulefan]

I think I read courses need to be re-rated every 10 years at least? Not sure if that happens in practice.

It is still the intention of EG and the counties to do that. However the requirement for all courses to be rated per USGA spec in order to provide slope for WHS overwhelmed the counties' resources. I suspect there are still a few that are working with temporary ratings. But the massive peak prior to WHS means that 10 years on there will be another peak.
I think the IoM has only about 8 courses to rate. Yorkshire has about 180 (about 10% of England).

 

[Banchory Buddha]

It is still the intention of EG and the counties to do that. However the requirement for all courses to be rated per USGA spec in order to provide slope for WHS overwhelmed the counties' resources. I suspect there are still a few that are working with temporary ratings. But the massive peak prior to WHS means that 10 years on there will be another peak.
I think the IoM has only about 8 courses to rate. Yorkshire has about 180 (about 10% of England).

Talking of which.........

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I think this because people think courses are rated to their own handicap and distances, and not specific criteria.

you think wrong