Course Rating

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

See my post above

 

[rulefan]

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.

The relationship between CR and Par can be misleading.
Par is arbitrarily assigned by the club. A par 4 can range from 240 to 490 yards and a par 5 from 450 to 710. The club determines the total par based on the assignment of hole pars.
CR expects the 'standard' scratch player to drive 250 and a fairway shot of 200, so depending on other aspects (ie obstructions, doglegs etc) the number of strokes taken before holing the putt can be variable. The course determines the rating based on all attributes.

But the number of strokes taken from tee to hole must be the dominant factor.

 

[Orikoru]

I did hear that our club invited the course raters back out to redo the ratings. This took place in June I think but apparently it takes a while for those new ratings to work their way through the system. Does anyone know how long we could expect that process to take?

Sod's law states we'll just end up with even lower ratings than before.

 

[wjemather]

I did hear that our club invited the course raters back out to redo the ratings. This took place in June I think but apparently it takes a while for those new ratings to work their way through the system. Does anyone know how long we could expect that process to take?

Sod's law states we'll just end up with even lower ratings than before.

Normally 6 to 8 weeks from the day of the rating.

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

I find 4+ hours to rate a whole course sounds very short.

Most people can’t hit a ball around in that time ,I’m quite shocked it takes so little time.

 

[D-S]

I did hear that our club invited the course raters back out to redo the ratings. This took place in June I think but apparently it takes a while for those new ratings to work their way through the system. Does anyone know how long we could expect that process to take?

Sod's law states we'll just end up with even lower ratings than before.

There’s a bit of a backlog at the moment so it would be closer to 10 weeks.

 

[Swango1980]

I find 4+ hours to rate a whole course sounds very short.

Most people can’t hit a ball around in that time ,I’m quite shocked it takes so little time.

The raters don't have to fit in a round of golf whilst doing the job though. And, there is more than one of them.

To me, four hours seems an incredibly long time, and it must require a thorough job

 

[D-S]

I find 4+ hours to rate a whole course sounds very short.

Most people can’t hit a ball around in that time ,I’m quite shocked it takes so little time.

There are two teams of people doing it and 3 or 4 people to a team so in effect it is about 25-30 man hours. There is a deal of preparation done as well as detailed questionnaires to be filled in by the club beforehand as well as official course measure to take place. Afterwards there is a lot of form filling and double checking. It is a pretty exhaustive process.
We have 39 clubs in the County and we are on schedule to rerate all courses in a 10 year period following the mass drive to rate every course prior to WHS in 2020.
Also par 3 courses need rating now and more and more clubs are introducing shorter winter courses.
Don’t forget this is all done by volunteers and having done 6 so far this year I can personally say that many people put a lot of time into it.

 

[clubchamp98]

There are two teams of people doing it and 3 or 4 people to a team so in effect it is about 25-30 man hours. There is a deal of preparation done as well as detailed questionnaires to be filled in by the club beforehand as well as official course measure to take place. Afterwards there is a lot of form filling and double checking. It is a pretty exhaustive process.
We have 39 clubs in the County and we are on schedule to rerate all courses in a 10 year period following the mass drive to rate every course prior to WHS in 2020.
Also par 3 courses need rating now and more and more clubs are introducing shorter winter courses.
Don’t forget this is all done by volunteers and having done 6 so far this year I can personally say that many people put a lot of time into it.

I don’t dought the work.
I work on golf courses myself and have spent many a 14 hr day on them.
But to see all the nuances of a course imo takes years not 4+ hrs.

 

[Swango1980]

I don’t dought the work.
I work on golf courses myself and have spent many a 14 hr day on them.
But to see all the nuances of a course imo takes years not 4+ hrs.

So a rating team should spend enough time on a golf course, so that something can be factored into a course rating that has taken you years to discover?

If raters spend 16 hours a day on a golf course for a full month, you can guarantee the same amount of golfers will still complain the ratings are wrong.

 

[D-S]

I don’t dought the work.
I work on golf courses myself and have spent many a 14 hr day on them.
But to see all the nuances of a course imo takes years not 4+ hrs.

As I said it is far, far more than 4 hours by far more than 1 person.

How many man years should the County be devoting to rating each course, in your opinion?

 

[rulefan]

There are two teams of people doing it and 3 or 4 people to a team so in effect it is about 25-30 man hours. There is a deal of preparation done as well as detailed questionnaires to be filled in by the club beforehand as well as official course measure to take place. Afterwards there is a lot of form filling and double checking. It is a pretty exhaustive process.
We have 39 clubs in the County and we are on schedule to rerate all courses in a 10 year period following the mass drive to rate every course prior to WHS in 2020.
Also par 3 courses need rating now and more and more clubs are introducing shorter winter courses.
Don’t forget this is all done by volunteers and having done 6 so far this year I can personally say that many people put a lot of time into it.

I should add that this is done 'in season'. Although it can be warmer it can also be a lot wetter and cuts down the amount of time available for the raters to play.

 

[D-S]

I should add that this is done 'in season'. Although it can be warmer it can also be a lot wetter and cuts down the amount of time available for the raters to play.

Yes it’s a relatively short season. It’s also really tricky when it’s windy as filling in forms in 30th winds is not easy.
We tried three times to rate Cleeve Hill earlier this year but lashing rain and hill fog made it impossible especially when needing to use lasers.
I am always impressed by the work put in by the Lead raters before and after the rating visit, as it is a time-consuming, complex task that requires not only a lot of knowledge and experience but great forbearance when working with clubs who don’t all seem to think that we’re doing this for free for them.

 

[Slab]

Why isn't it done by teams of paid employees rather than volunteers ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Why isn't it done by teams of paid employees rather than volunteers ?

Because volunteers are cheaper

 

[Slab]

Because volunteers are cheaper

Yup it is, does that mean that rating a course is so inconsequential that the cheapest solution is best

 

[clubchamp98]

As I said it is far, far more than 4 hours by far more than 1 person.

How many man years should the County be devoting to rating each course, in your opinion?

How longs a piece of string.
I’m not criticising the rating teams ,I just found 4+ hours written down in black and white seems not long enough.
It’s been explained with more detail in other posts so am seeing it more.

Do counties with fewer courses help other countries that have longer lists out with rating ?
Or do you stick to your own county.?

 

[clubchamp98]

Yup it is, does that mean that rating a course is so inconsequential that the cheapest solution is best

Far to many things in golf rely on volunteers.

 

[clubchamp98]

Yes it’s a relatively short season. It’s also really tricky when it’s windy as filling in forms in 30th winds is not easy.
We tried three times to rate Cleeve Hill earlier this year but lashing rain and hill fog made it impossible especially when needing to use lasers.
I am always impressed by the work put in by the Lead raters before and after the rating visit, as it is a time-consuming, complex task that requires not only a lot of knowledge and experience but great forbearance when working with clubs who don’t all seem to think that we’re doing this for free for them.

Maybe if you charged them they might think differently as they would want their moneys worth.

 

[Slab]

Far to many things in golf rely on volunteers.

Absolutely agree (and they really shouldn't)