Course Rating

[Swango1980]

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

I wouldn't have thought there was enough work to keep many people employed as a full time professional course rater. Unless you only had one or two that did it, and were in charge of rating all of the thousands of courses across the UK. In which case, it would take years / decades to rate most courses.

Besides, is there a big pot of cash not being used, that could be used to pay people to do such work?

 

[clubchamp98]

I wouldn't have thought there was enough work to keep many people employed as a full time professional course rater. Unless you only had one or two that did it, and were in charge of rating all of the thousands of courses across the UK. In which case, it would take years / decades to rate most courses.

Besides, is there a big pot of cash not being used, that could be used to pay people to do such work?

Yes agree.
But maybe a few experts to oversee any complaints by clubs that the rating are not correct.

 

[D-S]

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.?

By definition Counties with fewer courses have fewer golfers so they do not have as many volunteers the opposite is of course true as well. We use the regional rating co-ordinator (who covers more than one county) from time to time if we are short.

 

[Slab]

I wouldn't have thought there was enough work to keep many people employed as a full time professional course rater. Unless you only had one or two that did it, and were in charge of rating all of the thousands of courses across the UK. In which case, it would take years / decades to rate most courses.

Besides, is there a big pot of cash not being used, that could be used to pay people to do such work?

As @clubchamp98 says and in addition, if its important enough then yes there should be a sufficiently big enough pot of cash for it to be done

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

An excessively low course rating at one's home course where one submits the most scores
is a major benefit to the traveling handicap player, isn't it?

 

[D-S]

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

When you say ‘them’, you actually mean ‘you’ as the clubs get their money from members. What more do you think the clubs expect?

I’m also interested what more information people want to have than is already gathered and how this information should be treated differently.

I fully understand people’s gripes with the outcome and changes could, of course, be made to the weighting of various parameters. For example, increase the impact of obstacles and decrease the impact of length but this is a base system issue not an information or process problem.

 

[clubchamp98]

I wouldn't have thought there was enough work to keep many people employed as a full time professional course rater. Unless you only had one or two that did it, and were in charge of rating all of the thousands of courses across the UK. In which case, it would take years / decades to rate most courses.

Besides, is there a big pot of cash not being used, that could be used to pay people to do such work?

Golf is like lots of sports awash with cash at the pinnacle of the game but relies on volunteers at grass roots.

 

[Slab]

When you say ‘them’, you actually mean ‘you’ as the clubs get their money from members. What more do you think the clubs expect?

I’m also interested what more information people want to have than is already gathered and how this information should be treated differently.

I fully understand people’s gripes with the outcome and changes of course could be made to the various parameters to, for example, increase the impact of obstacles and decrease the impact of length but this is a base system issue not an information or process problem.

I'm not for a minute saying the result of a course rating will be 'better' with paid staff over volunteers. Just that those doing it should be paid

 

[rulefan]

Do counties with fewer courses help other countries that have longer lists out with rating ?

Yes, especially in the early days when the pressure was on to get all courses rated before WHS came in. But I have heard that bigger counties with more experienced teams have assisted others with fewer volunteers.
Re-rating is very much an ongoing task regardless of the 10 year requirement but often doesn't need a full team.

 

[clubchamp98]

When you say ‘them’, you actually mean ‘you’ as the clubs get their money from members. What more do you think the clubs expect?

I’m also interested what more information people want to have than is already gathered and how this information should be treated differently.

I fully understand people’s gripes with the outcome and changes of course could be made to the various parameters to, for example, increase the impact of obstacles and decrease the impact of length but this is a base system issue not an information or process problem.

One thing a lad asked at ours was why don’t the measurements get put on the notice board in the form of a course planner.

This would explain a lot to anyone who was interested .
Could help us understand it more with a bit of background information.
Cost would be a factor
But I thought it was a great idea
Is this feasible in your opinion.?

 

[rulefan]

But maybe a few experts to oversee any complaints by clubs that the rating are not correct.

The national unions usually do that but the county's rating manager/co-ordinator would be involved. They are the experts.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes agree.
But maybe a few experts to oversee any complaints by clubs that the rating are not correct.

I'm pretty sure that within England Golf, there are experts in course ratings? After all, who trains all the volunteers in how to make the measurements in the first place.

If a golf club is not happy with their own ratings, surely they can contact the authorities to look into it / add clarity???

 

[Swango1980]

As @clubchamp98 says and in addition, if its important enough then yes there should be a sufficiently big enough pot of cash for it to be done

Well, if us golfers want to pay for it, then we should demand it. I'm sure we'd all be happy to increase our affiliation fees...

 

[rulefan]

One thing a lad asked at ours was why don’t the measurements get put on the notice board in the form of a course planner.

This would explain a lot to anyone who was interested .
Could help us understand it more with a bit of background information.
Cost would be a factor
But I thought it was a great idea
Is this feasible in your opinion.?

Not sure what measurements would be useful.
Normal cut length of green as opposed to today's
Stimp readings
Face height of all greenside bunkers
Proportion of each green protected by bunkers
Length of rough (normal and today)
Distance from fairway to PA/OB/trees
etc

 

[Slab]

Well, if us golfers want to pay for it, then we should demand it. I'm sure we'd all be happy to increase our affiliation fees...

I dunno the full breakdown of what a membership fee or green fee is spent on but I'd wager there's some very random stuff in there
Getting the course rated seems like a worthwhile task

 

[rulefan]

These may be useful although short on detail. The last one is probably the best.

How a golf hole is rated, explained by a USGA course-rating expert

How does the USGA assign course ratings and slopes to golf courses? We had an expert take us through one iconic golf hole step by step.

golf.com

World Handicap System explained: How much do you know about course ratings?

Jonathan Ward is England Golf’s course rating coordinator. We asked him to explain all about this pivotal aspect of the World Handicap System

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

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

 

[Swango1980]

I dunno the full breakdown of what a membership fee or green fee is spent on but I'd wager there's some very random stuff in there
Getting the course rated seems like a worthwhile task

But, courses already get rated. And, apart from a few complaints from golfers who don't actually understand the process, let alone the theory and research that went behind it, I suspect most golfers are perfectly happy with the ratings (or, in most cases, don't really care). So, is it worth spending a lot of money on something that probably isn't really a problem?

Whatever the authorities spend money on in golf, I'm sure it is all fairly well considered. If someone suggested "lets pay people to measure course ratings rather than seek volunteers", I can imagine that would be quickly dismissed. After all, is paying people going to make them take measurements better? It's probably quite a harsh criticism of the volunteers, suggesting they can't do the job properly because they are not paid. The fact they volunteer would suggest to me they are enthusiastic enough to actually want to do the job, and so they would be more than capable of doing so.

 

[D-S]

One thing a lad asked at ours was why don’t the measurements get put on the notice board in the form of a course planner.

This would explain a lot to anyone who was interested .
Could help us understand it more with a bit of background information.
Cost would be a factor
But I thought it was a great idea
Is this feasible in your opinion.?

Well, I suppose you could publish the form filled in by the club on green speeds and heights of cut and frequency of fairways, semi and rough which covers the whole course but members probably know/experience this anyway.
You could also publish the sheet per hole per tee which would show all the details for the bogey golfer landing zone, roll (dependent on elevation and slope) from there all the distances to bunkers, trees, OB, extreme rough, whether trees or camber will exacerbate or impede roll to these obstacles.
Then the same information for the scratch golfer landing zone.
Then the same information again covering the landing zone for the bogey golfer second shot (if he can’t reach the green).
It would also show the trees are rated on that hole for difficulty/density, the depth of bunkers, proportion of green surrounded by bunkers, size and severity of the green, distance from green to extreme rough, OB plus quite a few other measures that I have probably forgotten. Of course for par 5s there is more information and for 3s less.
This would be for the course we rated on Wednesday (5 tees per hole for men) 90 sheets and 3 tees for women which would be another 54 sheets. So I guess this could be done but it would be 144 A4 sheets of detailed information which I would guess would only be of interest to a tiny fraction of the membership.

 

[clubchamp98]

These may be useful although short on detail. The last one is probably the best.

How a golf hole is rated, explained by a USGA course-rating expert

How does the USGA assign course ratings and slopes to golf courses? We had an expert take us through one iconic golf hole step by step.

golf.com

World Handicap System explained: How much do you know about course ratings?

Jonathan Ward is England Golf’s course rating coordinator. We asked him to explain all about this pivotal aspect of the World Handicap System

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

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

Just read the last one .
Quite good thanks.

The biggest thing for me off the tee is the shape of the hole.
I fade the ball and find right to left doglegs a nightmare off the tee.

 

[clubchamp98]

But, courses already get rated. And, apart from a few complaints from golfers who don't actually understand the process, let alone the theory and research that went behind it, I suspect most golfers are perfectly happy with the ratings (or, in most cases, don't really care). So, is it worth spending a lot of money on something that probably isn't really a problem?

Whatever the authorities spend money on in golf, I'm sure it is all fairly well considered. If someone suggested "lets pay people to measure course ratings rather than seek volunteers", I can imagine that would be quickly dismissed. After all, is paying people going to make them take measurements better? It's probably quite a harsh criticism of the volunteers, suggesting they can't do the job properly because they are not paid. The fact they volunteer would suggest to me they are enthusiastic enough to actually want to do the job, and so they would be more than capable of doing so.

Yes payment hasn’t improved PL referees