Course Rating

[Deleted member 21784]

A different point,

Slope is yellows 112 whites 111 blacks 120

However when you break it down to front and back 9

Front y 116 w 112 b 123
Back y 107 w 110 b 116

Now both yellow and blacks agree the back is a lot "easier" for that bogey golfer.. but apparently not off the whites?

All the members would agree the back 9 is a lot more forgiving than the front ..

Another question to the slope rating

On a side note the blacks are the only tees that have a rating that reflects anywhere near the level should be.. 120.. (still low) it's cr is 74.3.. but apparently not that difficult for the old bogey golfer with that lower slope.

Now nothing would be even question about these ratings if not for courses nearby.. if top meadow had a day 110 rating then it wouldn't stand out as fishy

 

[doublebogey7]

Yes if you draw the ball or fade the ball any course might play hard or easy.

Rating will suit some but not suit others.

If said before “ I find our yellows more difficult than the whites”
Even though I get two more shots on the white I can’t reach most of the bunkers but can off the yellow.
Shorter isn’t always easier.

A different point,

Slope is yellows 112 whites 111 blacks 120

However when you break it down to front and back 9

Front y 116 w 112 b 123
Back y 107 w 110 b 116

Now both yellow and blacks agree the back is a lot "easier" for that bogey golfer.. but apparently not off the whites?

All the members would agree the back 9 is a lot more forgiving than the front ..

Another question to the slope rating

On a side note the blacks are the only tees that have a rating that reflects anywhere near the level should be.. 120.. (still low) it's cr is 74.3.. but apparently not that difficult for the old bogey golfer with that lower slope.

Now nothing would be even question about these ratings if not for courses nearby.. if top meadow had a day 110 rating then it wouldn't stand out as fishy

You still don't appear to get it, the CR is 2.3 over par for both the scratch & the bogey player, making it a relatively difficult course for both type of player compared to a course with a CR of par. The slope represents the relative difficulty for scratch player compared to a bogey player, at your course that is low compared to Top Meadow, but the overall difficulty is high compared to that course.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You still don't appear to get it, the CR is 2.3 over par for both the scratch & the bogey player, making it a relatively difficult course for both type of player compared to a course with a CR of par. The slope represents the relative difficulty for scratch player compared to a bogey player, at your course that is low compared to Top Meadow, but the overall difficulty is high compared to that course.

It's not tho is it. 111 is not reflecting the difficulty faced for a bogey golfer

Again another approach. The use of slope to work out score diff is flawed. By all means allow it to be used for course handicap but by using 113/ sr to calculate the score diff adds a flaw ..

If you read through my examples where traveling away from a tougher courses to easier courses (based on course rating) I'm getting more shots and all the score diff are worth more because the slope being involved

 

[cliveb]

Wow, this thread has exploded into activity.

Nearly all of the complaints about "dodgy" CR and BR are about how various hazards don't seem to be taken into consideration.
As has been explained by those in the know, hazards are indeed considered.

BUT... as I've pointed out before, the CR is overwhelmingly based on length.
(See the graph I posted in #145).
My personal take from this is that hazards are not given sufficient weight. Especially for bogey golfers, who routinely end up nowhere near the expected landing area. That is the root cause of why so many BRs are unreasonably low for short but tricky courses.

 

[Swango1980]

It's not tho is it. 111 is not reflecting the difficulty faced for a bogey golfer

Again another approach. The use of slope to work out score diff is flawed. By all means allow it to be used for course handicap but by using 113/ sr to calculate the score diff adds a flaw ..

If you read through my examples where traveling away from a tougher courses to easier courses (based on course rating) I'm getting more shots and all the score diff are worth more because the slope being involved

You are not understanding the difference between absolute and relative difficulty. I don't think you'll ever grasp it, hence this debate will essentially be endless and pointless.

We could have the world's leading expert on handicapping come in here and explain why our logic is flawed, and you'd still insist they are wrong.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You are not understanding the difference between absolute and relative difficulty. I don't think you'll ever grasp it, hence this debate will essentially be endless and pointless.

We could have the world's leading expert on handicapping come in here and explain why our logic is flawed, and you'd still insist they are wrong.

Any need? No.

I invite anyone defending the ratings to come play and then you will see the rating is incorrect

I have also posted a video of the course that nobody has bother to watch to give a visual explanation of the course.

So instead of trying to be condescending why not take the time to actually view all the evidence I am presenting.

Rather than "computer says no"

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Wow, this thread has exploded into activity.

Nearly all of the complaints about "dodgy" CR and BR are about how various hazards don't seem to be taken into consideration.
As has been explained by those in the know, hazards are indeed considered.

BUT... as I've pointed out before, the CR is overwhelmingly based on length.
(See the graph I posted in #145).
My personal take from this is that hazards are not given sufficient weight. Especially for bogey golfers, who routinely end up nowhere near the expected landing area. That is the root cause of why so many BRs are unreasonably low for short but tricky courses.

Thank you clive. Another voice of reason

The "bogey golfer" definition doesn't provide a good reflection of a bogey golfer "normally short but straight off the tee" was thrown about. Well that's not true is it..you see all kinds of bogey golfers. Some who have distance but can't control it, some who are short but straight and some who are just average ...

Considering the complaints that have been thrown at whs (which I have been a huge fan of) people still don't seem to want to listen to people who have taken the time to read into whs and ratings instead of just moaning and finding it inconsistent and flawed but apparently it's right because the manual says so

Maybe the manual is flawed? I mean it's all made up isn't it... Somebody sat down and made it all up. What's to say it's correct

 

[Swango1980]

Any need? No.

I invite anyone defending the ratings to come play and then you will see the rating is incorrect

I have also posted a video of the course that nobody has bother to watch to give a visual explanation of the course.

So instead of trying to be condescending why not take the time to actually view all the evidence I am presenting.

Rather than "computer says no"

You are being condescending to many of those who have taken the effort to explain things to you. You'll dismiss everyone until they go and play the course, and even then I suspect you'd dismiss them anyway if they still don't agree?

I was simply saying that you keep talking about absolute difficulty and Slope, which is flawed anyway.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You are being condescending to many of those who have taken the effort to explain things to you. You'll dismiss everyone until they go and play the course, and even then I suspect you'd dismiss them anyway if they still don't agree?

I was simply saying that you keep talking about absolute difficulty and Slope, which is flawed anyway.

Until somebody plays the course the issue can't be fully understood though,because it's just being based on the "manual" it's not being based on the course in front

Watch the video.

 

[Neilds]

Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

Yawn, Yawn.

Give it up before someone loses the will to live and keels over with intense boredom!

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

Yawn, Yawn.

Give it up before someone loses the will to live and keels over with intense boredom!

Can always not read it?

 

[Swango1980]

Until somebody plays the course the issue can't be fully understood though,because it's just being based on the "manual" it's not being based on the course in front

Watch the video.

I'm not rating it for you. And, like you, I have not been trained in Rating courses, let alone having any involvement in deriving the mathematical process. Send it to England Golf, or get your Club to, and see what they say. Although, didn't you do that and the experts came up with the reverse of what you thought?

My involvement had been to describe courses from my experience that are much harder than others I know, yet they have a lower slope, and how it makes sense. A course can be harder AND have a low slope. Even at my own course, the white tees are clearly harder than yellow, have higher CR and BR, yet the whites have a lower slope. All makes sense. Despite having a lower slope, shooting the same gross score at both courses will still result in a lower score diff off whites, as expected

 

[Swango1980]

Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

Yawn, Yawn.

Give it up before someone loses the will to live and keels over with intense boredom!

Too late, you are the first victim

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I'm not rating it for you. And, like you, I have not been trained in Rating courses, let alone having any involvement in deriving the mathematical process. Send it to England Golf, or get your Club to, and see what they say. Although, didn't you do that and the experts came up with the reverse of what you thought?

My involvement had been to describe courses from my experience that are much harder than others I know, yet they have a lower slope, and how it makes sense. A course can be harder AND have a low slope. Even at my own course, the white tees are clearly harder than yellow, have higher CR and BR, yet the whites have a lower slope. All makes sense. Despite having a lower slope, shooting the same gross score at both courses will still result in a higher score diff off whites, as expected

Your last point here doesn't make sense. If the whites are harder why would the same gross give you a higher score diff? So just for example

Say you shot 90 on both

Yellows it's worth let's say 18 and white 19 on the score diff .. just to keep simple

Why would it make sense that the harder tees shooting the 90 (which would be harder) would be worth less to your handicap than the easier tee?

 

[Swango1980]

Your last point here doesn't make sense. If the whites are harder why would the same gross give you a higher score diff? So just for example

Say you shot 90 on both

Yellows it's worth let's say 18 and white 19 on the score diff .. just to keep simple

Why would it make sense that the harder tees shooting the 90 (which would be harder) would be worth less to your handicap than the easier tee?

You're right, it doesn't make sense. I was careless, edited it.

 

[Imurg]

I don't really get what you want.....
The course has been rated..twice....by people who know how to rate courses.
Both times the rating/slope has come e out lower than the rating/slope you want....
As all courses are rated using the same process your imp,cation is that every course has been incorrectly rated.....do you honestly believe that?
If you do then I wouldn't waste time on here...I'd be on to the Authorities to get them to come back and rate it again...
And it'll probably be no different...

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You're right, it doesn't make sense. I was careless, edited it.

Thank you. Now makes sense. However the issue then becomes because slope is defined in the score diff then you have a flaw in the system.. because yes if playing at the same course it works but playing away it doesn't fully. You go to those other courses with higher slopes and suddenly it's a lower score diff because of the rating

So what I'm really saying is whilst the slope may be correct , using it to determine your score diff adds a layer of incorrect data.

Every single season my handicap gets cut and my 8 best rounds include whatever courses I've played on a society because their slope is higher.

That's what I'm saying the slope being used to calculate your score diff is flawed

I don't really get what you want.....
The course has been rated..twice....by people who know how to rate courses.
Both times the rating/slope has come e out lower than the rating/slope you want....
As all courses are rated using the same process your imp,cation is that every course has been incorrectly rated.....do you honestly believe that?
If you do then I wouldn't waste time on here...I'd be on to the Authorities to get them to come back and rate it again...
And it'll probably be no different...

Once they have re rated they won't return for 5 years . Was only done last year

As said above the issue is using it to calculate the score diff

Also there could be the case that the other courses have been rated too high but never questioned it so if they returned would probably be lowered ...

 

[D-S]

Thank you. Now makes sense. However the issue then becomes because slope is defined in the score diff then you have a flaw in the system.. because yes if playing at the same course it works but playing away it doesn't fully. You go to those other courses with higher slopes and suddenly it's a lower score diff because of the rating

So what I'm really saying is whilst the slope may be correct , using it to determine your score diff adds a layer of incorrect data.

Every single season my handicap gets cut and my 8 best rounds include whatever courses I've played on a society because their slope is higher.

That's what I'm saying the slope being used to calculate your score diff is flawed




Once they have re rated they won't return for 5 years . Was only done last year

As said above the issue is using it to calculate the score diff

Two final points.
1 - 5 years is a bit optimistic, courses need to be rated every 10 years. Due to the need to get them all done pre WHS and not wanting to have to rate all the courses again in a short period of time, some courses have been rated the first two times in quickish succession. I would expect the next regular rating to be much closer to 10 years since the last one.

2 - Slope has a a lower impact the lower the Handicap Index, so my advice would be, in the words of Rory, - Play Better.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Two final points.
1 - 5 years is a bit optimistic, courses need to be rated every 10 years. Due to the need to get them all done pre WHS and not wanting to have to rate all the courses again in a short period of time, some courses have been rated the first two times in quickish succession. I would expect the next regular rating to be much closer to 10 years since the last one.

2 - Slope has a a lower impact the lower the Handicap Index, so my advice would be, in the words of Rory, - Play Better.

5 years was when we can request it again I believe , regular ratings understand will be lower

2 is the point tho. Without constantly breaking 90 I can't get that lower index but I can just go play top meadow. Hit 93/94 and be off 18 within a month

 

[rulefan]

PJ87

You seem to be making the wrong comparison. You are comparing CR with Slope but the key is really the Bogey Rating (BR) itself.
Compare all your club's scratch players' gross scores with the CR. Compare all your club's bogey players' gross scores with the BR.
Slope is simply a scaling device to enable the handicap system to work for players with any handicap.