Course ratings

[rulefan]

Add to this the assessors aren't normally members of the club and hence their experience of the playing conditions is limited.

The raters must not be members of the club being rated. Experience of the playing conditions or how the course is played by members is not part of the assessment. Everything is objective. Wind speed (and prevailing direction) is taken from local weather stations or other reliable sources. If a club claims it is a windy course they are asked to provide data.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The raters must not be members of the club being rated. Experience of the playing conditions or how the course is played by members is not part of the assessment. Everything is objective. Wind speed (and prevailing direction) is taken from local weather stations or other reliable sources. If a club claims it is a windy course they are asked to provide data.

OK I give in.

I'm sure the issue is how the question is asked. I doubt the person being asked realises the implication of the question being asked and this can lead to differing results. As a simple example - I know my course manager was asked by the team "what tees do your Ladies and Men play off?" He answered according to our SSS rating. We are now trying to retrospectively get our yellow tees rated for Ladies and our Reds for Men. If he had been asked which tees he wanted to be rated for Men and Ladies and the implications explained he MAY have given a different answer.

I am old enough to remember a famous Yes Minister episode where Sir Humphrey demonstrated how subtly phrasing the questions in a survey could give a completely different result. I think we are often in the same area with some of these discussions. I know what the book says and I'm sure everybody follows the process but I don't believe you always get to the same answer.

 

[rulefan]

I know my course manager was asked by the team "what tees do your Ladies and Men play off?"

Very remiss of the team leader. My teams were told to discuss the potential use of all tees, particularly red or yellow for either gender. But I heard that some of those counties that were under pressure to get through all their courses didn't positively encourage clubs to have the reds rated for men as their teams simply hadn't got the resources.
My club didn't originally ask for the short ladies tees (green) to be rated for men but have just changed their mind and have been a two year temporary rating/slope so that boys can get a handicap.
I'm no longer involved but I think we have about 20 outstanding. They have temp ratings until spring next year.

 

[Imurg]

If courses/tees have temporary ratings/slope values and, when they are rated, those values change...will that affect handicap indices?

 

[wjemather]

If courses/tees have temporary ratings/slope values and, when they are rated, those values change...will that affect handicap indices?

Assuming any new official ratings are backdated (I don't know why they wouldn't be, unless the course/tees had been changed), yes, all affected differentials will be recalculated, which in turn will affect Handicap Indexes. The effect would be the same as we had when EG were making corrections throughout November and December last year.

 

[jim8flog]

If courses/tees have temporary ratings/slope values and, when they are rated, those values change...will that affect handicap indices?

Before it all came in a lot of our winter comps were played on the short course. They failed to pick this up because we and IG called the course one thing and the Database called it another. When it was pointed out to EG they did nothing about changing all the old scores but made sure all new scores were correct.

 

[wjemather]

Before it all came in a lot of our winter comps were played on the short course. They failed to pick this up because we and IG called the course one thing and the Database called it another. When it was pointed out to EG they did nothing about changing all the old scores but made sure all new scores were correct.

EG re-mapped all of our old scores onto the correct tee markers and after three attempts, they eventually got it right!

 

[rulefan]

As they did for some of our scores although it was an omission by our manager

 

[tobybarker]

I've yet to play on a course where the strokes I receive differs by more than one from my home course. Unless I am unusual in that, whs seems like a lot of effort and money to achieve not very much for the average club golfer, apart from perhaps smoothing out the progress (in either direction) of their handicap

 

[Rlburnside]

I've yet to play on a course where the strokes I receive differs by more than one from my home course. Unless I am unusual in that, whs seems like a lot of effort and money to achieve not very much for the average club golfer, apart from perhaps smoothing out the progress (in either direction) of their handicap

One very good thing to come out of the new system for me is being able to put general play rounds in for h/c, something I’m starting to use a lot.

Also it’s very simple to use.

 

[MadAdey]

From being in the US for 7 years now I have got my head around all of this slope and rating crap. The slope is a line on a graph that shows the difference between the expected score of a scratch player and an 18 handicapper. The problems on a course that will effect an average scratch player is different to an 18 handicapper. For example fairway bunkers at 270 yards are more likely to be a problem for a scratch player than an 18 handicapper. Or maybe a longish par 4 with water at the front of the green, the average scratch player has the skill and distance to carry it and hit the green, the average 18 handicapper will probably have to lay up. So basically you can have a course that is shorter than another one, but the average scratch player is expected to score the same with relation to handicap as an average 18 handicapper.

 

[Swango1980]

One very good thing to come out of the new system for me is being able to put general play rounds in for h/c, something I’m starting to use a lot.

Also it’s very simple to use.

To be fair, if that is the one good thing to come out of the system (I know there will be more), then they could have easily made it just as easy for golfers to submit general play rounds under the system pre WHS.

 

[AAC]

To be fair, if that is the one good thing to come out of the system (I know there will be more), then they could have easily made it just as easy for golfers to submit general play rounds under the system pre WHS.

Some years ago you could submit casual rounds for h/cap adjustment, so nothing new there.

 

[Swango1980]

Some years ago you could submit casual rounds for h/cap adjustment, so nothing new there.

Absolutely. The only difference now is that players can enter their scores at will using the ISVs or MyEG (or I guess Scottish App), and the score immediately goes to handicap. Pre WHS, every score had to be verified by Committee before it touched a players record. Technically, they could still submit all their scores (unless they were Cat 1), but it wasn't well publicised or requested (some clubs even charged players for each round submitted). But, all the tech could have been upgraded to as it is now, and allowed players to submit their scores easily under the old CONGU handicapping system.

 

[jim8flog]

To be fair, if that is the one good thing to come out of the system (I know there will be more), then they could have easily made it just as easy for golfers to submit general play rounds under the system pre WHS.

Edited just seen your post #34

The ability to put in scores from non comp rounds has been in place for years (Supplementary Scores) unless your handicap was 5 or under. We just used to use sign the book and give the card to the office.

All that has changed is that all payers can now submit scores and Apps and ISVS which has reduced office functions. Also the education of players that they can now do this, prior to 2020 we did not get many players submitting Supp Scores until we started a major campaign to get players to do this.

 

[Swango1980]

Edited just seen your post #34

The ability to put in scores from non comp rounds has been in place for years (Supplementary Scores) unless your handicap was 5 or under. We just used to use sign the book and give the card to the office.

All that has changed is that all payers can now submit scores and Apps and ISVS which has reduced office functions. Also the education of players that they can now do this, prior to 2020 we did not get many players submitting Supp Scores until we started a major campaign to get players to do this.

Fully agree. This is why I responded in the way I did. If players praise WHS purely because of the fact that they can submit general play scores so easily, then they should be aware this is nothing really to do with WHS itself. WHS simply provided a catalyst for handicap authorities / ISVs to update the technology to make submission easier for players.

 

[Rlburnside]

To be fair, if that is the one good thing to come out of the system (I know there will be more), then they could have easily made it just as easy for golfers to submit general play rounds under the system pre WHS.

To submit general play rounds with the new system is only part of the change which I find useful, I’m not commenting if the new system is better or worse than the old system, it is what it is and we will all get used to it given time.

I know all about the old supplementary system but ours is a very small club and no one was interested in putting supplementary scores in , the person at that time was not interested in processing supplementary scores, wrong I know and when I wanted to put a score in i was ignored.

Hence why I like the new system of entering general play rounds.