CR and Slope - are some courses harder than others? And other course difficulty discussion

[sjw]

Question on this. I play at three or four local courses quite regularly and everyone that plays them agrees that the ratings aren’t right in terms of one of them being assessed as easier than the others when it’s actually the opposite by a significant margin.

How are reassessments done? Given the systems been in place for a while now, surely there’s a wealth of real world data that can now be used?

Can we see the ratings for the courses in question?

 

[Jason.H]

I sometimes think my home course should have a lower rating but the long standing -4 course record says otherwise.
We don’t play off mixed tees that would complicate things more.

 

[IanM]

I sometimes think my home course should have a lower rating but the long standing -4 course record says otherwise.

That's a function of who plays there, rather than the rating l!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Without CR-Par as part of the calculation, Course and Playing Handicaps do not account for Course Rating at all, only Slope.

When CR-Par is part of the CH calculation, no adjustment is required for Stableford and Par/Bogey, but an adjustment is still required for regular stroke play (medal) & match play (because par is irrelevant in these formats).

I think I get what you’ve explained though I’m going to have to have a good think about why my CH is in no way influenced by course difficulty as indicated by CR. But I will get there

Anyway…just to confirm as I was having the debate on the first tee on Saturday. When a balancing adjustment is appropriate then that is made AFTER a player‘s PH for the playing format is determined. My playing companion playing off forward tees seemed to be insisting that it came off his CH…indeed maybe even off his HI.

And an aside. I am fearing that I might not be able to control myself if, when I ask for a player’s CH to determine his PH (as he doesn’t know his PH for the format we are playing) someone once again replies with his HI. Aaarghhh!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I sometimes think my home course should have a lower rating but the long standing -4 course record says otherwise.
We don’t play off mixed tees that would complicate things more.

I might suggest that your home track isn’t that easy…well it wasn’t for me

 

[sjw]

I think I get what you’ve explained though I’m going to have to have a good think about why my CH is in no way influenced by course difficulty as indicated by CR. But I will get there

Anyway…just to confirm as I was having the debate on the first tee on Saturday. When a balancing adjustment is appropriate then that is made AFTER a player‘s PH for the playing format is determined. My playing companion playing off forward tees seemed to be insisting that it came off his CH…indeed maybe even off his HI.

And an aside. I am fearing that I might not be able to control myself if, when I ask for a player’s CH to determine his PH (as he doesn’t know his PH for the format we are playing) someone once again replies with his HI. Aaarghhh!

It's simply that the calculation is CH = HI * Slope/113. Notice that there is no CR in that formula, so it can't possibly influence CH

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's simply that the calculation is CH = HI * Slope/113. Notice that there is no CR in that formula, so it can't possibly influence CH

But course difficulty as defined by it‘s CR is implicit in CH, as CR determines my differentials and hence my HI and my HI determines my CH.

Anyway…I think I‘ve now sorted it out. If I only played forward tees and shot 82 all the time my CH would be 12. Shooting 82s off our back tees my CH would be 10. I am the same player shooting the same score against the same par off both tees, so for my scores to be equitable I have to have a balancing adjustment to my forward tee PH of 2, which is what we have.

 

[BridgfordBlue]

On what basis does "everyone" say the ratings are incorrect, and which do they believe to be wrong - Course Rating or Slope?

Ratings are done by measurement, with reference to the distances hit by standard scratch and bogey handicap golfers; there is a little judgement involved but not enough to significantly affect the resultant ratings.

As in the course that has a lower slope rating is in reality is much harder to shoot a decent score on.

What I was checking is since when they did the initial assessments of the course and slope ratings, is any further reassessment done? I thought there was a load of criteria they used to assess courses to come up with both the course and bogey ratings, whereas I’d have thought now surely there’s shedloads of real life playing data of what certain handicap players actually shoot round those courses, and just wondered if they’re used at all.

 

[wjemather]

As in the course that has a lower slope rating is in reality is much harder to shoot a decent score on.

What I was checking is since when they did the initial assessments of the course and slope ratings, is any further reassessment done? I thought there was a load of criteria they used to assess courses to come up with both the course and bogey ratings, whereas I’d have thought now surely there’s shedloads of real life playing data of what certain handicap players actually shoot round those courses, and just wondered if they’re used at all.

Slope Rating is only a measure of difficulty for the model bogey golfer relative to the model scratch golfer - it will only tell you how much more difficult (or easy) a course is for a higher handicapper than a lower handicapper. 113 is standard relative difficulty, i.e. equally difficult for all golfers; higher ratings are more difficult for higher handicappers than lower handicappers, lower ratings are less difficult.

The measure of absolute difficulty (with reference to the model scratch golfer) is the Course Rating; it can be thought of as the score that the model scratch golfer would be expected to achieve when scoring well.

Re-rating must be done every ten years as a minimum, or whenever significant changes are made to the course or how it is setup. The main factor in rating is length, which is measured independently of the rating but is checked for anomalies; pretty much every other factor you could think of is measured during a rating visit (except for wind, which is taken from weather statistics). Real world scores are not used for rating.

 

[BridgfordBlue]

Slope Rating is only a measure of difficulty for the model bogey golfer relative to the model scratch golfer - it will only tell you how much more difficult (or easy) a course is for a higher handicapper than a lower handicapper. 113 is standard relative difficulty, i.e. equally difficult for all golfers; higher ratings are more difficult for higher handicappers than lower handicappers, lower ratings are less difficult.

The measure of absolute difficulty (with reference to the model scratch golfer) is the Course Rating; it can be thought of as the score that the model scratch golfer would be expected to achieve when scoring well.

Re-rating must be done every ten years as a minimum, or whenever significant changes are made to the course or how it is setup. The main factor in rating is length, which is measured independently of the rating but is checked for anomalies; pretty much every other factor you could think of is measured during a rating visit (except for wind, which is taken from weather statistics). Real world scores are not used for rating.

Ok cheers, that’s what I thought. I’m still not sure why they wouldn’t use real world playing data rather than an assessment for either given that exists now though!

 

[rulefan]

Ok cheers, that’s what I thought. I’m still not sure why they wouldn’t use real world playing data rather than an assessment for either given that exists now though!

Not every golfer conforms to a consistent 'model', especially higher handicappers. As scratch and bogey ratings are primarily based on length, the distance to obstacles is very important. Length and consistency are prime contributors to net differentials.
The data collected from raw scores has no concept of how far players actually hit. Possibly historical data may have a contribution but IMO how do you establish a baseline. The only reference is the current HI. But that has been determined from the current course rating process.

 

[BridgfordBlue]

Not every golfer conforms to a consistent 'model', especially higher handicappers. As scratch and bogey ratings are primarily based on length, the distance to obstacles is very important. Length and consistency are prime contributors to net differentials.
The data collected from raw scores has no concept of how far players actually hit. Possibly historical data may have a contribution but IMO how do you establish a baseline. The only reference is the current HI. But that has been determined from the current course rating process.

Right but that would give a better indication for slope rating than an assessment every five or ten years though wouldn’t it?

 

[doublebogey7]

Right but that would give a better indication for slope rating than an assessment every five or ten years though wouldn’t it?

I am not sure data would help very much, as the vast majority of rounds recorded by WHS will be from those playing their home course. This will just provide data that shows the course is as difficult as expected as the handicaps have been calculated from the CR and slope as it is now. To get a more realistic picture you would to have data from thousands of away scores and see how those players fared, compared to home players.

 

[rulefan]

Right but that would give a better indication for slope rating than an assessment every five or ten years though wouldn’t it?

As I understand it, you are suggesting that historical scores should be the basis of handicaps. But how do you know the underlying ability of any of the players by simply looking at gross scores and some (as yet unkown) standard of difficulty of the courses? A mentioned elsewhere, Par is not really a sensible measure and Course Rating would be non existent.
Of course, current CR could be used as a starter but you seem to suggest they are not necessarily reliable.

However, I may have misread you and you are really suggesting that the playing data be used to 'tune' the current rating from time to time. But the practicalities and costs would make it almost impactable. The exercise would have to be done for every player, tee and course combination in the world.
Currently, I would suggest that in addition to known course alterations, (sensible) committees would be aware of the more significant apparently erroneous ratings and would ask for re-rating.

 

[BridgfordBlue]

As I understand it, you are suggesting that historical scores should be the basis of handicaps. But how do you know the underlying ability of any of the players by simply looking at gross scores and some (as yet unkown) standard of difficulty of the courses? A mentioned elsewhere, Par is not really a sensible measure and Course Rating would be non existent.
Of course, current CR could be used as a starter but you seem to suggest they are not necessarily reliable.

However, I may have misread you and you are really suggesting that the playing data be used to 'tune' the current rating from time to time. But the practicalities and costs would make it almost impactable. The exercise would have to be done for every player, tee and course combination in the world.
Currently, I would suggest that in addition to known course alterations, (sensible) committees would be aware of the more significant apparently erroneous ratings and would ask for re-rating.

It was the latter I was thinking of and more for the bogey rating rather than the course rating, I just thought that given they’ll have the data, the averages could be used to spot if there are anomalies in the ratings and take it away from either being a course assessment or anecdotal to something real world, or at least to help them focus on where might need to be reassessed more often.

I get the challenges though. Was just a thought I was having the other day about it all.

 

[rulefan]

It was the latter I was thinking of and more for the bogey rating rather than the course rating, I just thought that given they’ll have the data, the averages could be used to spot if there are anomalies in the ratings and take it away from either being a course assessment or anecdotal to something real world, or at least to help them focus on where might need to be reassessed more often.

I get the challenges though. Was just a thought I was having the other day about it all.

I see what you are getting at but I think that the biggest issue is with the bogey players themselves. Scratch players are pretty consistent in their playing characteristics related to the scratch rating parameters. Longish hitters, consistent short games, competent putters etc. Bogey players are a different matter. As a group they will have very long but erratic hitters and short but steady, and all the other extremes that make 'average' rating almost impossible. I reckon that this is why the tales about outlandish scores always feature high handicappers.

 

[D-S]

I was wondering if some sort of PCC examination might help this issue, as if PCC kicks in far more often at one local course versus the others then it would suggest something is amiss. Admittedly there may well be other factors involved and obviously over time home players’ HIs would adapt. There is the PCC report available for this on the portal.
There is also Course Rating Variation Report available to Counties on the portal but I confess to not knowing how it works (I may have a chat with our local lead rater).

 

[wjemather]

I was wondering if some sort of PCC examination might help this issue, as if PCC kicks in far more often at one local course versus the others then it would suggest something is amiss. Admittedly there may well be other factors involved and obviously over time home players’ HIs would adapt. There is the PCC report available for this on the portal.
There is also Course Rating Variation Report available to Counties on the portal but I confess to not knowing how it works (I may have a chat with our local lead rater).

I suspect the reports are more likely to highlight courses that are significantly diverging from the rated setup than courses where ratings themselves are inaccurate; for example, many courses want maximum yardage on their scorecards and higher ratings (usually for commercial and/or vanity reasons), but routinely have all daily tee markers well in front of the permanent distance markers, sometimes reducing overall length by 100s of yards.

 

[D-S]

I suspect the reports are more likely to highlight courses that are significantly diverging from the rated setup than courses where ratings themselves are inaccurate; for example, many courses want maximum yardage on their scorecards and higher ratings (usually for commercial and/or vanity reasons), but routinely have all daily tee markers well in front of the permanent distance markers, sometimes reducing overall length by 100s of yards.

That’s interesting, if the report does highlight this then there should be a mechanism for taking such courses to task. It is a stipulation and one of the mandatory duties of a handicap committee to have a correctly measured course set up if the tees are to be qualifying.

 

[wjemather]

That’s interesting, if the report does highlight this then there should be a mechanism for taking such courses to task. It is a stipulation and one of the mandatory duties of a handicap committee to have a correctly measured course set up if the tees are to be qualifying.

While possible to theorise based on a report, further evidence would be needed - I'd hope there is a process!
Unfortunately, within a club, commercial/vanity interests of owners/members often get priority.