New course rating

[Old Skier]

I actually met one of the assessors from Derbyshire County golf who did our course and he said the course rating would change.

Having been done and have a member of the Devon team at our club it's almost certain that all courses will change.

 

[AussieKB]

I am a firm believer that you make the rater play the course first......when he has 30 points maybe he will agree it is harder then the existing rating.

 

[D-S]

Having been done and have a member of the Devon team at our club it's almost certain that all courses will change.

Thankfully we will be doing away with ratings boards then.

 

[Old Skier]

I am a firm believer that you make the rater play the course first......when he has 30 points maybe he will agree it is harder then the existing rating.

They are volunteers and they can’t get enough as it is. Some counties have none and are still waiting to be done. I feel that at a minimum is for the raters to take hole by hole information into account.

 

[wjemather]

I am a firm believer that you make the rater play the course first......when he has 30 points maybe he will agree it is harder then the existing rating.

Ratings based on how a team of amateur golfers play on any given day is a terrible idea.

 

[Old Skier]

Thankfully we will be doing away with ratings boards then.

Be up to individual clubs but I think they are for most golfers not required as they can get the info from the app.

 

[wjemather]

Almost all course ratings will change slightly whenever re-rating happens due to many factors, including changes in the rating system since the previous rating, and courses themselves evolving over time and/or setups changing.

 

[AussieKB]

They are volunteers and they can’t get enough as it is. Some counties have none and are still waiting to be done. I feel that at a minimum is for the raters to take hole by hole information into account.

We have had the system for years and when a second rating is done, it's done by a paid Australian employee, and they arrive with the original rating notes and are amazed at what is left off, not blaming the volunteer, but it is was a rushed to implement the so called World Handicap System.

I have friend who is GM at a top 50 course in England who played off a 12 handicap, now plays off 20, told him that when I come over next year he is not getting 14-16 shots off me.

 

[wjemather]

We have had the system for years and when a second rating is done, it's done by a paid Australian employee, and they arrive with the original rating notes and are amazed at what is left off, not blaming the volunteer, but it is was a rushed to implement the so called World Handicap System.

Ratings are done by teams, not individuals, for good reason.

 

[AussieKB]

Ratings are done by teams, not individuals, for good reason.

We were rushed as the superficial scapegoat so the flaws in the system would not be there for you, how has that worked out ?

 

[wjemather]

We were rushed as the superficial scapegoat so the flaws in the system would not be there for you, how has that worked out ?

This isn't true.

The USGA Course Rating system was in use for years before it reached Australia.

Also, I think it's apparent that you are confusing the old GA customised version of the USGA handicap system with WHS - perhaps because of it's fundamental similarities.

 

[Old Skier]

Ratings are done by teams, not individuals, for good reason.

The team help but the assessor is the one making the final decision. My member of the team was amazed that the lead member took no account of his input.
I think this will always be an issue with volunteers and the ability of different leads.

 

[wjemather]

The team help but the assessor is the one making the final decision. My member of the team was amazed that the lead member took no account of his input.
I think this will always be an issue with volunteers and the ability of different leads.

Our team and process is not like this. Input is from everyone, guided by team leaders. My input has certainly never been ignored.
Once completed, all forms are submitted and final decisions on ratings are made by the national (EG) rating team.

 

[NearHull]

I have assisted at a handful of ratings. The vast majority of the rating is ‘factual’. Ie data collected by measurement, perhaps as much as 95%. Opinion and/or interpretation comes in only very occasionally. If the course has not been altered significantly then the second rating is not going change the original CR, nor slope, by any significant amount - unless, of course, there has been some measurement or recording errors.
The rating could almost be carried out by a non- golfer.

 

[D-S]

The team help but the assessor is the one making the final decision. My member of the team was amazed that the lead member took no account of his input.
I think this will always be an issue with volunteers and the ability of different leads.

Certainly not my experience, everyone is listened to and there is often a healthy debate and I can’t remember any fundamental disagreements with all views taken into account.

 

[Swango1980]

I am a firm believer that you make the rater play the course first......when he has 30 points maybe he will agree it is harder then the existing rating.

I could play a course one day and end up with a rating of 150 based on how I played. I could then go out the next week and end up with a rating of 120 based on how I played.

As a drawer of ball I'd give higher ratings to courses that favour a fader and vice versa

 

[rulefan]

The team help but the assessor is the one making the final decision. My member of the team was amazed that the lead member took no account of his input.
I think this will always be an issue with volunteers and the ability of different leads.

It seems the team member misunderstands the process. It has nothing to do with opinions. It is virtually all about measuring and recording. The team members simply measure things like depth of bunkers, PAs etc, their position in relation to the target area, green speed, fairway gradient and many other relevant items. The team leader records the data and later, off course, evaluates the records using tables of fixed criteria.

 

[rulefan]

I feel that at a minimum is for the raters to take hole by hole information into account.

That is how rating is done.

 

[rulefan]

Our team and process is not like this. Input is from everyone, guided by team leaders. My input has certainly never been ignored.
Once completed, all forms are submitted and final decisions on ratings are made by the national (EG) rating team.

I would suggest there are very few areas where there are different views. The depth of a greenside bunker or the proximity of a PA is factual.
Given that all team members must be experienced and therefore should have a pretty consistent view of things like eg 'lay-ups' (forced or by choice) or 'Chutes', the significance of a difference in CR is likely to be miniscule.

 

[Backsticks]

Certainly not my experience, everyone is listened to and there is often a healthy debate and I can’t remember any fundamental disagreements with all views taken into account.

Its a very opinion based rating, and subject to opinion, debating skills, and strength of character of the individuals making the rating. Far from a solid objective evaluation.