Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

Since the introduction of Slope in GB&I with WHS, this isn't true.
It also wasn't completely true before 1983.

Slope is not the same as course rating, the course rating hasn't changed except now instead of a rounded SSS we have an exact to one decimal point CR

All else flows from the CR, so it is true, if a course is rated incorrectly then, it still is now, slope is just another layer of fudge to the system

 

[wjemather]

Slope is not the same as course rating, the course rating hasn't changed except now instead of a rounded SSS we have an exact to one decimal point CR

All else flows from the CR, so it is true, if a course is rated incorrectly then, it still is now, slope is just another layer of fudge to the system

Slope is what makes handicaps travel, far more than the extra decimal place of Course Rating.

Other than Bull Bay, I've seen no evidence that any course may be rated incorrectly.

 

[rulefan]

Slope is what makes handicaps travel, far more than the extra decimal place of Course Rating.

Agree

Other than Bull Bay, I've seen no evidence that any course may be rated incorrectly.

I would also agree that Bull Bay is under rated.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Slope is what makes handicaps travel, far more than the extra decimal place of Course Rating.

Other than Bull Bay, I've seen no evidence that any course may be rated incorrectly.

That's the theory, it is of course hogwash in practice as you well know.

And I could roll off a list of incorrectly rated courses, indeed I did so earlier, but you've no knowledge of them so it's pointless

 

[wjemather]

That's the theory, it is of course hogwash in practice as you well know.

And I could roll off a list of incorrectly rated courses, indeed I did so earlier, but you've no knowledge of them so it's pointless

That is also how it works in practice, and it does so quite well.

What is the basis for saying they are incorrectly rated?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

That is also how it works in practice, and it does so quite well.

What is the basis for saying they are incorrectly rated?

Course Rating

thanks, so its immaterial whether the condition is a 40kph wind or 18 hollow tined greens or selected white tee's moved back (for recovery) when yellow tees remain unchanged How does it know what its calculating for ? If golfers are playing in 40kph winds, or the greens especially difficulty...

forums.golfmonthly.com

 

[rulefan]

Course Rating

thanks, so its immaterial whether the condition is a 40kph wind or 18 hollow tined greens or selected white tee's moved back (for recovery) when yellow tees remain unchanged How does it know what its calculating for ? If golfers are playing in 40kph winds, or the greens especially difficulty...

forums.golfmonthly.com

Isn't that part of the function of PCC?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Isn't that part of the function of PCC?

As we know, PCC isn't fit for purpose. It also doesn't affect the underlying issues with incorrectly rated courses

 

[rulefan]

As we know, PCC isn't fit for purpose. It also doesn't affect the underlying issues with incorrectly rated courses

Incidentally, are you a member of or have you volunteered to join a rating team?
How many courses do you know of where an original rating has been faulty and has been corrected? Were they changed because the assessment was wrong or because the paperwork had been incorrectly processed?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Incidentally, are you a member of or have you volunteered to join a rating team?

I already do far more volunteering for my club than I wish to do, not interested in brown nosing SG as well

How many courses do you know of where an original rating has been faulty and has been corrected? Were they changed because the assessment was wrong or because the paperwork had been incorrectly processed?

I don't know, I'm not privy to that information

 

[rulefan]

As we know, PCC isn't fit for purpose. It also doesn't affect the underlying issues with incorrectly rated courses

Neither CSS nor PCC made any reference to actual playing conditions (ie weather or course). Both methods use a statistical analysis of returned scores.

CSS used a comparison of players (within the competition only) by Category related to the category buffer zone.

PCC compares with the expected score of a 'standard' player (from many thousands of returned scores) with the the same Handicap Index. We know that 'expectation' rarely matches 'achievement' and therefore the majority of times a player returns a score it will be higher than their actual Index. As will the expected score of the 'standard' player.

It makes me wonder if CSS overcompensated.

I already do far more volunteering for my club than I wish to do, not interested in brown nosing SG as well



I don't know, I'm not privy to that information

Why do you continue to volunteer?

So the justification for your criticism of PCC and Course Rating is only based on hearsay?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

So the justification for your criticism of PCC and Course Rating is only based on hearsay?

What? You do realise I play golf? Where do you think my opinion comes from?

 

[rulefan]

What? You do realise I play golf? Where do you think my opinion comes from?

You may play golf but do not have access to the information you use to express opinions.

 

[Imurg]

Nobody has access to the PCC information so............

 

[rulefan]

Nobody has access to the PCC information so............

Re CSS: We know exactly what the process was and how the scores were processed.
Re PCC: We do know what the process is and scores are but we don't know what the 'expected' scores are and how the real scores are processed.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Re CSS: We know exactly what the process was and how the scores were processed.
Re PCC: We do know what the process is and scores are but we don't know what the 'expected' scores are and how the real scores are processed.

We absolutely do NOT know the process, Scottish golf refuse to give even a hint of how this worked out.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You may play golf but do not have access to the information you use to express opinions.

I have access to how hard a course is v other courses by playing them, in actual play, not via a set of rules that may not reflect actual play.

Regardless, "hearsay" has nothing to do with it, which was your point. Who was I supposed to be getting this hearsay from?

 

[wjemather]

We absolutely do NOT know the process, Scottish golf refuse to give even a hint of how this worked out.

The process is outlined in the rules. However, a good level of mathematical knowledge is required to recognise and understand it.

 

[wjemather]

I have access to how hard a course is v other courses by playing them, in actual play, not via a set of rules that may not reflect actual play.

Regardless, "hearsay" has nothing to do with it, which was your point. Who was I supposed to be getting this hearsay from?

Real golfers can and do vary enormously from the standard model golfers used to produce the ratings. One individual's perception of what is difficult (or not) from a relatively small sample size is not a reliable benchmark for deciding whether course ratings are accurate. Nor are they a model golfer with the consistency required in order to usefully compare performance across the various courses with respect to the ratings.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The process is outlined in the rules. However, a good level of mathematical knowledge is required to recognise and understand it.

This is nonsense, they are not set out anywhere, CSS was, PCC is a big secret