Percentage of Single Digit Handicap Players.

[clubchamp98]

Looks very much to me like the club changed it's mind about how long they cut the general rough and/or how fast the greens are in order to boost their ratings.

If that was a dishonest representation, all they have succeeded in doing is ensuring their members handicaps will be slightly lower than they should be.

Fwiw, it's clubs being dishonest about their day-to-day setup to get vanity ratings that is the problem, not the system.

Yes always someone else’s fault and not just a crap system that is an opinion of the rater on the day.

Typical answer .

The course was not set up any different as I played it the day before.

 

[wjemather]

Yes always someone else’s fault and not just a crap system that is an opinion of the rater on the day.

Typical answer .

The course was not set up any different as I played it the day before.

Sorry you don't understand how the process works.
These settings are taken from a form completed by the club; variances on the day of the rating are noted but generally the value on the form take precedence. How the course was setup when you played it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As a related aside I note that of 114 playing in the last Saturday medal…54 had PH of 15 and above; 59 had PH of 14 under under. I make of that what I might.

 

[D-S]

As a related aside I note that of 114 playing in the last Saturday medal…54 had PH of 15 and above; 59 had PH of 14 under under. I make of that what I might.

As a comparison with this, of the 113 people playing in our September medal 32 had a PH of 15 + and 81 had a PH of 14 and under. Overall it was won by a player with a HI of 4.2.
Make of that what you will.

 

[nickjdavis]

37 out of 455 men are 9.9 or below
2 out of 44 ladies

 

[upsidedown]

Think we've around 500 men now, 131 are 9.4 and below

 

[Orikoru]

It seems we have around 360 members. There are 13 single figures - unless you're one of those people that counts 9.5. to 9.9 as single figures, in which case there would be 19 single figures. So that's either 3.6% or 5.3% depending on how you feel about that particular issue.

Having said this - anyone off 12 index only gets 9 shots in the next competition, so that makes it 31 off single figures, or 8.6%.

 

[D-S]

133 Women (changed from Ladies section a few years ago) including 27 girls 17 and below.

11 less than 9.9.

4 scratch or better.

22 less than 14.9.

 

[D-S]

Having said this - anyone off 12 index only gets 9 shots in the next competition, so that makes it 31 off single figures, or 8.6%.

On that basis our local par 3 course has lots of single figure players.

Out of curiosity I’ve just checked the rating of Thornbury Par 3 course and it’s par 54 (obviously) CR 52.7 slope 76. Which means a scratch player would ‘lose’ 1 shot but a 30 handicapper would ‘lose’ 11 shots.
Makes you think.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As a comparison with this, of the 113 people playing in our September medal 32 had a PH of 15 + and 81 had a PH of 14 and under. Overall it was won by a player with a HI of 4.2.
Make of that what you will.

Your club’s higher handicappers were less inclined to play in your September medal…well that’s one possibility. The other is of course that your club has proportionally more 14 and under handicappers than over 14 handicappers.

 

[D-S]

Your club’s higher handicappers were less inclined to play in your September medal…well that’s one possibility. The other is of course that your club has proportionally more 14 and under handicappers than over 14 handicappers.

 

[clubchamp98]

Sorry you don't understand how the process works.
These settings are taken from a form completed by the club; variances on the day of the rating are noted but generally the value on the form take precedence. How the course was setup when you played it is utterly irrelevant.

How has the process come up with two different sets of figures.?

Given the course hasn’t changed between ratings days.
So one of them was miles off .

 

[D-S]

How has the process come up with two different sets of figures.?

Given the course hasn’t changed between ratings days.
So one of them was miles off .

Prior to a rating the club has to fill in a form covering various aspects, some of the key ones being average height if cut of differing parts of the course including green speed.
When a rating takes place there are checks that green speeds are approximately correct etc. but dependent on weather conditions and when cuts of various parts of rough take place these can differ.

For example we had a club who said their standard rough height was twice as high than it really was and that their greens ran a lot quicker than they actually did - in order to show themselves off as a tough course. This dramatically affected the ratings as these elements have a distinct bearing on the playability of every hole. They ended up with a rating that was far from reality and (as it was the first ever WHS rating) ended up reducing all members handicaps significantly. All due to wrong information given.
Subsequently they realised their mistake and on rerating a distinct drop in both CR and BR was the result It is now much closer to reality.

 

[clubchamp98]

Prior to a rating the club has to fill in a form covering various aspects, some of the key ones being average height if cut of differing parts of the course including green speed.
When a rating takes place there are checks that green speeds are approximately correct etc. but dependent on weather conditions and when cuts of various parts of rough take place these can differ.

For example we had a club who said their standard rough height was twice as high than it really was and that their greens ran a lot quicker than they actually did - in order to show themselves off as a tough course. This dramatically affected the ratings as these elements have a distinct bearing on the playability of every hole. They ended up with a rating that was far from reality and (as it was the first ever WHS rating) ended up reducing all members handicaps significantly. All due to wrong information given.
Subsequently they realised their mistake and on rerating a distinct drop in both CR and BR was the result It is now much closer to reality.

yes I understand that.

But the course hasn’t changed between ratings days.
So why the big difference.

One set is very wrong.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I was of course stating the absolutely obvious in a misguided and poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek ‘humour’

 

[D-S]

yes I understand that.

But the course hasn’t changed between ratings days.
So why the big difference.

One set is very wrong.

It’s not the rating day unless there have been major changes in fairway width, addition of bunkers or course shortening or lengthening - it has to do with what the course has submitted via the form prior to the rating versus what they declared before.
There will also be some minor changes as the ratings protocols have altered but these aren’t great. There is always the possibility that in the rush to get every course rated prior to November 2020 variations might have occurred with the proficiency of raters but these days education and experience of lead raters and their teams is far better and I would guess that ratings have become ‘better’ and more consistent across courses over time. The more recent the rating the more accurate.

 

[cliveb]

Length is obviously and undeniably the overwhelming factor that affects scoring. It really doesn't need any amateur analysis to confirm that.
Fwiw, perception of the difficulty presented by various course conditions and obstacles is very often exaggerated when compared to their measurable effect on scoring difficulty.

However, you are trying to claim & evidence that other factors are not sufficiently accounted for without actually accounting for those factors at all in your data & analysis. As such, you have offered no evidence at all that these factors (either individually or collectively) affect scoring more (or less) than is accounted for by the rating system. Can you really not see this?

So we are agreed that length is the major factor in CR and that other factors have minimal impact. As I said before, our disagreement is over whether those other factors are sufficiently considered.

The only firm evidence I can envisage to support my belief would be to find someone who regularly plays at a short course with what is thought to be an unrealistically low CR and also plays at a selection of other courses. If their handicap record shows higher score differentials on average at the course with the seemingly low CR, that would suggest the CR is indeed too low. (Step forward, Orikoru, and let us know if your differentials at Grims Dyke are generally higher than at other courses )

 

[wjemather]

yes I understand that.

But the course hasn’t changed between ratings days.
So why the big difference.

One set is very wrong.

Most likely, the only changes relate to the paperwork submitted by the club. Possibilities include:

...the club's paperwork didn't reflect the course setup found by raters, who used their own measurements for the original rating; on appeal the values from the submitted paperwork were used (possibly perpetuating higher ratings for vanity purposes).
...the club may have submitted inaccurate paperwork originally (e.g. with lower rough height, slower greens, etc.) and simply corrected any errors on their part.
...having received the new ratings, the club amended their originally correct paperwork to falsely represent standard course setup (e.g. with longer rough height, faster greens, etc.) in order to perpetuate higher ratings for vanity purposes.

(edit to add) Of course, there could have been an error by the raters in inputting the data, but given the 3 levels of checking (County - Regional - National) that the forms go through before ratings are issued, that seems rather unlikely.

Incidentally, green speed is probably the most exaggerated item in the paperwork returned by clubs, with many claiming preposterously fast greens.

 

[Tashyboy]

152 under 9.9, our pro is the joint lowest at 4.1.

Now I don’t know if this is odd, but there are not many women members 9.9 and under but two women take 2nd and 3 rd places with 4.1 and 3.1

We have 705 men at the club. Low 20ish%

 

[D-S]

So we are agreed that length is the major factor in CR and that other factors have minimal impact. As I said before, our disagreement is over whether those other factors are sufficiently considered.

The only firm evidence I can envisage to support my belief would be to find someone who regularly plays at a short course with what is thought to be an unrealistically low CR and also plays at a selection of other courses. If their handicap record shows higher score differentials on average at the course with the seemingly low CR, that would suggest the CR is indeed too low. (Step forward, Orikoru, and let us know if your differentials at Grims Dyke are generally higher than at other courses )

Or the scores at such a club from visitors in GP cards or Opens. If they were enough of them and they were unnaturally high then that would be evidence