Percentage of Single Digit Handicap Players.

[Orikoru]

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 )

I mentioned it in a post already - can't remember if it was this thread or another - but 4 of my current 8 counting scores are from away courses. It should have actually been 5 out of 8 as well but I had a meltdown on my last three holes at an away course last Saturday. I shot a pretty easy 82 for 10.6 differential at Old Fold Manor last week. At GD I'd need a 79 off whites for it to be a counter (13.2) and I haven't beaten that since the first week of August.

 

[wjemather]

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 )

No, other factors do not have minimal impact - to repeat, this is more than adequately demonstrated in your own plot of CR x length for a very small sample of courses. They do however have much less impact than length. (edit to add: the balance of all factors is reviewed regularly by the USGA and adjustments made as necessary)

That would be anecdotal evidence relating to a specific player and course(s), which is a long way from being firm evidence of a systemic issue - which would at the very least require analysis of vast numbers of scores from a large sample of golfers of wide ranging abilities (i.e. what the USGA do regularly).

 

[cliveb]

No, other factors do not have minimal impact - to repeat, this is more than adequately demonstrated in your own plot of CR x length for a very small sample of courses. They do however have much less impact than length.

That would be anecdotal evidence, which is a long way from being firm evidence - which would at the very least require analysis of vast numbers of scores from a large sample of golfers of wide ranging abilities.

Ok, I'll stop here and leave it up to others to decide whether this is a matter of case closed or mind closed.

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

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

There you go again blaming the club!

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

Finally at least you can say there’s a possibility the raters were wrong and it’s not all the clubs fault .

 

[Arthur Wedge]

There you go again blaming the club!

Well it can’t be the system or the course rater at fault - both are perfect and infallible

 

[D-S]

Finally at least you can say there’s a possibility the raters were wrong and it’s not all the clubs fault .

The key point being that the more recent ratings are more likely to be correct unless the club has provided incorrect information and only major changes (without significant alterations made to the course) would fall into either category, slight changes (one or two slope points or the odd 0.1 on CR and BR) will probably be due to formula changes. The other changes may well be due to new measures of length where the fixed marker points are wrongly situated, almost always as some are too close to the back of the tee. There has also been a slight change to the pivot point on doglegs which may change playing length.
Whether the rating suits any individuals concept of difficulty for their game is irrelevant as the amount of variables within that judgement are almost infinite.

 

[sunshine]

The other changes may well be due to new measures of length where the fixed marker points are wrongly situated, almost always as some are too close to the back of the tee.

My club installed new tee markers a couple of years ago and they were moved further forward so they were no longer at the back of the tee. I assume this is to allow players to tee up 2 club lengths back from the markers.

However, I think it's a stretch to suggest that shortening a hole by 1-2 yards is going to have an significant impact on CR or slope.

 

[sunshine]

Ok, I'll stop here and leave it up to others to decide whether this is a matter of case closed or mind closed.

the irony

 

[D-S]

My club installed new tee markers a couple of years ago and they were moved further forward so they were no longer at the back of the tee. I assume this is to allow players to tee up 2 club lengths back from the markers.

However, I think it's a stretch to suggest that shortening a hole by 1-2 yards is going to have a significant impact on CR or slope.

One course we rated this year had a lot of their markers at the back of the teeing grounds . The measuring company had them moved about 4 metres from the position. It was about a 75 yard difference, together with the recalculation of the dogleg it was just under 100 yards which made a difference. As per my previous post not significant but part of the picture.

In reality it is a bit dumb having the permanent markers at the back of a tee platform, far better to have them in the middle so you can maximise the + and - 10 yards that is allowed for an acceptable course. This way you can spread wear effectively.

 

[clubchamp98]

The key point being that the more recent ratings are more likely to be correct unless the club has provided incorrect information and only major changes (without significant alterations made to the course) would fall into either category, slight changes (one or two slope points or the odd 0.1 on CR and BR) will probably be due to formula changes. The other changes may well be due to new measures of length where the fixed marker points are wrongly situated, almost always as some are too close to the back of the tee. There has also been a slight change to the pivot point on doglegs which may change playing length.
Whether the rating suits any individuals concept of difficulty for their game is irrelevant as the amount of variables within that judgement are almost infinite.

The course was rated in spring 2025.
Cr 71.7 SR 120 down from Sr 129 can’t recall old CR par 72.

The club appealed the rating and “same data “ course has not changed at all!
CR 72.3 SR 124.

So one set of ratings is wrong.
It’s this that has the members and me thinking it’s not so scientific!

 

[D-S]

Did any of the members or management team take the time to accompany the rating team for a few holes to watch and understand the process?
Then they have the opportunity before and after the time spent on the course to ask questions. This often happens when we do a rating and we encourage it as it dispels rumours and provides management/committees answers to member questions and misunderstandings.

 

[D-S]

The course was rated in spring 2025.
Cr 71.7 SR 120 down from Sr 129 can’t recall old CR par 72.

The club appealed the rating and “same data “ course has not changed at all!
CR 72.3 SR 124.

So one set of ratings is wrong.
It’s this that has the members and me thinking it’s not so scientific!

If exactly the same data was supplied then it sounds as if a mistake was made. However this instance is hardly a reason to doubt the whole system, particularly as the self same system has rectified the mistake.
There must have been a reason why the County reexamined the rating, (an error was maybe spotted or highlighted?) and subsequently a change was made.
Apparently, from what I have heard on here, not personal experience, other appeals have been made and ratings have bremained the same, again this would point to the robustness of the system.
With the exception of the instance I quoted earlier in this thread, which was due to wrong information provided by the club, we have not had any significant changes in ratings if there haven't been major course changes just minor differences for the reasons I have outlined earlier. So this sort of scenario hasn't occurred in this County at least.

 

[clubchamp98]

If exactly the same data was supplied then it sounds as if a mistake was made. However this instance is hardly a reason to doubt the whole system, particularly as the self same system has rectified the mistake.
There must have been a reason why the County reexamined the rating, (an error was maybe spotted or highlighted?) and subsequently a change was made.
Apparently, from what I have heard on here, not personal experience, other appeals have been made and ratings have bremained the same, again this would point to the robustness of the system.
With the exception of the instance I quoted earlier in this thread, which was due to wrong information provided by the club, we have not had any significant changes in ratings if there haven't been major course changes just minor differences for the reasons I have outlined earlier. So this sort of scenario hasn't occurred in this County at least.

Would all the scores submitted under the “ wrong” CR/ SR this year be adjusted to the new CR SR or will they just stand as Posted?

Thanks for taking time to at least think it’s not always the clubs fault

 

[clubchamp98]

Did any of the members or management team take the time to accompany the rating team for a few holes to watch and understand the process?
Then they have the opportunity before and after the time spent on the course to ask questions. This often happens when we do a rating and we encourage it as it dispels rumours and provides management/committees answers to member questions and misunderstandings.

As I understand the HG went with them.

 

[D-S]

Would all the scores submitted under the “ wrong” CR/ SR this year be adjusted to the new CR SR or will they just stand as Posted?

Thanks for taking time to at least think it’s not always the clubs fault

New ratings have an effective date some weeks after the visit when all the numbers have been checked and priced by EG and when any possible subsequent questions are answered. The new rating date does not back date to whenever a course change was made (tee introduced, bunker added / removed, new measure made) just a date when everything has been done post visit.
If you did back date ratings to whenever these events occurred handicaps would be in constant flux as it potentially not only affects members of the club but also all visitors who have submitted GP cards or had acceptable scores in Opens.

 

[D-S]

As I understand the HG went with them.

I would suggest that they then would have enough detail or at least contacts to be able to ask the correct questions for the reasoning and rationale behind the change, certainly they would have a much better view than getting possible reasons from someone like me on a forum.

 

[Swango1980]

Male members (with handicaps)
474 members, 93 single digits (20%)

Female members (with handicaps)
83 members, 3 single digits (4%)

Although with the ladies, 2 are between 9-10, while the other is -0.2. So a very big difference in ability