Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?

[jim8flog]

I posted directly from the Course Rating System Guide. I assume the USGA did the stats.

I had realised that. The wow was about their assumptions.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Well to use myself as an example, my best three differentials are from away courses, and it's now extremely difficult for me to play to my handicap at my home course, due to it being difficult but me getting 2 less shots. So I am one that would be flagged by the system.

Surely thats all relative

Not sure I would call it a difficult course

 

[SteveW86]

But if most of your scores came from playing off the Blue tees this would be reflected in your H.I.

Although I do know what you mean to some extent. When the majority of my scores came from playing of whites (old SSS 1 under par CR Par) I had a handicap that reflected that. These days the vast majority of my scores are from playing off the yellows ( old SSS 3 under par CR 1.5 under par) when I play off the whites I find playing to handicap more of a struggle, although I put that mainly down to yardage to to reach the fairway on 3-4 of the holes these days .

Personally I find the difference to be 3 shots but there is only, effectively from a score point of view, 1 shot difference in course rating.

Our white course is 5500 yards, blue 5000 doing a bit of rounding, at that short a course I don’t think it being shorter makes it easier. We have a few driveable par 4’s off the whites, off the winter course driver is too long so you have to drop down a club….that to me doesn’t make the course easier.

There are also no forced carries to reach a fairway. The defence of the course is for me its condition and the small size of the green.

 

[rulefan]

On our blue course you have to play 5 under to play to scratch, which I think is very harsh.

What do you mean? Who has to play 5 under? 5 under what, the CR, Par or ?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

There's so many variables in a course set up.
You can play the same course one week apart, and depending on tee positions (same tee colour) and pin placements, the course can play anything up to 2 shots easier or more difficult. If when the course was rated it was rated from the competition tips and most weeks the tees are moved up a bit for regular play (or visa versa), then it is easy to say the ratings are wrong.
So you would need a daily rating to be anywhere near accruate enough for everyone's liking

 

[SteveW86]

What do you mean? Who has to play 5 under? 5 under what, the CR, Par or ?

I meant par.

Just checked the scorecard. It’s par 69 with a CR of 62.9.

 

[rulefan]

Well to use myself as an example, my best three differentials are from away courses, and it's now extremely difficult for me to play to my handicap at my home course, due to it being difficult but me getting 2 less shots. So I am one that would be flagged by the system.

Where did you build your handicap?
2 less shots than what?

 

[D-S]

My course has 5 sets of rated tees - 65, 63, 60, 57 and 53 (6,500 yards , 6300 etc etc).
If the length far too much a part of CR and Slope argument then it would follow that everyone would pick the 65s to play off and the 53s and 57s would be impossible to play to your handicap.
This is certainly not the case.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Well to use myself as an example, my best three differentials are from away courses, and it's now extremely difficult for me to play to my handicap at my home course, due to it being difficult but me getting 2 less shots. So I am one that would be flagged by the system.

As I mentioned, did you play those courses set up from the rated tee posistions, I played a course last year, it had some ridiculous ratings from it's back tees and quite rightly so, but when I played it, all the back tees were moved up a far bit, course was dry a loads of run on fairways, would have had a score rating of 7 under handicap without played well but not to that extent. I think this happens a lot. I'd be suprised if you played a course tomorrow and it was not more than the recommended within the 100 yards of its rated length

 

[rulefan]

I meant par.

Just checked the scorecard. It’s par 69 with a CR of 62.9.

It sounds like par has been 'stretched'. Have the hole pars been set at the upper end of the recommended limits (see Appendix 5)?

 

[SteveW86]

It sounds like par has been 'stretched'. Have the hole pars been set at the upper end of the recommended limits (see Appendix 5)?

Quite possibly, I’ll look it up.

We certainly have a few holes that could be par 3.5’s . And I’d say only one of the par 5’s is a true par 5. But then we have 7 par 3’s

 

[rulie]

As I mentioned, did you play those courses set up from the rated tee posistions, I played a course last year, it had some ridiculous ratings from it's back tees and quite rightly so, but when I played it, all the back tees were moved up a far bit, course was dry a loads of run on fairways, would have had a score rating of 7 under handicap without played well but not to that extent. I think this happens a lot. I'd be suprised if you played a course tomorrow and it was not more than the recommended within the 100 yards of its rated length

PCC can adjust for that, at least to some extent.

 

[D-S]

As I mentioned, did you play those courses set up from the rated tee posistions, I played a course last year, it had some ridiculous ratings from it's back tees and quite rightly so, but when I played it, all the back tees were moved up a far bit, course was dry a loads of run on fairways, would have had a score rating of 7 under handicap without played well but not to that extent. I think this happens a lot. I'd be suprised if you played a course tomorrow and it was not more than the recommended within the 100 yards of its rated length

Was the course still set up correctly for ‘qualifying’ golf, i.e. tees within 10 yards of the fixed marker and no more than 100 yards longer or shorter than correct length?

 

[Orikoru]

Surely thats all relative

Not sure I would call it a difficult course

It is relative, if you read between the lines you'll see I'm scoring far better at away courses as a rule. i.e. they are easier. A friend of mine (18-19 handicap) who recently joined our place on a trial membership is finding the same thing - shooting mid-80s at other courses but cannot break 90 at ours.

 

[Orikoru]

Where did you build your handicap?
2 less shots than what?

Not sure I understand the question - thought my post was pretty clear. I get two less shots course handicap at my home course than I do on the other courses that I've played recently, but it is not two shots easier by any means. Ergo I struggle to play to my handicap now on my home course.

 

[IanM]

Counties can't be short of Raters as we have so many experts on here!

 

[irip]

It is relative, if you read between the lines you'll see I'm scoring far better at away courses as a rule. i.e. they are easier. A friend of mine (18-19 handicap) who recently joined our place on a trial membership is finding the same thing - shooting mid-80s at other courses but cannot break 90 at ours.

The problem is all golfers are different but the system cannot take that into consideration.
What is a difficult course for you may be an easier course for someone else and vice versa and you could both be off the same handicap.

When I was younger I was a fairly big hitter but a bit wild, as you get older you don’t hit it as far but also not as far wide. Your course would suit me now more than when I was 18.

I like that you can put in gp cards but I prefer the older system of SSS compared to slope index.

Having said that i have never worried about handicap, I go out play my best and the handicap is whatever it is.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Was the course still set up correctly for ‘qualifying’ golf, i.e. tees within 10 yards of the fixed marker and no more than 100 yards longer or shorter than correct length?

Who takes any notice of that, nearly all the courses I've played this year breaks the 10 yards / 100 yards rule somewhere on the course, but guys I have played with say on the 1st tee "shall we put a card in today", play well get a cut, then can't play to their handicap when in a comp at their own course off the fixed markers, and then complain my course isn't rated hard enough

 

[rulefan]

Then it's wrong.

All manner of mid handicaps lower than 20 can be pretty wayward.

So they must have some positive attributes to compensate.

An aside - given that handicaps can be up to 50+ is "lower than 20" really a mid capper?

Not sure I understand the question - thought my post was pretty clear. I get two less shots course handicap at my home course than I do on the other courses that I've played recently, but it is not two shots easier by any means. Ergo I struggle to play to my handicap now on my home course.

What proportion of members of your home club have the same problem?
Maybe you are subconsciously putting pressure on yourself when playing at home.

 

[nickjdavis]

As we all know, there are definite flaws in the course rating procedure. Too much weighting given to course length has lead to many short but tight and tricky courses being too low-rated, leading to situations where handicaps either travel well or badly from home courses - which I thought was the exact scenario they wanted to avoid when they devised the system of different course handicaps. And the governing bodies stubbornly refuse to re-rate courses even when it's desperately needed.

I was just wondering, is there any reason we can't have a more fluid system to this involving algorithms? Perhaps similar to the PCC algorithm - which I presume automatically or semi-automatically reacts to the level of scoring submitted on the course that day and adjusts accordingly? Why can't we have a system that, over time, reviews all of the scores submitted at a course, and the handicaps of those submitting them, and if there's a course where players are routinely not beating their course handicaps, then the slope rating could automatically be notched up 2 or 3 points? After a while with this process in place, all courses should end up with completely accurate slope ratings, and everyone will then receive a fairer amount of shots on their course handicap.

Is there a reason this can't be implemented?

Players do not routinely beat their course handicaps. They never did under CONGU and they never will under WHS. The mathematics of your index being determined by the average of the best 8 from the last 20, means that no one will ever routinely beat their course handicap unless they are in a period of rapid improvement.