Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?

[Orikoru]

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?

 

[D-S]

I guess it all depends on who is playing the course. Theoretically if just the same people play the course over and over again (and no other ones) and also regularly submit cards then their handicaps will adjust to the rating as this will be how they are calculated.
If you get a lot of visitors or the course played by many people who don’t play the course often then the score values will be different either higher or lower but if course this will depend on the courses that their handicaps are calibrated to.
As you can’t control or judge the handicap indexes or mix of golfers playing the course such a fluid model would be difficult and would heavily depend on mix of players (members/visitors and high/low HI’s).
Ideally you need a ‘model golfer’ playing the course and seeing what they would score (higher at your course versus another), even better would be a good ‘model golfer’ and an average ‘model golfer’ then their predicted score could feed into the database and give you the most ‘normal’ CR and Slope.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

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?

You can ask for your course to be rated if changes have been made

Not sure many will be desperate to be re rated

Length will always be a key factor in a slope rating

And even then slope is only one key aspect - you still have your course rating

For slope to “ai” adjusted it would need 1000’s of rounds with the same person , same ability and same HC to give a fair picture

In all the time I have played there hasn’t been many that I have seen where the course rating and slope is that much wrong

 

[cliveb]

Ideally you need a ‘model golfer’ playing the course and seeing what they would score (higher at your course versus another), even better would be a good ‘model golfer’ and an average ‘model golfer’ then their predicted score could feed into the database and give you the most ‘normal’ CR and Slope.

Isn't that pretty much exactly how the existing course rating system works? By predicting what typical scratch and bogey golfers would score?
My understanding is that the process is rigorously defined, and the measurements put into a formula that spits out course ratings.

My gripe with the system as it stands is that factors other than length are not given enough weighting in that formula.
If you plot CR v length for lots of courses, it's near as dammit a straight line.
Which makes you ask: if the factors other than length have such little effect on CR, why do they bother measuring them at all?

 

[rulefan]

And the governing bodies stubbornly refuse to re-rate courses even when it's desperately needed.

It isn't down to the governing bodies (I assume you mean the R&A and USGA). It is entirely dependent on the resources if the relevant County. Many counties simply don't have enough volunteers who are prepared to spend the time in training and assessing. I understand that before and during the implementation of WHS some counties were asking other counties for help.

Further, IMO Slope only attempts to cover Scratch and Bogey (20ish) players. The handicap range has now been extended to 50+ but slope is simply extended linearly and I am sure high cappers have proportionally more difficulty with Obstacles than players below 20 say.
However, given that counties are short of raters, another set of measurements won't help.

 

[rulefan]

My gripe with the system as it stands is that factors other than length are not given enough weighting in that formula.
If you plot CR v length for lots of courses, it's near as dammit a straight line.
Which makes you ask: if the factors other than length have such little effect on CR, why do they bother measuring them at all?

I would suggest that players who are long and wayward (or vice versa) are not the norm at the level below bogey(ish). The CR manual assumes that scratch and bogey players hit straight shots. However, to some extent the 'Transition Zone table ' and 'Accuracy table' provide some leeway in rating calculations.

Also see my post above.

 

[Orikoru]

It isn't down to the governing bodies (I assume you mean the R&A and USGA). It is entirely dependent on the resources if the relevant County. Many counties simply don't have enough volunteers who are prepared to spend the time in training and assessing. I understand that before and during the implementation of WHS some counties were asking other counties for help.

Further, IMO Slope only attempts to cover Scratch and Bogey (20ish) players. The handicap range has now been extended to 50+ but slope is simply extended linearly and I am sure high cappers have proportionally more difficulty with Obstacles than players below 20 say.
However, given that counties are short of raters, another set of measurements won't help.

So that would be in favour of my proposed system then really?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

So that would be in favour of my proposed system then really?

What happens when people then don’t agree with your system and it produces the wrong course ratings ?

 

[jim8flog]

I would suggest that players who are long and wayward (or vice versa) are not the norm at the level below bogey(ish). The CR manual assumes that scratch and bogey players hit straight shots. However, to some extent the 'Transition Zone table ' and 'Accuracy table' provide some leeway in rating calculations.

Also see my post above.

That gets a 'wow' from me

I am now up to a 17 handicap compared to my once 6 and one of the biggest factors for me is how wayward I have become

 

[cliveb]

The CR manual assumes that scratch and bogey players hit straight shots.

Then it's wrong.

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

 

[rulefan]

So that would be in favour of my proposed system then really?

I'm not sure what you are proposing has anything to do with resources.

 

[rulefan]

That gets a 'wow' from me

I am now up to a 17 handicap compared to my once 6 and one of the biggest factors for me is how wayward I have become

Why 'wow' ?

 

[doublebogey7]

So that would be in favour of my proposed system then really?

The problem with your proposed system, is that it had zero mathematical basis. Handicaps for the vast majority of those playing most courses are based on the CR and slope as currently rated. So scores of those players will reflect those ratings, therefore nothing can be learned from them. It is possible that away scores only could be used, but for most courses I doubt there are enough away scores recorded by the authorities to make them statistically valid.

 

[SteveW86]

from experience I’d say length is given too much weight. Our course is very short, is rated very easy which I’d say to look at it is, but there is I think a 4 shot difference between out white tees and our blue tees which is complete nonsense in my view. On our blue course you have to play 5 under to play to scratch, which I think is very harsh.

 

[Orikoru]

What happens when people then don’t agree with your system and it produces the wrong course ratings ?

Same as we have now with the wrong course ratings, they'll moan about it on golf forums.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm not sure what you are proposing has anything to do with resources.

Well if you have an automated or semi-automated system in place then less manual ratings need to be done by people, of course.

 

[Orikoru]

The problem with your proposed system, is that it had zero mathematical basis. Handicaps for the vast majority of those playing most courses are based on the CR and slope as currently rated. So scores of those players will reflect those ratings, therefore nothing can be learned from them. It is possible that away scores only could be used, but for most courses I doubt there are enough away scores recorded by the authorities to make them statistically valid.

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.

 

[jim8flog]

Why 'wow' ?

The fact that a 'bogey' player is considered to be a straight hitter, assuming I read your post correctly.

An odd view even for a scratch player considering that even the best pros only hit 75% of fairways with their drives with it quickly falling down to 50%.

 

[jim8flog]

from experience I’d say length is given too much weight. Our course is very short, is rated very easy which I’d say to look at it is, but there is I think a 4 shot difference between out white tees and our blue tees which is complete nonsense in my view. On our blue course you have to play 5 under to play to scratch, which I think is very harsh.

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.

 

[rulefan]

The fact that a 'bogey' player is considered to be a straight hitter, assuming I read your post correctly.

An odd view even for a scratch player considering that even the best pros only hit 75% of fairways with their drives with it quickly falling down to 50%.

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