Steve Wilkes
Well-known member
There's the mysterious 2 shotsBut then I'd just be off 13 instead of 11!
Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?
- Thread starter Orikoru
- Start date
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I know you're just being tongue-in-cheek, before I say this. But the whole point of bringing this system was create equity across different courses. If I have to only put cards in at my home course then it's doing the opposite!
cliveb
Head Pro
As a former member, I do have a soft spot for Grims Dyke, and in the context of this thread, I'm just supporting Orikoru's opinion that its CR and SR are too low.
You've stated that short tight courses are easy. Since Grims Dyke is an example of such a course, and you've previously dismissed it as too easy, I just wondered if you've ever played it and whether your score supported your claim that courses of this type are easy.
louise_a
Money List Winner
My course is generally reckoned to be harder than another local course, however I get 3 shots more playing the other course, the thing that makes ours harder is the we have a lot of penalty areas a lot of them yellow staked, however it seems that they do not really come into the rating on most holes due to the reliance on distance in the ratings, however mentally they have quite an effect when you are playing.
irip
Head Pro
I agree with what you say.
I think that being able to put a card in when not in a competition is a great move forward.
I think they didn’t need to bring in different handicaps for different tees or courses though.
As a side note do you think you maybe concentrate more when playing an away course as opposed to your home course?
D-S
Well-known member
I can only get this report for my County, I assume you have access to yours for Somerset - do you know anyone who can get it for the Grits Dyke (not sure if the name alone would put me off) County? It'd maybe interesting to see.
I am not sure who uses this report though, lead raters I know don't seem to.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Of course the Standard Scratch Score was only relevant to scratch players. Slope in effect relates scratch to bogey.
irip
Head Pro
Yes sorry. I can’t think what it was called that used to effect players in a competition
wjemather
Well-known member
Indeed. No, I don't have any contacts there.
While the report is available, it's usefulness is limited, as any egregious errors will get picked up during the checking process (county, regional, national).
Orikoru
Tour Winner
No, I don't. I play the same way no matter where I'm playing or what I'm playing for. Or at least, I try very hard to do that.
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
Competition Standard Scratch (CSS0
It only affected players in their next comp if it changed their handicap not any one they were paying in when it was calculated.
Same idea as PCC.
Biggest difference was a mental one then - playing to ones handicap was playing to the CSS and could be any score in Stableford according to the course. These days 36 points is playing to handicap wherever you play.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I think of playing to handicap as achieving the Score Differential nearest to my Handicap Index.
I think of Stableford points as giving me finishing position in a Stableford competition.
Against the course I don't have a handicap - just make the best gross score I can - achieve a Score Differential based on that gross score.
The Score Differential tells me the what-I-played-to score.
Gross Score - your golf score
Score Differential - what you played to.
I think of Stableford points as giving me finishing position in a Stableford competition.
Against the course I don't have a handicap - just make the best gross score I can - achieve a Score Differential based on that gross score.
The Score Differential tells me the what-I-played-to score.
Gross Score - your golf score
Score Differential - what you played to.
sunshine
Well-known member
That’s why it’s classed as an average
Of course there will be more in some places and less in others.
Course I play near me, I can play the whole course with using Driver once as it’s a short course with fairly open fairways. But even with hitting mid to long irons off the tee and short irons to greens, I can’t hit and hold every green. Law of averages simply applies across this at all levels. So your point doesn’t really apply at all they simply won’t hit every green it’s a pure exaggeration to prove a point.
The average of 56% for all courses is not the average for playing a short easy course
And I literally wrote that I was exaggerating
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
Do you know how averages work! That 56% will include data from all courses including short one’s and then the mean average taken. It’s really not hard to understand but you seem fixated on bloating the number. Of course they’ll hit more at a short course I’ve already said that but let’s not let facts get in the way of you being right!The average of 56% for all courses is not the average for playing a short easy course
And I literally wrote that I was exaggerating
sunshine
Well-known member
Exactly. More than 56%. Thank you
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
It is not Slope Ratings, but Course Ratings that could have some fluidity.
CR and SR are done according to some sort of average/normal weather conditions.
Can't really see how the difference between scratch rating and 20-h'cap rating can become fluid after the ratings have been done.
We have a fluid PCC, but this is in whole numbers only. PCC is, in effect, an adjustment to CR.
Instead of whole numbers only, we could have smaller adjustments of 0.5 or 0.25
I'm more than 95% certain that whatever the calculation of PCC is, then it has to have some rounding to whole numbers.
Rounding to the nearest 0.5 or 0.25 margins would add another complication and WHS does not seem to have much desire for better accuracy in its arithmetic.
I'm not expecting any change in CR, SR and PCC calculations.
CR and SR are done according to some sort of average/normal weather conditions.
Can't really see how the difference between scratch rating and 20-h'cap rating can become fluid after the ratings have been done.
We have a fluid PCC, but this is in whole numbers only. PCC is, in effect, an adjustment to CR.
Instead of whole numbers only, we could have smaller adjustments of 0.5 or 0.25
I'm more than 95% certain that whatever the calculation of PCC is, then it has to have some rounding to whole numbers.
Rounding to the nearest 0.5 or 0.25 margins would add another complication and WHS does not seem to have much desire for better accuracy in its arithmetic.
I'm not expecting any change in CR, SR and PCC calculations.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
The point is not that the relative difficulty will change. The point is the initial ratings given can be completely wrong, so the fluidity would allow it to correct itself over time.
mikejohnchapman
Challenge Tour Pro
Whilst rating can be wrong due to interpretation on the day a great deal of the measurements taken are factual and usually double checked so it's unlikely they are incorrect due to errors in measurement.
A couple of points not discussed:
The rating guidance has changed over the 12 years we have been using it in the UK&I. The nett effect being to lower slope rating mainly due to the way penalty areas and obstructions are handled.
One of the key elements in rating are the assumptions about shot lengths for men and women, scratch and bogey golfers. These haven't changed and hence as equipment has evolved players might play it differently to the assumptions made due to standard shot length.
As courses are re-rated on the 10 year cycle any initial inaccuracies should be picked up and rectified.
EG is implementing a new rating application which has been successfully trialled in a handful of counties. This will be rolled-out next year and should also help with resources and accuracy.
You may not like or agree with the rating system but it is common throughout the geographies and a great deal of (unpaid) work is performed by volunteers around the country.
A couple of points not discussed:
The rating guidance has changed over the 12 years we have been using it in the UK&I. The nett effect being to lower slope rating mainly due to the way penalty areas and obstructions are handled.
One of the key elements in rating are the assumptions about shot lengths for men and women, scratch and bogey golfers. These haven't changed and hence as equipment has evolved players might play it differently to the assumptions made due to standard shot length.
As courses are re-rated on the 10 year cycle any initial inaccuracies should be picked up and rectified.
EG is implementing a new rating application which has been successfully trialled in a handful of counties. This will be rolled-out next year and should also help with resources and accuracy.
You may not like or agree with the rating system but it is common throughout the geographies and a great deal of (unpaid) work is performed by volunteers around the country.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Our County raters have recently done our club using the new system. I understand it resulted in minor changes to CR & BR. I haven't seen the details yet.
D-S
Well-known member
As you correctly say the vast majority of the rating process is factual.
The proportion which could be deemed as interpretation is so small that you it would have to be incredibly poor to properly have any sort of effect in CR or SR. It is difficult to imagine the size and amount of errors in the small quantity of subjective decisions that could be made to impact the end result.
