Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?

[mikejohnchapman]

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.

True and it is also a fact that the club are asked for information relating to their course such as average rough height & stimp ratings which, although checked, tend to be used as they represent the normal playing conditions.

 

[doublebogey7]

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.

As I have tried to point out before and you have failed to respond. It would only be possible to identify incorrect ratings, if a high enough number of scores were recorded from players who's Hi has been largely calculated from a number of different courses, very few clubs will fit that bill.

 

[rulefan]

As I have tried to point out before and you have failed to respond. It would only be possible to identify incorrect ratings, if a high enough number of scores were recorded from players who's Hi has been largely calculated from a number of different courses, very few clubs will fit that bill.

It won't really matter to those players that don't play at other courses (IMO the majority).

 

[sunshine]

The most common complaint I've heard from other people is that the rating process doesn't sufficiently factor in the difficulty of tricky greens. I do recognise this from personal experience, the greens on my course cause nightmares to visitors, the ratings are too low relative to other courses in the area. But I don't care, it has no impact on my golf or club competitions.

Seems to be a vanity thing. I've never heard anyone complain that their course is rated too tough.

 

[wjemather]

The most common complaint I've heard from other people is that the rating process doesn't sufficiently factor in the difficulty of tricky greens. I do recognise this from personal experience, the greens on my course cause nightmares to visitors, the ratings are too low relative to other courses in the area. But I don't care, it has no impact on my golf or club competitions.

Seems to be a vanity thing. I've never heard anyone complain that their course is rated too tough.

All other factors being equal, the difference in ratings between a course with large flat slow-paced greens and one with small undulating fast ones is significant, but not ridiculously so.

Since the vast majority are pretty much clueless about ratings, it's more likely they will comment about handicaps at their club being too low (or at other clubs being too high), than comment directly on the ratings.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The most common complaint I've heard from other people is that the rating process doesn't sufficiently factor in the difficulty of tricky greens. I do recognise this from personal experience, the greens on my course cause nightmares to visitors, the ratings are too low relative to other courses in the area. But I don't care, it has no impact on my golf or club competitions.

Seems to be a vanity thing. I've never heard anyone complain that their course is rated too tough.

Oh some do complain that mainly their slope rating is too high (not so much course rating). Often it's either the men's or the women's SR that's questioned - rarely both. In these cases the rating information is reviewed by regional assessors as a double check.