Rating Vs Standard Scratch

So.... In the UK we have standard scratch score (SSS) and in the U.S. we have Rating... What (if anything) is the difference in a) how they are calculated and b) how much of a true reflection are they of course difficulty?

JAS, don't know too much about how SSS in the UK but as you mention we have course rating and slope rating in the US to rate courses. I suppose the course rating would compare to SSS but we also factor in the difficulty which is the slope rating. The higher the slope rating the more difficult the course is and vice versa. The slope rating allows any golfer to adjust their handicap based on the ease or difficulty of the course. The adjustment is also in relation to the course rating and not par.

I have toyed with the idea of trying to become an assessor in the US as state has been asking for volunteers. You get training and this is what the assessor looks at when it comes to rating a course (taken from somewhere on USGA website):

Bogey Rating™: A Bogey Rating is the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for bogey golfers under normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal place (92.1), and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the bogey golfer.

Slope Rating®: A Slope Rating is the USGA® mark that indicates the measurement of the relative playing difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers. It is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating times a constant factor and is expressed as a whole number from 55 to 155.

The Rating Process

The rating process requires a study of each hole, including detailed data obtained at all landing zones for both the scratch and the bogey golfer. The rating teams use the average shot lengths for both scratch and bogey golfers to determine the landing zones. Length corrections and obstacle values are considered at each landing zone.

Effective Playing Length Factors

The following correction factors are evaluated to determine if the hole is effectively longer or shorter than the actual measured length:

Roll: Roll is an evaluation of how far the tee shots for scratch and bogey golfers roll, and the effect that has on the playing length of the course.

Elevation: Elevation is a measure of how changes in elevation from tee to green affect the playing length of a hole.

Dogleg/ Forced Lay-Up: Dogleg/forced lay-up is a measure of how much longer or shorter a hole is played because it has a bend (allowing players to cut the corner or forcing them to lay up), or because it has obstacles, such as water or deep bunkers, crossing the fairway in the players’ landing zones (which force the scratch or bogey golfer to hit less than a full shot).

Prevailing Wind: Prevailing wind is a measure of the effect of constant wind on seaside courses, plains courses, or other courses unprotected from the wind.

Altitude: Altitude is an evaluation for courses at 2,000 feet or more altitude that will play shorter than their measured length because shots fly farther in the thin air.

Obstacle Factors

The following obstacle factors are determined for each landing zone for both the scratch and the bogey golfer:

Topography: Topography is a factor if the stance or lie in the landing zone is affected by slopes or mounds, or the shot to the green is uphill or downhill, making club selection more difficult.

Fairway: Fairway is an evaluation of the difficulty of keeping the ball in play from tee to green. Fairway ratings are based on fairway width in all landing zones, hole length, and nearby trees, hazards, and punitive rough.

Green Target: Green Target is an evaluation of the difficulty of hitting the green with the approach shot. Primary considerations are target size, length of shot, how well the green holds, and the difficulty of normal hole locations.

Recoverability and Rough: Recoverability and Rough is the evaluation of the probability of missing the tee shot landing zone and the green, and the difficulty of recovering if either, or both, is missed. The Green Target rating drives the Recoverability and Rough rating value.

Bunkers: Bunkers is the evaluation of their proximity to target areas and the difficulty of recovery from them. The Green Target rating also drives the Bunkers rating value.

Out of Bounds/ExtremeRough: OB/Extreme Rough is the evaluation of the distance from the center of the landing zone to the OB/Extreme Rough. High grass, heavy underbrush in trees, and other extreme conditions are rated in this category because a ball in such “extreme rough” is likely to be lost or virtually unplayable. Such areas may also be rated under Recoverability and Rough.

Water Hazards: Water Hazards is the evaluation of a water hazard and its distance from the landing zone or green and, in the case of a hazard crossing a hole, the problem involved in playing over the hazard. The Water Hazards rating is applied on any hole where there is a water hazard or lateral water hazard.

Trees: Trees is the evaluation of the size and density of the trees, their distance from the center of the landing zone or green, the length of the shot to that target, and the difficulty of recovery.

Green Surface: Green Surface is the evaluation of a green’s difficulty from a putting standpoint. Green speed and surface contouring are the main factors. The size of the green is considered irrelevant in evaluating putting difficulty. A Stimpmeter is utilized to measure the speed of the greens based on midseason conditions.

Psychological: Psychological is the evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other obstacles. The location of many punitive obstacles close to a target area creates uneasiness in the mind of the player and thus affects his or her score. This value is purely mathematical and is added after the on-course rating is complete.

Each obstacle is assigned a value of 0 to 10, depending on its relation to how a scratch or bogey golfer would play the hole. When the evaluation is complete, the numbers for each hole’s obstacles are totaled and multiplied by a relative weighting factor. The weighted obstacle stroke values are applied to scratch and bogey formulas and then converted to strokes. Those strokes are added or subtracted from the Yardage Rating to produce a Bogey Rating and USGA Course Rating.

Whereas

The SSS is calculated by an old guy from the EGU that has a quick drive round in a buggy and chats to the old guys in the bar whilst perusing the scoerecard over a large rum.

Use of either method results in all golfers going out and recanting their tales versus listed par whilst complaining that "that b**tard that won last week's handicap is too high."

On a slightly more serious note, what is used for handicap adjustments under the rating system? (ie although SSS is constant CSS varies according to the calculations on the day. What happens on courses using the rating approach?)

Thanks Grumps, pretty thorough explanation, I've seen the EGU/Congu guidance on SSS and from what I can recall its similar-ish.

By the way Roller it's usually County officials rather than EGU (I know you were only jesting though). Good question re the CSS (equivalent) calculation. I'm guessing it would also be based on scores relative to the rating but with slope factored in as well, somehow?

Reason for the original question is that I was just curious as I had a half decent round on Saturday (82) on a course with a rating of 74.7 and a slope of 143 and a Par of 72

I think the CSS issue is covered by the averaging of score over time to produce handicap. Best 10 scores out of last 20, rolling average. I think? I know in some places they have to put cards in for friendlies. Miss 2 entries and you are on report. Applies in NZ and Australia, and I believe for those in States who don't only count their good shots.(just put that last point in as a seasonal greeting!)

From where I'm sitting the American system is far more generous. I've played with a lot of Americans at St.Andrews who claim to be a certain handicap, but are always 3-4 different from their UK counterpart

JAS wrote:
Reason for the original question is that I was just curious as I had a half decent round on Saturday (82) on a course with a rating of 74.7 and a slope of 143 and a Par of 72

JAS you played much better than 10 over par. In my handicap scores I have an 82 on a par 70. The CR was 71.1 and slope was 142. The calculation was that I played to 8.7. I'd estimate your round to be in the region of 5-6.

Roller_Coaster wrote:
What happens on courses using the rating approach?

In a word a la Sid Waddell, Roller; absolutely nothing! If it's windy, raining and makes everyone shoot two or three more than usual; so what. Although it could mean 0.1 somewhere in the handicap calculation.

super_realist wrote:
From where I'm sitting the American system is far more generous. I've played with a lot of Americans at St.Andrews who claim to be a certain handicap, but are always 3-4 different from their UK counterpart

Could be a couple of things. They play on an easy course so their index is lower than if they played on a harder course. The slope would give them an extra shot or two if they went to a harder course. Although it is most likely to be handicap vanity: "forgetting" to put some scores in because you didn't play as you would have liked and, if you put them in your index would likely go up.

I reckon the US system is pretty exacting, you've got to be playing very close to your best to match your handicap and strict adherence to the slope system makes it harder still. Agree with Grumpers about "handicap vanity"!

Coincidentally it's very seldom I play with someone with a GB handicap that plays to it.

Agree, there's probably not many GB that play all that often to their handicap, what I mean is that when I've met a lot of American golfers of say 5,10, 15 handicap etc , it's not just that they don't play to that, it's that technically they are hopeless and could never play to the UK version of what they claim their handicap to be.

Golfers with vanity? Nah. Sorry, have to go as I need to work out how to add another 10-20 yards to my 320 yard drive average. All carry of course...

I seem to remeber reading on this board somewhere in the dim and distant past, that under the UK handicap system, you are not expected to play to your handicap regularly at all.

How would that be factored in?

O/S, in the states it's something like this. The individual handicap is calculated for each of your last 20 scores. Your best 10 handicap scores are aggregated, multiplied by 0.96 and then averaged.

Not sure if they do the same thing in the UK but doesn't anything over a double bogey get knocked down? So in that sense you could lose 1-2 shots to start with.

Grumps,
The double bogey+ regulator applies in the US also - I'm assuming that's also what you mean.

I would say that most American players need a round or three to adjust to British conditions and I've seen the vice versa. Not surprising given the differing natures of the game, weather, grasses etc.

The "anything over double bogey knocked down" thing only applies when you are putting in cards to gain a handicap. Once you have a handicap each medal round is treated as a Stableford for handicapping purposes, so if you have a 10 say, it is just a scrub. Thoeretically therefore you could be cut and play over your handicap!

golfermartin wrote:The "anything over double bogey knocked down" thing only applies when you are putting in cards to gain a handicap. Once you have a handicap each medal round is treated as a Stableford for handicapping purposes, so if you have a 10 say, it is just a scrub. Thoeretically therefore you could be cut and play over your handicap!

That is the same thing, though - a net double is the same as a blob.

SmithersJones wrote:

golfermartin wrote:The "anything over double bogey knocked down" thing only applies when you are putting in cards to gain a handicap. Once you have a handicap each medal round is treated as a Stableford for handicapping purposes, so if you have a 10 say, it is just a scrub. Thoeretically therefore you could be cut and play over your handicap!

That is the same thing, though - a net double is the same as a blob.

If we are talking net double - yes. the original comment didn't say "net" it just said "anything over double bogey knocked down".

Here's my basic take on it.

US System - If you play on a hard course the slope rating takes this into account and when you go to another course this same rating system alters your hc on the day as required. Its quite clever as it takes into account that certain courses are harder for higher hc'ers. For instance loads of sand freaks high hc but not low hc. It also has different ratings for the tees you're off. I played one course where I would have been given 4 extra shots if I'd played off the pros tees.

UK System - Not as flexible and basically done on distance of holes. So if you play a tough course you are likely to be a better golfer than someone who plays on an easy course with the same hc.

There is some allowance made through the CSS which uses historical data to see whether more players than normal are in the buffer zone and changes the CSS on the day but they are reluctant to change it by more than one shot.

When it comes to your hc it is only based on medal rounds which I would guess for a lot of players is no more than 5-6 rounds a year and as it only goes up by 0.1 no matter how bad you play you could only go up 1 shot in two years after putting in cards of 100+ each time. Also to get cut you have to play well on a very small sample of your rounds and the system is slow to react.

US hc: My understanding is that this moves a lot more as it is done on all rounds ditching the very worst. So probably much more up to date on how you are playing at the time.

As for playing to your hc at other courses I would put that more down to golf as a sport. I've heard plenty of people talk about Americans with bandit hc's. I know that I can play below my hc one day then well above it the next.

289 - I think you understate/underestimate the impact of SSS and CSS in the UK. I am not advocating the UK system over any other, but if I give the most extreme example I have encountered it might show how course difficulty is factored in to SSS and playing conditions on any day further adjust this in CSS.
Earlier this year I played the English Seniors Am. All players cat1. One of the courses used was Aldeburgh in Suffolk. Par 68, SSS 73 off championship tees and CSS adjusted up each day the course was used. This more than adequately reflects how the UK system can and does take account of course difficulty. SSS is 71 off yellows and 72 off whites. Toughest course I have ever played, and difficulty reflected by SSS and css just as it is in slope rating etc.
I agree with you completely on the number of qualifying rounds played by many in the UK, but they are competition rounds played under strict rules.
I believe golfers are expected to play to their handicap ie buffer or better about 25% of the time, although this varies by handicap category in strict statistical analysis hence the bigger buffer for higher handicaps.

Puligny

I didn't know it could vary that much although it does sound like a beast. I remember looking into this a while ago and there seemed to be a big thing about your CSS/SSS being close to your par. I was thinking more about it being less and a lot of courses don't like to seem easy whereas I am sure that plenty would like to be the other way.

Both systems have their benefits but I like the idea of your hc moving more than it does here but I also think that there is nothing like a medal to show how you really are so I guess that there would need to be something in there that says a certain number of rounds need to be under comp conditions to maintain an active hc.

289 - interestingly the other course used in the example I gave was Thorpeness. Shorter than Aldeburgh, par 69 and sss71. Both courses beat me up!
I have also been involved with a club which tried for a number of years to keep its SSS down in order "to ensure our handicaps travel well." Make of that what you will, but eventually the assessor won, and I think quite rightly!