Home course rating easy rant

[gumby]

So for the past 2 months now my home course rates around 68 on a weekday and 69-70 on a weekend, mind you this is a par 72, 134 slope course. This is the most frustrating thing ever because you get these high handicappers shooting 43+ points in stableford that drive the DSR down by a mile. Funniest thing, my friend shoots a 67 and it goes in as a +1.X differential.

I'll have to shoot 73 (handicap is around 5) consistently to just get it as a 5 differential in my golf link, I feel like it's pretty slack that you get punished for a really good round because most of the field who are 20+ handicappers, are shooting 43+ points.

[lmanion]

I won at my home track a couple of saturdays ago playing off 13 had 45 points. 6 others were 40+ and a guy that played off 3 on the day went out after having 37 points. I can see your point but I dont really have a huge problem with it.

[Rodent]

It's a problem. Maybe they should have different DSR's for each grade?

[gumby]

It's a problem. Maybe they should have different DSR's for each grade?

They definitely do, it's exponentially harder for A graders to shoot 43+ points. A guy I use to play with shot a 72 and it came in with a differential of 3.5, his handicap went up from 6.7 to 7.1.

[Hux]

If high handicappers are routinely shooting 43pts etc enough to affect DSR and its slope is 134 at the time then there is an issue with the course ratings. No way a slope 134/72 could end up having a DSR of 68 or even sub 72 routinely unless there are some significant condition issues that lets the course play really easy.
Whats the course?

With regards to the other comments, there are grades in a comp so the A graders don't have to compete against C graders in net events.

[Buzz]

Understand the issue but surely if C graders are doing this regularly they won't stay in C grade?

[Dotty]

Understand the issue but surely if C graders are doing this regularly they won't stay in C grade?
They have a roster and take it in turns.

Bernie just needs to make 44 points every twentieth game, then Merv will take care of the next comp. game, followed by Clive, Des, Norm, etc. for the next four months.

By the time his turn comes around again, Bernie's 44 points would have dropped off his GA calculation.

ps. :)

[solarman]

FFS Dotty, now my head hurts after that

[Dotty]

FFS Dotty, now my head hurts after that
Don't worry.

It's not your turn to play well, until the second week of January.

[mrbluu]

Gumby I'd the DSR rates a couple of under oar every round, doesn't this that mean if you shoot 35-36 every round u handicap will go up.????

Also in these comps how many grades are there???

[Buzz]

I'm a C grader and 38 is my best in 12 months. Then again I guess I'm only one shot from B grade :p

[mrbluu]

I'm a C grader and 38 is my best in 12 months. Then again I guess I'm only one shot from B grade :p

Did u miss out on the roster????

[Buzz]

Yeah I'd say so ... Also missed out when they were handing out talent :)

[mrbluu]

Yeah I'd say so ... Also missed out when they were handing out talent :) I've got similar LOFT issues...

[Scifisicko]

What P's me off is that the DSR has minimal correlation to the conditions.

+1 for Dotty's roster theory.

[Dotty]

I'm a C grader and 38 is my best in 12 months. Then again I guess I'm only one shot from B grade :p
You keep your good form for matchplay events, which doesn't get handicapped.

ps. :) x a million.

[gumby]

Gumby I'd the DSR rates a couple of under oar every round, doesn't this that mean if you shoot 35-36 every round u handicap will go up.????

Also in these comps how many grades are there???

Yeah if your flagged round goes out. My next flagged round is at a 2 differential meaning that I would need to shoot a 70 ( 2 under par) just to keep my handicap from going up

We have Div 1 and Div 2, i think Div 1 is A and B combined and Div 2 is the rest.

[gumby]

What P's me off is that the DSR has minimal correlation to the conditions.



Agreed, played in gale force winds and it still ended up being a DSR of 70, I don't get it.

[gumby]

there is an issue with the course ratings.

I agree, when they came out with the slope rating of our course it was 130 for whites and 134 for blues and every member was quite surprised. Honestly it should be around 11X, it kinda stops the higher handicapper getting around 3-4 more shots from their GA handicap.

[Buzz]

You keep your good form for matchplay events, which doesn't get handicapped.

ps. :) x a million.

Haha you know there's probably more than a few that think I'm a burglar but there's probably more that wonder why I'm not worse than 20 :p

Matchplay is great you only have to play slightly better than your opponent!

[sms316]

Join somewhere else

[Coldtopper]

I blame the asylum seekers they wreck everything!

[Progolfgear]

Same problem at my local track. I was playing well for a while and got down to +1, over winter I have gone out to 1 and now that I am starting to get some better scores the course rating is always -3ish.

Had 1 under on Wednesday, played to 1.8, had a .9 drop off the end and went out.

The only time our course rating is ever par or thereabouts its because we had a 100kph wind.

[WBennett]

I'm a C grader and 38 is my best in 12 months. Then again I guess I'm only one shot from B grade :p

Dear Buzz
How did you go today?
Your turn on the roster?


Same question for Solarman...

[dazza99]

I play 2 local tracks quite often.

One a slope of 120 I regularly shoot my best rounds.
The other (my home track) slope 124 and I play easily my worst golf there. Often 5 - 10 shots more than track 1 :(

Had the issue above at track #1 recently. Shot 38pts for the round. But DSR came in at 68 and my cap went out. Bit annoyed...
Understandable though. it did play fairly easily that day.

As for the course in the OP. Sounds like the rating must be a bit out if its every week.

[gumby]

some guy just shot 48 points on a Saturday......

[Dotty]

some guy just shot 48 points on a Saturday......
Fourth Saturday in November would be Des.

[Tiezto]

I had 38 points and didn't win a ball yesterday.......

[gumby]

shot a 73, goes in as 3.4, DSR of 69 on a Saturday. Surely they've stuffed up the slope rating or something

[Hux]

Its hard to imagine any 134 slope course consistently rating under par. Should be by rights over par.

Even poor old Royal Nudgee rarely has a DSR lower than par and its slope is 120/117

[backintheswing]

My course is slope of 126, par 71 and ACR of 70. Last 3 Saturday's the DSR has been 68. Absolutely ridiculous. I blame the slope, allowing 20 odd markers to play 3 to 4 shots higher. We were originally sloped at 118, but an adjustment was made at a later date.

We have never had a DSR/CCR of that low here before. I am considering not playing comp at the moment, as I need to shoot 1 over to play to cap.

We have 230+ in the field every week as well.

[davidw88]

Our course is the same, the slope is to high at 136, plenty of harder courses rated easier. Should be around 120

[Coldtopper]

No wonder I dont do club comps very often! Better getting a few groups together add some cash and bingo great day out! The bigger the cash pool the more the fun! Add side bets for more excitement. Saves dealing with the issues herein!

[oldracer]

my "local" track is rated 114 but my comp track is 127 I think??? which gives me some more shots but is infinitely harder than my local, I wont play comp on my local as it will effect my cap unfairly for other decent courses

[Daves]

my "local" track is rated 114 but my comp track is 127 I think??? which gives me some more shots but is infinitely harder than my local, I wont play comp on my local as it will effect my cap unfairly for other decent courses

That makes no sense to me what so ever?? A combination of slope (less handicap) and DSR should equalise the rounds to a fair extent I would have thought.

[oldracer]

That makes no sense to me what so ever?? A combination of slope (less handicap) and DSR should equalise the rounds to a fair extent I would have thought.I could probably play my local to a 10/12 cap, no bunkers and very flat which to my understanding given I only have 6 cards in would bring my cap in dramatically, that's my understanding Dave, am I wrong? glad to be given the heads up if so

[Daves]

I could probably play my local to a 10/12 cap, no bunkers and very flat which to my understanding given I only have 6 cards in would bring my cap in dramatically, that's my understanding Dave, am I wrong? glad to be given the heads up if so

Your course handicap is going to be 2 shots less on the 114 vs the 127 course for starters. The daily DSR rating will likely make up the balance of any difference. That is the intention of the 2 systems anyway. As to your handicap situation with only 6 cards in, your handicap is calculated on your single lowest (adjusted) score in. The 7th round will move this to your 2 lowest scores, then 9 will take to 3 lowest, 11 to 4 lowest and so on. So the effect dwindles as you add courses

see page 21 for more details;

http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00016411-source.pdf

[Buzz]

Dear Buzz
How did you go today?
Your turn on the roster?



Nahh didn't play, wife had the baby last week so no golf :)

[Matt 3 Jab]

Same happening at Kooindah waters of late. One big reason for moving was the constant DSR of 67 (par 71) slope 116 of Gosford Golf club.

Kooindah now rates 68 to 70 being a par 72 slope of 125 or 131 depending on tee's.

My 74 (42 stableford) had me play to 6.6. Ended up second for the day as well. What do you do!

Same problems as everyone else, people off 20+ having 45 points

Should be 2 or 3 DSR's, one per grade

[backintheswing]

Same happening at Kooindah waters of late. One big reason for moving was the constant DSR of 67 (par 71) slope 116 of Gosford Golf club.

Kooindah now rates 68 to 70 being a par 72 slope of 125 or 131 depending on tee's.

My 74 (42 stableford) had me play to 6.6. Ended up second for the day as well. What do you do!

Same problems as everyone else, people off 20+ having 45 points

Should be 2 or 3 DSR's, one per grade

Absolutely agree Matt. A grade should be 0-9 or lower, unlike my club which is 0-14. DSR's for the different grades definitely has to be looked at.

[Matt 3 Jab]

And from how I understand it, the slope is for an average 18 marker. Why wouldn't there be a DSR for different grades when it's a different course being played by good golfers and average golfers.

[3Puttpete]

And from how I understand it, the slope is for an average 18 marker. Why wouldn't there be a DSR for different grades when it's a different course being played by good golfers and average golfers.

Slope is not a measure of how difficult a course is.

How is it a different course for 2 groups of golfers?

[Matt 3 Jab]

From golf Australia:
What is the difference between a Scratch and Slope Rating?
The Slope Rating is a measure of how much the difficulty of a course increases for the handicap golfer. The Slope Rating determines how many handicap strokes you get from a specific set of tees. The Scratch Rating is what your score is compared against when it’s processed for handicapping.

Things such as bunkers, hazards, risk reward and even the way a hole is played is totally different for someone off 3 to someone off 25. So if every 25 marker hitting it 180m off the tee and can't reach these hazards, the hole could play a lot different than the golfer hitting it 260m over the bunkers bringing the water into play etc

If slope isn't how hard a course is, why is the slope at all?? Harder courses you get more shots, easier less shots

[coalesce]

Ever thought of not using driver off the tee on those holes? :)

[gumby]

most of our A graders don't play here anymore. i was observing the order of merit (on golflink) for my club and i was surprised at how many of our top players have gone up heaps! our club champion went from +2 to 0.8 in a matter of 2 months (surprise surprise when the DSR started to rate so low).

[Scifisicko]

There are some ridiculous course ratings and DSRs going around. A good example is Albert Park, which is a much under-rated track. It is par 70 for its members. Off the blacks slope is 106 and AMCR is 67. DSR is often 66 or 65. Although it is not overly long it has 2 par 4s of over 400m and one of the hardest 190m par 3s going around. Craig Spence won a pro am there 2 years ago with a 71. Conditions were warm, soft and still and none of the 18 pros in the field managed a par round. Main issue is the small raised greens. Club Championship was won this year by a guy who plays Div 1 VGA pennant who averaged 74 across 3 rounds. He also won their clubbies last year. To shoot par around that track is great work and gets you a played to 3 or 4. All the low markers who want to qualify for the Ivos play the sandbelt to get their HCPs down. They cant do it at Albert Park.

[3Puttpete]

From golf Australia:
What is the difference between a Scratch and Slope Rating?
The Slope Rating is a measure of how much the difficulty of a course increases for the handicap golfer. The Slope Rating determines how many handicap strokes you get from a specific set of tees. The Scratch Rating is what your score is compared against when it’s processed for handicapping.

Things such as bunkers, hazards, risk reward and even the way a hole is played is totally different for someone off 3 to someone off 25. So if every 25 marker hitting it 180m off the tee and can't reach these hazards, the hole could play a lot different than the golfer hitting it 260m over the bunkers bringing the water into play etc

If slope isn't how hard a course is, why is the slope at all?? Harder courses you get more shots, easier less shots

It's not a measure if difficulty, it's a measure of relative difficulty for an 18 handicapper than a scratch marker.

The two groups might play it differently but it's the same course and the issues you pointed out are exactly what slope is supposed to reflect. Your 180m driving 25 marker has to deal with a lot more problems than hitting it too far. Forced carries, no such thing as a 2 shot par 5, 360m par 4 is a 3
shot hole, bunkers at 180 off the tee, bunkers short of the green etc. hitting it too far is a fairly easy problem to rectify.

[Matt 3 Jab]

It's not a measure if difficulty, it's a measure of relative difficulty for an 18 handicapper than a scratch marker.

The two groups might play it differently but it's the same course and the issues you pointed out are exactly what slope is supposed to reflect. Your 180m driving 25 marker has to deal with a lot more problems than hitting it too far. Forced carries, no such thing as a 2 shot par 5, 360m par 4 is a 3
shot hole, bunkers at 180 off the tee, bunkers short of the green etc. hitting it too far is a fairly easy problem to rectify.

Yes the slope is technically that, 18 compared to scratch, but harder courses rate harder. So I still think the slope is a measure of difficulty.

I still think that courses are played totally different for 25 marker to 13 marker to 2 marker. Different hazards come in and out of play.

I don't think it's fair on low markers to have good rounds compared to handicap and be penalised by a low DSR due to high handicappers getting extra shots and shooting 45 points off 28.

Separate DSR's would solve the issue in my opinion.

Also, on my course, hitting it 180 takes all the trouble out of play. There are no carries from the tees, and most bunkers are 220-260 from the tee. Yes there is a lot of water but only one hole forces you to go over it (9th).

I feel that the slope system is good and bad, but I think lower markers are getting the rough end of the stick

[coalesce]

Separate DSRs would solve nothing if for example you have a small field. Just as likely to get skewed one way or another based on there being fewer scores

[Matt 3 Jab]

It's being skewed now on small fields as the average handicap must be 16 or 18 across the board. Well seems to be on my course, if not higher. So it leans towards them regardless

[Rodent]

I thought the DSR was going to be really good but the formula consistently delivers a DSR under the scr rating. Conditions have to get really bad before the DSR goes above the scr rating. DSR can be as low as 3 under the scr rating or as high as 4 over. If the DSR calculation formula were accurate, you'd expect a reasonable spread. At my club, the DSR averages 2 under the scr rating and I've never seen it rate more than 2 over the scr rating, even in foul weather.

[Hatchman]

How many courses/clubs have seen a larger % than normal of their A graders go out this year? On the flip side have the B & C graders reduced by more? If it does happen this way the DSR has done it's job to even the playing field. The true level out would take more than one season thou.

What I've seen at my home track is the amount of run on the fairways was the biggest factor in the DSR swings from over scratch to 2-3 under scratch.
The B & C graders didn't feature too much in the week ball winners lists on 37-35pts during our wet winter.
As soon as the fairways dried out they started dominating the list with 39-36pts and the DSR dropped.
The A grade scores were still grouped around the same #pts so the run added nothing in making it easier for them but the DSR suggests it is.

[Rodent]

How many courses/clubs have seen a larger % than normal of their A graders go out this year? On the flip side have the B & C graders reduced by more? If it does happen this way the DSR has done it's job to even the playing field. The true level out would take more than one season thou.

What I've seen at my home track is the amount of run on the fairways was the biggest factor in the DSR swings from over scratch to 2-3 under scratch.
The B & C graders didn't feature too much in the week ball winners lists on 37-35pts during our wet winter.
As soon as the fairways dried out they started dominating the list with 39-36pts and the DSR dropped.
The A grade scores were still grouped around the same #pts so the run added nothing in making it easier for them but the DSR suggests it is.
I've seen similar things. When the greens are really slow and bumpy, the C graders excel and the A graders struggle. When the greens are really fast and true, the C graders struggle and the A graders do much better.
It shows that the "conditions" have a different impact on players of different skill levels. I play at a club where A graders are a small minority and C graders dominate the field. I think the Scr rating is too low to begin with and the lop sided DSR just makes it impossible. My best gross score at my home club is a played to that is 3 over my handicap! In my quest to lower my handicap, I've had to avoid playing at home.

[Buzz]

Checking the Pro comp results at my local for yesterday ... DSR was 69. Bloody C graders ... oh wait, the best score of the day was 46 points ... in A grade ...

[Matt 3 Jab]

What hc? A grade midweek can run to 18

[Buzz]

10. I know the guy, long time club A grader who has played off 7-10 for as long as I've known him. Must have had a career round.

[Matt 3 Jab]

10. I know the guy, long time club A grader who has played off 7-10 for as long as I've known him. Must have had a career round.

So was it the smaller field that brought the DSR down or his score plus others from other grades?

[Matt 3 Jab]

Just had a quick look through our results at kooindah.

It's rated 68 (4 under ACR) or 67 (5 under ACR) each and every comp.

What's the point anymore! A grade is also 0-18 which is useless for any of the low markers

[gumby]

Just had a quick look through our results at kooindah.

It's rated 68 (4 under ACR) or 67 (5 under ACR) each and every comp.

What's the point anymore! A grade is also 0-18 which is useless for any of the low markers

so dumb, DSR should never rate below its ACR in my opinion. how does a par 72 become a par 69 on that day? are the 480+ metre par 5's now becoming par 4's to compensate for the course being "easy"

[Rodent]

Just had a quick look through our results at kooindah.

It's rated 68 (4 under ACR) or 67 (5 under ACR) each and every comp.

What's the point anymore! A grade is also 0-18 which is useless for any of the low markers
Rules only allow the DSR to be 3 under the ACR. The ACR from the black tees at Kooindah Waters is 72 however the ACR from the Gold tees at Kooindah Waters is 70, therefore the DSR can't fall below 69 from the blacks or 67 from the golds.
Either you are playing the gold tees or someone at KW has stuffed up.

[dunteachin]

Nahh didn't play, wife had the baby last week so no golf :)

Congrats on the bub - PGA or LPGA?

[Tank33]

Something I found strange described as below. Would someone know how they happen?

Par 71
Scratch rating 71
Slope rating 134
DSR 69

Now I list some results of different golfers in the same competition

1.
Stableford score 40
Played off 12
Played to 8.4
Difference between 'real played to' and 'adjusted played to': +0.4

2.
Stableford score 36
Played off 11
Played to 9.3
Difference between 'real played to' and 'adjusted played to': -1.7

3.
Stableford score 34
Played off 11
Played to 11.0
Difference between 'real played to' and 'adjusted played to': -2.0

4.
Stableford score 28
Played off 11
Played to 16.0
Difference between 'real played to' and 'adjusted played to': -3.0

They say 'Played to value' is calculated as follows:

Calculate a ‘Played To’ value for each score (this is the value that is listed in the ‘Played To’ column on www.golflink.com.au (http://www.golfaustralia.org.au/default.aspx?s=iframepage&iframe=http://www.golflink.com.au)).
‘Played To’ values are calculated as follows:
A = Course Par plus Daily Handicap minus (Stableford Points Total minus 36)
B = A minus Daily Scratch Rating
C = B multiplied by Neutral Slope Rating (ie 113)
D = C divided by Slope Rating
D (rounded to one decimal place) = ‘Played To’

If I calculate each person's played to value according to this formula, it shows inconsistencies

Case 1

A = 71+12-(40-36) = 79
B = 79 - 69 = 10
C = 10 x 113 = 1130
D = 1130 / 134 = 8.4

Case 2

A = 71+11-(36-36) = 82
B = 82 - 69 = 13
C = 13 x 113 = 1469
D = 1469 / 134 = 11.0

Case 3

A = 71+11-(34-36) = 84
B = 84 - 69 = 15
C = 15 x 113 = 1695
D 1695 / 134 = 12.6

Case 4

A = 71+11-(28-36) = 90
B = 90 - 69 = 21
C = 21 x 113 = 2373
D = 2373 / 134 = 17.7

Why is there differences between what I calculated according to their rules and what is shown as played to value on the golflink site?
What am I missing?

[Matt 3 Jab]

Rules only allow the DSR to be 3 under the ACR. The ACR from the black tees at Kooindah Waters is 72 however the ACR from the Gold tees at Kooindah Waters is 70, therefore the DSR can't fall below 69 from the blacks or 67 from the golds.
Either you are playing the gold tees or someone at KW has stuffed up.

Yeah, seems the 'gold' are in play a lot with the scratch rating being 70. So thats ok, still rates 2 and 3 under all the time

Can someone explain this but, in the first round of the club champs, A and B grade were off the black tee's, ACR 72, with NO PERSON breaking their handicap, best scores of 2 x 73 nett, 1 x 74, 2 x 75 and then 76's, and it still rated 72???? How the hell does that work???

[Buzz]

So was it the smaller field that brought the DSR down or his score plus others from other grades? Decent sized field and scores were good across all grades.

[Buzz]

Congrats on the bub - PGA or LPGA? Thanks ... PGA, watch for a masters win sometime around 2040 ;)

[Scifisicko]

Can someone explain this but, in the first round of the club champs, A and B grade were off the black tee's, ACR 72, with NO PERSON breaking their handicap, best scores of 2 x 73 nett, 1 x 74, 2 x 75 and then 76's, and it still rated 72???? How the hell does that work???We've had this happen as well. Handicapper explained it as being due to "what the computer expected this particular field to score versus what they actually scored". I just scratched my head. I don't think he understands it any more than I do. If someone out there can explain how this happens I'd love to hear it. I have zero faith in the DSR.

[3Puttpete]

We've had this happen as well. Handicapper explained it as being due to "what the computer expected this particular field to score versus what they actually scored". I just scratched my head. I don't think he understands it any more than I do. If someone out there can explain how this happens I'd love to hear it. I have zero faith in the DSR.

Your handicapper's right. You can look it up if you want to try to understand it

[Scifisicko]

Your handicapper's right. You can look it up if you want to try to understand it

Looking it up doesnt help me. Its an algorythm well beyond my capacity to evaluate. I understand that it attempts to compare what it expects the field to score, with what it actually scores and uses the differential to calculate the DSR. I dont know anyone that can comment on the validity of the maths behind the calculation, except that it seems to me it usually produces a stupid result. M3Js case being a prime example - in order to come up with the result it did it must have expected NO nett scores of par or better (unless the rating is low). Also if the DSR is consistently at or under the ACR regardless of whether the field has a good or bad day, handicaps go out, scores get better and the DSR goes ... where?

Actually that last bit is a bit absolute...restate as: it must have expected the field to play relatively poorly (not no net scores over par)

[3Puttpete]

I have zero faith in the DSR.


Looking it up doesnt help me. Its an algorythm well beyond my capacity to evaluate.

You don't know how or why it is but you're certain it's wrong.

Seems to be a fairly common reaction and makes less sense than just about anything else to do with the new system.

[Daves]

Yet it seems to work perfectly well at other courses? I have not seen a DSR at our club that I would have thought was wrong, ditto on my rounds at other courses in the area. At the moment it is at the low end for my home course, because there is lots of run, and the B & C graders are benefiting most. We are getting some exceptional scores (47 points on Wednesday), but they tend to be for only a few having a career round. A few months ago 33/34 points would get a ball, now you might be lucky with 36 points. But get a windy day, back tees and tough pins and there is at least a couple of shots more on the DSR each time. We are talking fields of 200+, perhaps smaller fields have much higher volatility?

[Scifisicko]

You don't know how or why it is but you're certain it's wrong.

Seems to be a fairly common reaction and makes less sense than just about anything else to do with the new system.

I would like to understand it. I am open to understanding it. Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining whats happening in this real scenario...par is 70, CR 69, conditions are horndous, no one in the field plays to their HCP and the DSR for the day is calculated at 69. A week later conditions are perfect, alsmost all the same people are playing, there are several scores of nett par or better and the DSR is again 69.

[3Puttpete]

I would like to understand it. I am open to understanding it. Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining whats happening in this real scenario...par is 70, CR 69, conditions are horndous, no one in the field plays to their HCP and the DSR for the day is calculated at 69. A week later conditions are perfect, alsmost all the same people are playing, there are several scores of nett par or better and the DSR is again 69. I can't explain it to you because, like you, I don't understand the formula. Where we differ however is I'm not convinced it's wrong.

[Scifisicko]

hmmm, I understand we are all entitled to different views but;
1) No one I know can understand or explain it
2) GA have hardly covered themselves in glory since introducing the "upgrades" to the HCP system
3) It looks like a duck....

[3Puttpete]

hmmm, I understand we are all entitled to different views but;1) No one I know can understand or explain it2) GA have hardly covered themselves in glory since introducing the "upgrades" to the HCP system3) It looks like a duck.... Here you go mateDSR = SR + SUM{(36+Par-SR-CPA-mh-b-S)/(m'h+b')2} / {SUM(1/(m'h+b')2) + 1/CSD2}You show us where it's wrong and give us your better version so we can all rest easy.

[AndyP]

Here you go mateDSR = SR + SUM{(36+Par-SR-CPA-mh-b-S)/(m'h+b')2} / {SUM(1/(m'h+b')2) + 1/CSD2}You show us where it's wrong and give us your better version so we can all rest easy.
m'h is bullshit, and that's not the first time I've said it.

[Scifisicko]

Here you go mateDSR = SR + SUM{(36+Par-SR-CPA-mh-b-S)/(m'h+b')2} / {SUM(1/(m'h+b')2) + 1/CSD2}You show us where it's wrong and give us your better version so we can all rest easy.

I got you the first time.

Although i dont know how to improve it, that formula often gets it completely wrong on the day.

Im more interested in how you justify your faith in it, particularly in the face of the points I made that you ignored.

An improvement would be to use the 12th percentile score on the day.....

While i'm at it there is no way an algorithm can acurately determine an ACR. This is the obvious place GA should be applying their millions of historical rounds.

[3oneday]

Maybe we've all given up.

Just know that when the conditions do get tough you'll at least be able to play to your handicap, whereas the guys affecting DSR will fall away.

[AndyP]

Maybe we've all given up.
I agree with this, while at the same time thinking that I probably shouldn't have taken much notice of the previous handicap systems either.

[sms316]

How many of you blokes pissed and moaned like toddlers when there was no daily rating?#itoldyouso

[sms316]

I think the daily rating is unwarranted.

Yep

[sms316]

I think that it evens itself out and/or your handicap adjusts accordingly. People also only tend to remember the tough days, not the easy ones.

Indeed

[Coldtopper]

How many of you blokes pissed and moaned like toddlers when there was no daily rating?#itoldyouso Pissed yes its your shout! What the ~@#$ would you know or care about this shit as you shot 72 every week on a decent track? Bet you have never spoken to playing partners about dsr!

[Dotty]

No complaints here. It's just the usual spring combination of fast fairways and slow greens.

Thus, the PCGs are getting closer to the green, having approach shots that don't run off the far side and then hamfistedly smash the ball at the hole.

On the upside, multiple rounds of 35 and 37 points has seen my playing handicap blow out to 13, the highest in 4 years. (It would have been 14, except for closing with three 3 pointers on Wed.)

PCG = Participation Certificate Golfers.

[Coldtopper]

Being serious for a moment are golf clubs that are using couch or other fine leaf grasses making it more difficult for better players and easier for choppers due to the ball running further? With no decent fringes so that choppers can use putters from 40ft? Or have I had a few too many stubbies

[gumby]

the only thing i can think of that contributes to our course's low rating is that they've cut the rough around the greens pretty short. it used to be thick Kikuyu and rye grass surrounding greens and all you'll see is people duffing chips left, right and centre. members (mainly higher handi's) were complaining saying that "this isn't the us open" and so forth and probably gave the poor greenkeepers a mouth full.

[jimandr]

I'd just like to point out that at Ballina yesterday 9 players recorded 39 points or better. 6 of them were A Graders. Burglars, the lot of them.

It all evens out over time. If it didn't, all the low handicappers would be stuck on their anchors after recording lots of 36 point scores.

[BenM]

I am not overly bothered by the new system (though I do agree it disadvantages lower handicappers) so I am a bit flummoxed that some clubs have A grade up to 18 hcp, WTF! Ours is 0-12 and even that's too high IMO, we have too few B graders and the 10-12 markers have a significant advantage over the proper golfers.

[Buzz]

Monthly medal today ... I'm playing tomorrow, but the winning scores in A and B were 65, 68 in C. I agree it all evens out.

[Rodent]

I wonder what GA's algorithm would have made of Spieth's 63? Probably would have returned a DSR of 73 :mad:

[Rodent]

Hurstville's rating is a joke. Again yesterday the course rated 5 under par (2 under the ACR) thanks to the C graders. Of all the A graders who play there, all would have a higher handicap if they played Hurstville exclusively. I just did a calc on a scratch marker from Liverpool who was in the Hurstville pennant team last year. If you just took his Hurstville scores, he'd be off 2. So he finds Liverpool 2 shots easier on his handicap than Hurstville.
He played Hurstville yesterday and shot even par (pretty good as he's only shot under par once in his 17 handicapped rounds at Hurstville). The thing is, it's a played to 5!
Is it any wonder there are no low markers at Hurstville? Low markers who want to get their handicap down simply can't play there. If the scratch marker wants to play to his handicap, he needs 5 under! Good luck when the bloke's PB at the course is 2 under!
Surely the daily stroke rating which adjusts the SCRATCH rating should be heavily biased towards what the low markers are shooting. The volatile C graders should have little impact on the DSR.

p.s our trainee pro who was a Liverpool member with a PB played to of +4.1 at Liverpool has a PB played to of 2.1 at Hurstville. 6.2 shots worse! He played nicely for a 1 under par 69 yesterday........played to 4! JOKE!

[wazandnic]

yep I was a member at Hurstville for 2 years before the handicap changeover... and even then it was hard for low markers. The course is relatively short so the old guys can bump it up, knock it on and two putt for 4 a 4 all day. Low markers may be able to drive a few greens but the condition around the greens and the greens themselves are never great so tough to score. It was very frustrating. I shot 2 over there one day playing off 8 at the time and didn't even win a ball in the Saturday comp!!

At that time I actually followed Peter O'Malley around there in a Pro Am organised by Wayne Riley. He flushed it all day and shot 2 under 69 and won the day. He came out the next week at the Masters at the Victorian and shot 4 under. I saw him at the Masters and made comment about how his round was better than at Hurstville and he just quipped the greens were running a little truer at Vic! 8)

[gumby]

hopefully with all this rain in sydney it will make hacks struggle to get 45+ points, let alone 36, with saturated fairways. if the DSR still rates lower than the ACR there's seriously some big flaws in the new system

[3oneday]

Medal today, the farmers come out.

[gumby]

still rated 69 on a MEDAL day with saturated fairways (literally no roll). how are you ever going to get your handicap down?????

[Sydney Hacker]

Shooting nett 68 or lower?

[gumby]

alright no worries ill just shoot even par or under off the stick to play to my handicap seems pretty easy i guess

[Rodent]

Medal day at Hurstville yesterday and the DSR was 67 on a par 70. 1 under the ACR of 68. Given the system allows for the DSR to be anywhere from 65 to 72, how come it's almost always below the ACR and NEVER rates 71 or 72? The highest I've seen it rate is 70 and that was in winter in the wind and rain in the 2nd round of the club champs!

[sms316]

still rated 69 on a MEDAL day with saturated fairways (literally no roll). how are you ever going to get your handicap down????? Join somewhere else. Life is too short to play at crap clubs.

[Matt 3 Jab]

Medal yesterday for us as well. ACR 72. DSR was 70, lowest score was a great round by an A grader having -1 (66 nett), 68 nett and 69 nett for A grade, B grade winner was 71 nett and C a 73 nett.

Still rated at 70 even though out of 92 players, only 9 players beat their handicap (10%)

It just doesnt make a lot of sense to me

[3Puttpete]

Yesterday's medal results. A graders killing the DSR. How are the C graders supposed to lower their handicaps?

33420

[wazandnic]

Medal day at Eastlake yesterday, DSR 72 / Par 72 mate won A grade with Nett 70 (2 under)... Finished Birdie / Birdie on 2 of the harder holes (rated 1 & 3)... quality stuff!!

Next best in A grade was Nett 72 (Even)... B grade won with 67, next best 71...C grade 71, next 72. So in all only 4 out of 147 players under par!

In comparison, at my old mans club at Camden, par 71 / ACR 71. DSR?
63 (8 under) won A grade on a Countback!!! 63 won B grade and 63 won C grade. Crazy stuff!

I know where I would rather be playing.. be absolutely pissed to come in with a nett 8 under and loose on a countback!!!

[Rodent]

Played Bankstown today and it rated 2 under the scr rating. I swear my hcp would be 2 shots lower if they went back to the fixed rating. The DSR is killing me!

[Hatchman]

Played Bankstown today and it rated 2 under the scr rating. I swear my hcp would be 2 shots lower if they went back to the fixed rating. The DSR is killing me!

On that thinking so would all the others your playing against on the same courses.

[Rodent]

On that thinking so would all the others your playing against on the same courses.
True and I'd be delighted to see them all on lower handicaps.

[Rodent]

My last 27 games have been on 12 different courses. Twin Creeks, Liverpool, Bankstown, Stonecutters Ridge, Camden Lakeside, Oatlands, Kogarah, Marrickville, Hurstville, Bexley, Massey Park and Barnwell Park. The DSR has rated 1 over the scr rating just twice. Four times the DSR has equalled the scr rating.The other 21 times it has rated under the DSR.
In my last 20, the DSR has averaged 1.5 under the scr rating.

[3oneday]

First 6 look night day in hardness to the rest, although I haven't played all of them myself?

[Rodent]

First 6 look night day in hardness to the rest, although I haven't played all of them myself?
You're right. That's why their scratch rating is much higher. The DSR figures I've quoted are relative to the scr rating, not to par. It doesn't seem to matter where I play, the DSR is consistently under the scr rating.

[gumby]

Played stonecutters just after the nsw open and it rated 70 lol.

[Rodent]

Played stonecutters just after the nsw open and it rated 70 lol.
That's a classic example. I can't help thinking there's a vicious cycle. Low DSR's make hcps high which makes stableford scores high which make low DSRs

[backintheswing]

Played Gailes yesterday in a midweek comp off the middle tees. Par 73, aCR was 71 on the card. DSR for the day was 68. I am seriously confused by this.

Anyway one over off the stick at Gailes equates to a played to 5.5. Can anyone explain this to me?

[Ned]

Played Gailes yesterday in a midweek comp off the middle tees. Par 73, aCR was 71 on the card. DSR for the day was 68. I am seriously confused by this.

Anyway one over off the stick at Gailes equates to a played to 5.5. Can anyone explain this to me?

How did the Pings go?

[Matt 3 Jab]

Played Gailes yesterday in a midweek comp off the middle tees. Par 73, aCR was 71 on the card. DSR for the day was 68. I am seriously confused by this.

Anyway one over off the stick at Gailes equates to a played to 5.5. Can anyone explain this to me?

So the ACR is the par for the tees you were playing off. So it can go 3 shots under or over I think of this number regardless of par

Shooting 1 over (and I don't know your handicap but doesn't really matter) means that's a 74. Par for the day (DSR) was 68 so it's basically 6 over par for the day based on how everyone went. So it'll come up as a 'played to' 5.7 or whatever it says.

It sucks big time for lower markers. I had +2 and a played to 6.6 or the like a few weeks ago. Yesterday had 37 points and played to 2 over my handicap.

Like people have said, seems a cycle that won't stop which is course rating easy, so handicaps go up, so people have better scores like 42+ points, which makes the course DSR rate easy, which makes handicaps go up, which leads to higher scores on good days................

[coalesce]

Reading this thread for players at clubs that have this problem regularly, I don't understand why they don't take it up with their committee to then take it up with GA, rather than just complain about it.

As it isn't happening at every club there must be something wrong either in terms of rating or even something like the club using the software incorrectly.

Either way you'd think people would query it in the appropriate place rather than just waaaaaaahhhh

[backintheswing]

Reading this thread for players at clubs that have this problem regularly, I don't understand why they don't take it up with their committee to then take it up with GA, rather than just complain about it.

As it isn't happening at every club there must be something wrong either in terms of rating or even something like the club using the software incorrectly.

Either way you'd think people would query it in the appropriate place rather than just waaaaaaahhhh

This is not my home club, so not going to take it up with anyone at the club.

Not having a waaaaaaaah. Gailes would be one of the harder courses in Brisbane, the greens were sandy and difficult to read.

No way in the world a scratch market is going to shoot 5 under around there 8 times out of 20.

[coalesce]

I wasn't specifically referring to you but there is a lot of wah in this thread and I've only just got around to posting my confusion about it.

I would genuinely be interested to see how a query to a club about it would be dealt with because as I said, it doesn't seem to happen at my course. We've actually had the opposite happen once. There was a round that came out as DSR 75 that was mysteriously changed down to 72 later that week

[nadg63]

I wasn't specifically referring to you but there is a lot of wah in this thread and I've only just got around to posting my confusion about it.

I would genuinely be interested to see how a query to a club about it would be dealt with because as I said, it doesn't seem to happen at my course. We've actually had the opposite happen once. There was a round that came out as DSR 75 that was mysteriously changed down to 72 later that week

Never did find out what occurred with that round Coalesce!?

[Webster]

Played Gailes yesterday in a midweek comp off the middle tees. Par 73, aCR was 71 on the card. DSR for the day was 68. I am seriously confused by this.

Anyway one over off the stick at Gailes equates to a played to 5.5. Can anyone explain this to me?

What were the winning scores on the day?

[markTHEblake]

Hurstville's rating is a joke. Again yesterday the course rated 5 under par (2 under the ACR)

it means your course is easy relative to its par. Simple, nothing else to it.


Is it any wonder there are no low markers at Hurstville? Low markers who want to get their handicap down simply can't play there. If the scratch marker wants to play to his handicap, he needs 5 under!

and? Its an easy course, shouldnt be a problem if he is any good

[gumby]

i think i do need to say something to the committee, the greens keepers cut the rough surrounding the greens short (before when it was long it caused all troubles for every skill level) and i think they're planning to keep it that way. we need to get a re-evaluated slope rating

[coalesce]

Never did find out what occurred with that round Coalesce!?

No idea. I didn't ask. I just presumed it was a mistake as the DSR is never that high

[Rodent]

Played Macquarie Links today. Only the 2nd time I've played it. Lovely golf course. I think it's relatively easy though. Slope 138....really? Each time I've played Mac Links I've brought my B game and had no trouble getting a flagged round. Each time my “played to“ has been better than my personal best played to at my home course. Ratings are a joke. Lately I've been playing the so called hard courses and the flags are lining up. Hard shmard!

[3oneday]

Yeah I agree, 138 is supposedly tough and that isn't, unless the greens play tough in winter or something to justify.

[gumby]

played the sat comp, lowest gross was 76 which was done by like 4 players (0-2 markers). pins were probably in the hardest spots that you can possibly put them in. still rated in as 70, what a joke. 26 marker in my group, never seen anyone have so many 4 pointers in a round. stiffs his 2nd shot on a 350m par 4 to 6 feet and gets 3/5. it's a never ending snowball effect, higher handicappers shooting 40+ odd points, only losing 0.X off their GA, their daily handicap will probably end up still being the same! bring back fixed scratched ratings!!!!

[Webster]

Sounds like your slope rating is way too high.

[markTHEblake]

Sounds like someone's high.

[Scifisicko]

Our committe has taken it up with GA. We have been told we are not alone and that they are reviewing the calculation (now if only we can get them to review the stupid algorithm they use to come up with the SCR).

Looking at my last 20 rounds played at 5 different clubs, DSR averages 1.1 under the SCR, with only 2 rounds DSR over SCR. When they get this right DSR should average the SCR over the long term, with roughly the same number of rounds over as under.

Currently its a joke.

[3oneday]

But..... they'd never admit an error..

That'd be a microsoft moment, fix something that isn't broken and call something now unusable better than it was :)

[Hatchman]

Our committe has taken it up with GA. We have been told we are not alone and that they are reviewing the calculation (now if only we can get them to review the stupid algorithm they use to come up with the SCR).

Looking at my last 20 rounds played at 5 different clubs, DSR averages 1.1 under the SCR, with only 2 rounds DSR over SCR. When they get this right DSR should average the SCR over the long term, with roughly the same number of rounds over as under.

Currently its a joke.

What calculation will they be reviewing?
The DSR formula?
The SCR rating?
The Slope rating?

[Rodent]

it means your course is easy relative to its par. Simple, nothing else to it.



and? Its an easy course, shouldnt be a problem if he is any good
The trainee pro hasn't been able to get a "played to" of less than 4 in the last 9 months at Hurstville. Yet he has absolutely no trouble bettering that figure on a multitude of "harder" courses from a lot less attempts.
If C graders do well there but low markers struggle, surely that means the slope should be lower and the scratch rating higher.

[Scifisicko]

What calculation will they be reviewing?
The DSR formula?
The SCR rating?
The Slope rating?

Only DSR.

[markTHEblake]

If C graders do well there but low markers struggle, surely that means the slope should be lower and the scratch rating higher.

you cant make a conclusion that the slope should be lower or the ACR be higher because of one persons scores.

its also mentally easier for a low marker to play to his handicap on a harder course, because being a couple over par with a hole to play is a hellava lot easier then under.

[Rodent]

you cant make a conclusion that the slope should be lower or the ACR be higher because of one persons scores.

its also mentally easier for a low marker to play to his handicap on a harder course, because being a couple over par with a hole to play is a hellava lot easier then under.
Sure, but I'm yet to see ANY low markers who do better at Hurstville than elsewhere as far as their "played to" scores are concerned. It's the total opposite.

[markTHEblake]

Is it any wonder there are no low markers at Hurstville?


Sure, but I'm yet to see ANY low markers who do better at Hurstville than elsewhere as far as their "played to" scores are concerned

maybe because there are not any low markers at Hurstville.

Hurstville is a 5300m par 70 golf course with stuff all trees, buggar all bunkers and no water.
Thats why the ACR is -2 off the blue tees


Hurstville's rating is a joke. Again yesterday the course rated 5 under par (2 under the ACR) thanks to the C graders.
You must be kidding if you think a course that short and no hazards shouldnt be -3 course rating off the WHITE tees, which is how much shorter than 5300m?
its no surprise if the fairways are dry the SCR will be under the ACR

http://www.golf.org.au/australian-slope-ratings/club/hurstville
http://www.hurstvillegolfclub.com.au/_literature_31639/Score_Card

My golf course is also 5300m Par 70, ACR 68, water on every hole, out of bounds on nearly every hole, 40 bunkers, the ACR is 68, Slope 118 and you reckon your course is harder.

[davidw88]

I don't think he is saying his course is hard, he is just saying the dsr is to low most of the time so the slope should be lower so the higher handicap players aren't playing under there handicap so often.

[Rodent]

maybe because there are not any low markers at Hurstville.

Hurstville is a 5300m par 70 golf course with stuff all trees, buggar all bunkers and no water.
Thats why the ACR is -2 off the blue tees

You must be kidding if you think a course that short and no hazards shouldnt be -3 course rating off the WHITE tees, which is how much shorter than 5300m?
its no surprise if the fairways are dry the SCR will be under the ACR

http://www.golf.org.au/australian-slope-ratings/club/hurstville
http://www.hurstvillegolfclub.com.au/_literature_31639/Score_Card

My golf course is also 5300m Par 70, ACR 68, water on every hole, out of bounds on nearly every hole, 40 bunkers, the ACR is 68, Slope 118 and you reckon your course is harder.
Wow, you really have made quite a few claims that are simply false. I'll stick to the facts.
Stuff all trees? Wow, your course must be in a rainforest if you think there's stuff all trees. Google earth has fooled you. That's a very old image. The course has been redeveloped since then.
You said no water. Wrong. There is water as well as numerous lateral water hazards. Have a look at this website and you'll see water and trees if you don't believe me. http://hurstvillegolf.com.au/
You are correct that there are few bunkers. There are only bunkers on around 6 holes but given the poor quality green surrounds and the bunker prowess of low markers, that only serves to make the course more difficult for scratch markers and easier for bogey golfers (which is my point).
"its no surprise if the fairways are dry the SCR will be under the ACR". Sorry but once again you show your ignorance. The course is short enough that a scratch marker will gain nowhere near the benefit of extra run that a high handicapper will. The fairways are tight/tree lined and sloping which when they are firm, makes finding the fairway much more difficult than when it is wet.
I made no comment on your course.
I'll have to take some photos from the tee on holes 4, 6 and 14. "Stuff all trees and no water". #4 is an uphill par 3 of 162m. It has a water carry and a very large tree which over hangs half of the green at its entrance. You can hit a nice shot that will hit the right half of the green and it will hit the tree and fall into the water. The drop zone is woeful and it's almost a certain double bogey. There is no bail out to the left as it's full of trees on top of a steep hill. The green slopes ridiculously from back to front and if you are beyond the pin, you're in all sorts of trouble. I have had 6 irons land 5m on to the green and roll off the front. Your line and strike must be perfect. That hole is index 4.
#6 is index 2. It is 376m uphill dogleg right. The fairway is 20m wide in the landing area but that piece of fairway slopes sharply to the left. The only way to find the fairway is to hit a cut that hits a 5m wide section on the right. Overdo it, you are completely blocked out and have to chip out onto a downslope that feeds toward a lateral hazard. You hit the centre of the fairway and you can kick off the hard clay into the lateral hazard on the left. C graders just play short and spare themselves this dilemma. This hole has me by the balls. I just don't know what to do. Index 1 at Camden Lakeside is a 429m par 4 that plays infinitely easier. Smash a drive almost anywhere. Then hit to a flat green with no bunkers, easy. SCR rating is 73. What scratch marker would be worried by the 17th at Lakeside?
#17 is index 1 at Hurstville. 377m 90* dogleg left. Thick scrub left which is dead (lateral hazard), 2 mature trees in the middle of the fairway at 210m. To get a clear shot at the green, you have to hit your tee shot to the left of the trees on the fairway (9m gap between the trees) or if you play to the more open right side, you must hit between 225m and 240m. Any further and you're blocked out.
Now onto the greens. They are not very good and it's difficult to hole putts. Not really a burden for C graders as near enough is usually ok. Low markers rely heavily on being able to hole a good share of putts from reasonable range. There are many greens with severe slopes. Add to that there are some new greens whose pace is completely different to the rest of the course. That's always a challenge even though you know about it.
I play golf everywhere. I'm a 6.6 hcp at the moment and not a bad litmus test. At one stage I had 8 flags at 8 different courses.
In my 25 games at Hurstville in the last 6 months, my best is a played to 9.9 (4 over par). I have only ever played Macquarie Links twice (it has heaps of bunkers and I found plenty of them). I played to 9.0 and 8.2. I played St. Michaels once for a played to 7.6. My best is a played to 1.7 at Camden Lakeside which has lots of very deep bunkers. I double bogeyed the first 2 holes that day :)
You are entitled to your opinion but you have never played the course. High handicappers who HAVE played the course may think that it is easy. Fair enough. I wouldn't care if its 116 slope was cut to 108. My argument is that the current DSR calculation which at Hurstville is worked out from a pool of very high handicaps is turning an already low ACR into a figure that is clearly inaccurate for lower markers.
If there are any low markers out there who have played Hurstville since April 2014, I'd be interested to know what they think. As it stands, our result sheets show G/L numbers and whenever I see a player with a low handicap whether they be member or visitor, I check their G/L record and guess what? They only have flagged rounds at Hurstville if they play all their golf there! There is only 1 guy who fits this criteria. The other handful of lowies have flagged rounds elsewhere and non flagged at Hurstville.
Is that enough evidence?
33660

[coalesce]

How can a course be easier for high handicappers but more difficult for scratch markers? Regardless of how difficult a course is or isn't, the layout is the same for all players. There aren't magic pixies altering the layout when it comes to your shot. On a given day, the sloping greens are the same for all players. If a hole has difficulties, they are there for all players. What is it a high handicapper does that a low handicapper doesn't?

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the calculation for your course, but the argument you are using sounds like you are saying you don't play well at your home course because there are high handicappers playing who don't find it as difficult as you do, and I'm finding that hard to follow...

[gumby]

How can a course be easier for high handicappers but more difficult for scratch markers?

This is from Golf Australia:

• Low rating points on the Bogey Rating because the Bogey player isn’t driving the ball far enough to
reach the trouble.
• High rating points on the Scratch Rating because the trouble is right where the Scratch golfer is
able to drive to.

[Rodent]

How can a course be easier for high handicappers but more difficult for scratch markers? Regardless of how difficult a course is or isn't, the layout is the same for all players. There aren't magic pixies altering the layout when it comes to your shot. On a given day, the sloping greens are the same for all players. If a hole has difficulties, they are there for all players. What is it a high handicapper does that a low handicapper doesn't?

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the calculation for your course, but the argument you are using sounds like you are saying you don't play well at your home course because there are high handicappers playing who don't find it as difficult as you do, and I'm finding that hard to follow...
You obviously haven't grasped the concept of scratch ratings and bogey ratings. Each reflect the relative difficulty of the course for a scratch golfer v a bogey golfer (18 hcp).
Looking at Marrickville par 60 v Bonnie Doon par 71 (white tees) in Sydney. Which course is harder? Believe it or not, Marrickville is harder for scratch golfers as its ACR is 60 whereas BD's is 70. However an 18 marker would think Marrickville (slope 99) is lightyears easier than BD as its slope is 132!

[coalesce]

I get the difference between scratch and bogey (actually handicap 20) ratings, but as explained in the full document gumby cut and pasted from (http://golfadmin.performaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/00015626-source.pdf), where there is trouble at the longer distance that will affect the scratch marker, it is risk-reward. A scratch golfer can always lay up.

Slope is a measure of how much more difficult the bogey golfer finds a course compared to the scratch golfer.

DSR is supposed to adjust the scratch rating for daily conditions

The complaint is that the DSR is wrong, but that would mean that everyone's scores would be too high and that is not what people are complaining about.

It could be that the slope is too high, i.e. the course is not as much harder for the bogey golfer than the scratch golfer than the slope gives credit for. Because DSR is calculated based on previous results, this would in turn lead to low DSRs

[3Puttpete]

C graders just play short and spare themselves this dilemma. This hole has me by the balls. I just don't know what to do.



Um.....

You were going ok until this bit. Now you just sound like a sook whose home course isn't set up for the way he wants to play his golf.

You can hit driver off every tee but if you overshoot a corner and get into trouble that doesn't make the DSR wrong, it makes you a fool.

[PeteyD]

The problem is they have put in the DSR on a system that is not designed for it.

[gumby]

i honestly don't know what would make my course be rated at 134. i mean there's absolutely no hazards at all where "bogey" golfers hit their shots to. The only things protecting our course are a creek that runs along 4 holes (people only hit it into the creek if they top their shot) , the length of the course (6300m) and some water hazards on par 3's which only require 60-80m worth of carry. is there anyway to get GA to come out to do a re-rate or something? getting sick of getting shafted shots because of constant -3/4 DSRs.

[Hatchman]

i honestly don't know what would make my course be rated at 134. i mean there's absolutely no hazards at all where "bogey" golfers hit their shots to. The only things protecting our course are a creek that runs along 4 holes (people only hit it into the creek if they top their shot) , the length of the course (6300m) and some water hazards on par 3's which only require 60-80m worth of carry. is there anyway to get GA to come out to do a re-rate or something? getting sick of getting shafted shots because of constant -3/4 DSRs.

Your slope is high because of the 6300m length. Length is the biggest factor for slope. With that sort of length your looking at a number of par 4's the definition of a bogey golfer can't reach in 2. Throw in a dog leg or a few they can't reach as well making them 3 shoters and you get high slope ratings easy.

[Rodent]

Um.....

You were going ok until this bit. Now you just sound like a sook whose home course isn't set up for the way he wants to play his golf.

You can hit driver off every tee but if you overshoot a corner and get into trouble that doesn't make the DSR wrong, it makes you a fool.
So, are you saying I should play it like a par 5 like the choppers do? I don't see how that helps. I'm on in 3 after going in the trees anyway. Ffs, it's not that the course doesn't suit me, I actually like the layout. I just have a problem with the dsr. Low markers don't get flags at Hurstville. That means that something isn't quite right.

[3Puttpete]

So, are you saying I should play it like a par 5 like the choppers do? I don't see how that helps. I'm on in 3 after going in the trees anyway. Ffs, it's not that the course doesn't suit me, I actually like the layout. I just have a problem with the dsr. Low markers don't get flags at Hurstville. That means that something isn't quite right.

I don't care how you play it. I'm just telling you the impression I get reading your posts.

I'm waiting for you to stick up for the 19 markers who have 36 points and get nowhere near a played to their handicap.

If you were good enough to play to your vanity handicap you would. Do you play courses apart from your home track in order to maintain the cap simply so you can tell people what it is?

[Rodent]

I don't care how you play it. I'm just telling you the impression I get reading your posts.

I'm waiting for you to stick up for the 19 markers who have 36 points and get nowhere near a played to their handicap.

If you were good enough to play to your vanity handicap you would. Do you play courses apart from your home track in order to maintain the cap simply so you can tell people what it is?
I play lots of courses and at one time had 8 flags at 8 different courses. Consequently, I believe my handicap is pretty representative of my standard of golf. I would say it's a better indicator than the people who only play 1 track. What “impression“ do you get when I tell you low markers don't get flagged rounds at Hurstville? Surely if all is fair, low markers should have flagged rounds there 40% of the time.

[Scifisicko]

I don't care how you play it. I'm just telling you the impression I get reading your posts.

I'm waiting for you to stick up for the 19 markers who have 36 points and get nowhere near a played to their handicap.

If you were good enough to play to your vanity handicap you would. Do you play courses apart from your home track in order to maintain the cap simply so you can tell people what it is?

Regardless of how he plays the hole he has a point. Im in the same boat at my home course. You cant enter the better amateur events unless you are under a certain cap. There are also plenty of players who want to lower their handicap for reasons other than (or at least in addition to) bragging about it.

[gumby]

yeah the only reason why i am complaining is because i want to get my handicap low enough so i can start playing some serious amateur tournaments. you can't just say we're only complaining because we want to "brag"....

[3Puttpete]

I play lots of courses and at one time had 8 flags at 8 different courses. Consequently, I believe my handicap is pretty representative of my standard of golf. I would say it's a better indicator than the people who only play 1 track. What “impression“ do you get when I tell you low markers don't get flagged rounds at Hurstville? Surely if all is fair, low markers should have flagged rounds there 40% of the time.

I get the impression it's a massive generalisation and a long way from the truth

[3Puttpete]

Regardless of how he plays the hole he has a point. Im in the same boat at my home course. You cant enter the better amateur events unless you are under a certain cap. There are also plenty of players who want to lower their handicap for reasons other than (or at least in addition to) bragging about it.


yeah the only reason why i am complaining is because i want to get my handicap low enough so i can start playing some serious amateur tournaments. you can't just say we're only complaining because we want to "brag"....

So go join another club and hope the serious amateur events aren't at your old club.

[Rodent]

I get the impression it's a massive generalisation and a long way from the truth Here's our trainee pro's golflink number. He is the lowest marker that plays at Hurstville more than once in a blue moon.
http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2033101324

G (http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2033101324)ranted there are some flags there due to the amount he plays Hurstville but he has not once played to his GA handicap at Hurstville since the course was reopened mid April. That in itself is a damning stat to have for your home track.

[Scifisicko]

So go join another club and hope the serious amateur events aren't at your old club.

You are an idiot.

[Webster]

He might want to consider a new career

#chopper

[gumby]

Here's our trainee pro's golflink number. He is the lowest marker that plays at Hurstville more than once in a blue moon.
http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2033101324

oh jesus. that 1 under going as 4 over, ouch. never understood why they brought in DSR, i mean they calculate the daily SCRATCH rating by how the field performs on the day (which is mostly compromised of 'bogey' golfers) which contradicts how they calculate SCRATCH rating by using SCRATCH golfer's statistics.

[Rodent]

Gumby nailed it. Should be a Daily Slope Rating, not a daily scratch rating.
This guy was in the pennant team last year....Funnily enough, he too did not once shoot his GA hcp at Hurstville in the same 8 month period! Former U.S college golfer so can play a bit.
I especially like how he shot even par on 4/12 for a played to 5! That was a week and a half after shooting 2 under at Liverpool from the plates :lol:
http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2021710290

[3Puttpete]

Low markers don't get flags at Hurstville.
This bloke has 3

What “impression“ do you get when I tell you low markers don't get flagged rounds at Hurstville? Surely if all is fair, low markers should have flagged rounds there 40% of the time.
He plays 35% of his golf at Hurstville and has 37.5% of his flags there.

I get the impression it's a massive generalisation and a long way from the truth

My initial impression was correct. You've got a handicap you can't play to and have made up rubbish to sook about it.

[3Puttpete]

You are an idiot.

Maybe so but you've got a manufactured handicap that you can't play to.

Lots of easy-pin white-tee days hey?

[wazandnic]

I don't know that the new system is totally to blame for Hurstville. As commented prior below was before the handicap changed. I went to Hurstville playing off between 4-9 for 15 odd years. Went to Hurstville and blew out to 10-11...


yep I was a member at Hurstville for 2 years before the handicap changeover... and even then it was hard for low markers. The course is relatively short so the old guys can bump it up, knock it on and two putt for 4 a 4 all day. Low markers may be able to drive a few greens but the condition around the greens and the greens themselves are never great so tough to score. It was very frustrating. I shot 2 over there one day playing off 8 at the time and didn't even win a ball in the Saturday comp!!

At that time I actually followed Peter O'Malley around there in a Pro Am organised by Wayne Riley. He flushed it all day and shot 2 under 69 and won the day. He came out the next week at the Masters at the Victorian and shot 4 under. I saw him at the Masters and made comment about how his round was better than at Hurstville and he just quipped the greens were running a little truer at Vic! 8)

[Rodent]

This bloke has 3

He plays 35% of his golf at Hurstville and has 37.5% of his flags there.


My initial impression was correct. You've got a handicap you can't play to and have made up rubbish to sook about it.
I admit I made an error when I said NO flags. What I should have said is they can't play to their handicap at Hurstville. Done. Those 3 flags just happen to be his best 3 rounds at the course in the 8 months since the redevelopment. Imagine that, even your career best round at the course and you still can't play to handicap.....oh but move along there's nothing to see here, I'm exaggerating.
My pb at Hurstville is a 4 over for a played to 9.9. I can beat that easily at every other golf course I have played. How is it possible that you could have very poor results at your home course?

[3Puttpete]

Here's our trainee pro's golflink number. He is the lowest marker that plays at Hurstville more than once in a blue moon.
http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2033101324

G (http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_no=2033101324)ranted there are some flags there due to the amount he plays Hurstville but he has not once played to his GA handicap at Hurstville since the course was reopened mid April. That in itself is a damning stat to have for your home track.

Are trainee pros not allowed to play stroke rounds?

[Webster]

This bloke has 3

He plays 35% of his golf at Hurstville and has 37.5% of his flags there.


My initial impression was correct. You've got a handicap you can't play to and have made up rubbish to sook about it.


Maybe so but you've got a manufactured handicap that you can't play to.

Lots of easy-pin white-tee days hey?

This is why Ozgolf needs a like button. Superb work.

Rodent and Gumby, can you please post your golfink numbers so we can have a more detailed look into your playing history/ability.

[3Puttpete]

I admit I made an error when I said NO flags. What I should have said is they can't play to their handicap at Hurstville. Done. Those 3 flags just happen to be his best 3 rounds at the course in the 8 months since the redevelopment. Imagine that, even your career best round at the course and you still can't play to handicap.....oh but move along there's nothing to see here, I'm exaggerating.

It wasn't a simple error and exaggeration.

It was flat out wrong and you repeated it until you had to come up with some sort of evidence. You produced the evidence and all it did was prove what you were saying to be incorrect.

A cynical man might think you were lying to support a lie/whinge.

[3oneday]

Have i looked up the wrong golflink?

Kid will have a long life selling drinks. Sorry if this offends, there's a state amatuer at our course off plus 5, lead nswpga after two rounds and shoots under par heavily 80% of the time.

I agree the new handicapping system is weird, and I get frustrated shooting the same scores every week only to see my handicap affected by how everyone else went, but it probably won't change. You should all remove his golflink, poor example.

[Rodent]

It wasn't a simple error and exaggeration.

It was flat out wrong and you repeated it until you had to come up with some sort of evidence. You produced the evidence and all it did was prove what you were saying to be incorrect.

A cynical man might think you were lying to support a lie/whinge.
I'm open and honest but not infallible. You however seem unwilling to concede anything. I think you are being a contrarian for sport. I hope you've had fun.
If you want to use the example I provided to shoot me down, why don't you admit that despite having career best rounds at the course, he still couldn't play to his handicap there? You don't think that's strange? What about the other bloke off 0.6. Isn't it strange he couldn't play to his handicap either? Isn't it strange that I have these pb's on my golflink record (Lakeside 1.7, Barnwell Park 2.2, Massey Park 3.0, Bankstown 3.7, Lynwood 4.6, Liverpool 5.1, Kogarah 5.4, The Coast 6.0, Carnarvon 6.2, Oatlands 6.4, St. Michaels 7.6, Stonecutters Ridge 7.6, Macquarie Links 8.2 and Strathfield 9.2) yet my pb at Hurstville is 9.9? I have had more rounds at Hurstville than the majority of courses I just listed too.
Admittedly there are very few players at Hurstville with handicaps in single figures but there is a common theme. They ALL score better elsewhere. FACT

[3Puttpete]

Have i looked up the wrong golflink?

Kid will have a long life selling drinks. Sorry if this offends, there's a state amatuer at our course off plus 5, lead nswpga after two rounds and shoots under par heavily 80% of the time.

I agree the new handicapping system is weird, and I get frustrated shooting the same scores every week only to see my handicap affected by how everyone else went, but it probably won't change. You should all remove his golflink, poor example.

It's a perfect example. We're just not sure what it's an example of. Rodent will let us know when he figures it out.

[Webster]

What about the other bloke off 0.6. Isn't it strange he couldn't play to his handicap either?

Shot 67 on April 12th, against a DSR of 69 to play to +2.0.

Wrong again.

[Rodent]

Shot 67 on April 12th, against a DSR of 69 to play to +2.0.

Wrong again.
That was around the time of the “reopening“. I thought I wrote “in the last 8 months“. There were some weird scores at the reopening. The new layout caught the choppers by surprise. They have it sorted now, so no more breaking hcp for the low markers.

[Rodent]

Shot 67 on April 12th, against a DSR of 69 to play to +2.0.

Wrong again.
Jack, given you checked his golflink number, you obviously saw the post containing it. The round you quote is more than 8 months ago. Am I still 'wrong again'?

[Webster]

Where is your Golflink Rodent?

[gumby]

Have i looked up the wrong golflink?

Kid will have a long life selling drinks. Sorry if this offends, there's a state amatuer at our course off plus 5, lead nswpga after two rounds and shoots under par heavily 80% of the time.

I agree the new handicapping system is weird, and I get frustrated shooting the same scores every week only to see my handicap affected by how everyone else went, but it probably won't change. You should all remove his golflink, poor example.

troy moses? i know him, he's a freak of nature.

[Webster]

Jack, given you checked his golflink number, you obviously saw the post containing it. The round you quote is more than 8 months ago. Am I still 'wrong again'?

As you are continually editing your posts (to suit your argument), I don't attach much credibility to most of your content. Sorry.

Can you please post your golflink here so we can see how you have been playing everywhere, including Hurstville. Thanks.

[Rodent]

Where is your Golflink Rodent?
In your inbox. It was in there long before you posted.

[Webster]

Are you going to post it in here so everyone can take a look?

[Rodent]

Sorry I keep editing my posts. I have to make sure I don't give the pedants any more ammo. I've provided evidence that low markers all play worse at Hurstville. Results with golflink numbers are available on the club's website. When you find a low marker who scores better at Hurstville than elsewhere, I'll be very interested. We both know it won't happen.

[sms316]

Maybe the low markers think Hurstville is a shithole? Surely any serious golfer will not want to play at a Mickey Mouse venue like that.

[Matt 3 Jab]

I think the cycle for higher handicaps leading to higher scores which leads to lower DSR which leads back to higher handicaps is evident in my last 6 games.

St micks game rated 72 but somehow played to 2 under my handicap.

The next 5 games (in Stableford converted points as it does) are 29,37,37,39 and 40 points all off a daily handicap of 9 (actual handicap range of 7.7-8.1)

But even after all this I'm still on 9 daily handicap and will be for the next few rounds.

So I feel at the moment I'm playing well but not the best I ever have, and still get 9 shots to play with.

It's just weird. I'll have to shoot +2 or so to make it move, and even then when I have shot +2 74 it rated 67 and it was a played to 6.3

[3Puttpete]

Sorry I keep editing my posts. I have to make sure I don't give the pedants any more ammo. I've provided evidence that low markers all play worse at Hurstville. Results with golflink numbers are available on the club's website. When you find a low marker who scores better at Hurstville than elsewhere, I'll be very interested. We both know it won't happen.

Calling you on a lie is not pedantry.

[sms316]

I'm open and honest but not infallible. You however seem unwilling to concede anything. I think you are being a contrarian for sport. I hope you've had fun. If you want to use the example I provided to shoot me down, why don't you admit that despite having career best rounds at the course, he still couldn't play to his handicap there? You don't think that's strange? What about the other bloke off 0.6. Isn't it strange he couldn't play to his handicap either? Isn't it strange that I have these pb's on my golflink record (Lakeside 1.7, Barnwell Park 2.2, Massey Park 3.0, Bankstown 3.7, Lynwood 4.6, Liverpool 5.1, Kogarah 5.4, The Coast 6.0, Carnarvon 6.2, Oatlands 6.4, St. Michaels 7.6, Stonecutters Ridge 7.6, Macquarie Links 8.2 and Strathfield 9.2) yet my pb at Hurstville is 9.9? I have had more rounds at Hurstville than the majority of courses I just listed too. Admittedly there are very few players at Hurstville with handicaps in single figures but there is a common theme. They ALL score better elsewhere. FACT After some careful research KK I worked out your Golflink number. Would you like me to post it for you?

[markTHEblake]

When you find a low marker who scores better at Hurstville than elsewhere, I'll be very interested. We both know it won't happen.You keep saying low markers won't play at Hurstville. So which is it, they won't play there or they can't play there,The best example you can give of a low handicapper who can't beat his handicap there is a guy who can have 101 at another course. Yet every golfer in the country is only going to have two or three scores below his handicap in the last 20 rounds. Somehow you have factored that these best scores must include Hurstville and not the course he plays the most.

[gumby]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030800920

here's me golflink, tell me if my complaining is justified or not :)

[markTHEblake]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030800920here's me golflink, tell me if my complaining is justified or not :) Based in the arguments presented here Lynwoods DsR is too low because you can't get a flagged round there

[Steve57]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030800920

here's me golflink, tell me if my complaining is justified or not :)
No justification for any complaint that I can see.
Looks like a normal handicap record to me.
Just because you have had 1 over par a couple of times in your last 20 rounds doesn't make you a 1 marker!
The bottom line with all of this complaining is that it is exactly the same for everyone.
No matter what the system used, someone will always feel aggrieved.
Forget your rants and enjoy your golf.
If you can't enjoy it, give it away!

[gumby]

i guess so! maybe i'm just getting too worked up about nothing!!

[backintheswing]

For the Brisbane guys, do you think a DSR of 68 on a par 73 at Gailes is right. Tees were forward but close to the back markers on most holes. Pins were a mixture. I am still having serious problems with the DSR ratings after last Tuesday's comp.

Everyone I talk to says Gailes is a real challenge. I actually couldn't believe the DSR when I saw it. Just after opinions on Gailes as I am thinking of joining.

[3Puttpete]

For the Brisbane guys, do you think a DSR of 68 on a par 73 at Gailes is right. Tees were forward but close to the back markers on most holes. Pins were a mixture. I am still having serious problems with the DSR ratings after last Tuesday's comp.

Everyone I talk to says Gailes is a real challenge. I actually couldn't believe the DSR when I saw it. Just after opinions on Gailes as I am thinking of joining.

DSR for the Dingo on 14/11 was 74.

On the understanding that DSR is supposed to be some sort of reflection of how hard it was (or would normally be) on the day, it doesn't seem too silly.

Regular Tuesday comp v once a month black marker, I can see how it could be 6 shots easier.

[markTHEblake]

For the Brisbane guys, do you think a DSR of 68 on a par 73 at Gailes is right. The DSR is reflective of the scores of the day. It simply must have played easy relative to its par because of the recorded Scores. . Gailes is neither long nor is it difficult so no surprises here

[backintheswing]

I have been unable to check scores as they don't update their website, but I was told I came second or third with 40 points. Can't remember which, yet DSR was 41 points.

How is this possible?

[Matt 3 Jab]

The DSR is reflective of the scores of the day. It simply must have played easy relative to its par because of the recorded Scores. . Gailes is neither long nor is it difficult so no surprises here

This is what my point is about the DSR is MTB. The old system was 12 or 15% of the top scores and that would become the daily scratch rating (well I thought anyway).

Now it seems that a few good scores will push the DSR very low when it doesn't seem justified. As I've stated before, kooindah rated 2 under the ACR for the tee's when only 9% of the field broke their handicap.

It seems if a low number of people break their handicap it rates low, rather than needing a lot of people to break it

[markTHEblake]

This is what my point is about the DSR is MTB. The old system was 12 or 15% of the top scores and that would become the daily scratch rating (well I thought anyway). yet so many people whinged about how unfair that was, because it made their DSR too low and they couldn't lower their handicaps,,

[markTHEblake]

Now it seems that a few good scores will push the DSR very low when it doesn't seem justified. As I've stated before, kooindah rated 2 under the ACR for the tee's when only 9% of the field broke their handicapFirst you used the example of the old system where 15% represented the play to, now you are saying only 9% can play under. You are not comparing like for like. What was the "played to" at Kooindah on that day?.

[Matt 3 Jab]

yet so many people whinged about how unfair that was, because it made their DSR too low and they couldn't lower their handicaps,,

Lower down?? I thought the old whinge was about not being able to go up fast enough when playing badly.

I think the slope rating is a good idea with the handicap adjusting to the difficulty of the course, but I think the DSR should be the average of the top 15% of scores.

[Matt 3 Jab]

First you used the example of the old system where 15% represented the play to, now you are saying only 9% can play under. You are not comparing like for like. What was the "played to" at Kooindah on that day?.

It was a Saturday in the last months. I don't have my computer so can't look up easily. But the ACR was 72 and the DSR was 69 or 70 I think but only 9% of the field broke their handicap on that day. To me this is a bit off.

I don't have the exact answer, but a graded DSR would be nice.

[markTHEblake]

only 9% of the field broke their handicap on that day. To me this is a bit off. Why is that a bit off, what should it be?

[Matt 3 Jab]

I think if only 9% of the field broke their handicap, then the DSR should not be 2 or 3 under par, especially when maybe 3 were 1 under's and half were C graders.

A graded DSR would help I think.

It just seems that if only 1/10 players (field was 100 from memory) break their handicap, it was a tough day

[markTHEblake]

So you are happy with a system that 15% play to their handicap, but not happy if only 9 % can play under

[Matt 3 Jab]

So you are happy with a system that 15% play to their handicap, but not happy if only 9 % can play under

No no, I thought the old system was they averaged the top 15% of the field, not only the under handicap scores.

I could be wrong, but I think it would be a good system. If the top 15% of the daily field Averaged 34 points, then it should rate 2 over par. If the top 15% of the field all have 39 points. Then 3 under is fine.

I have a drama with only 9% of the field breaking par and it rating 2 or 3 under.

[live4golf]

Don't forget that Kooindah is a tough course but is rather short...and all members (existing and returning) are nimbats :)

[markTHEblake]

No no, I thought the old system was they averaged the top 15% of the field, not only the under handicap scores. NoThe 15% score determined the Dcr. Ie if the field was 100 players, the 15th ranked score was it.Which means the % of players breaking their handicap would be far of 9

[Matt 3 Jab]

NoThe 15% score determined the Dcr. Ie if the field was 100 players, the 15th ranked score was it.Which means the % of players breaking their handicap would be far of 9

Makes sense, maybe if they had this for each grade it would be good??

Like I said I don't have the answers, but personally of late I've had 4 rounds under my handicap and am still on the same handicap and due to the flagged rounds being the recent ones, I'll still be off this handicap for 6 or 7 rounds even with similar scores. So I just can't see how I can go out and have 39 and 40 points each week and not drop?

Time will tell, and I doubt I'll keep having 40 points, but if I was to have 40 points for the next 3 rounds, I would still be off 8 possibly 9 on the medal day??

Seems 40 points is the new 36

[3Puttpete]

I thought DSR was an expected score based on previous results

[Matt 3 Jab]

I just worked out my handicap if I played to 40 points for the next 3 rounds. So that's 7 straight flags rounds of 37,37,39,40 x 4 and a 43 pointer and with the current rating as of the last round I would drop 0.7 shots off my handicap and be playing off 7.0 and with the daily slope playing off 8.

It seems to me that having all those scores and only dropping 0.7 off the handicap that something is out. Whether it be the slope of the course, the DSR or the ACR

[Rodent]

Here's how the senior pros handled Helensvale's $10,000 event and Hurstville's $15,000 event:
http://www.pga.org.au/tourns/legends-tour/event/leaderboard?id=4174&season=2014&tour=snr
http://www.pga.org.au/tourns/legends-tour/event/leaderboard?id=2222&season=2014&tour=snr

Each are par 70 with an ACR of 68. At Hurstville, 3/57 played to par or better. At Helensvale, 6/60 played to par or better. You see, good players don't find Hurstville easy relative to its scratch rating. Compounding this, is the fact that fields are dominated by high handicappers which pushes the DSR lower again.

[wazandnic]

Not wanting to get into the debate too much but actually I think the figures are 12/57 (21%) at Hurstville and 13/60 (21.7%) at Helensvale par or better ???

BTW nice to see Wayne Riley still chopping it around Hurstville for a +4... although if like the year I went to watch he probably had a bout a dozen stubbies during the round!

Pro's shooting 10over+ there is quite comical also!

[Rodent]

Interesting too that of the 3 who managed to play to par or better at Hurstville, 2 of them finished in the top 3 on the senior order of merit.

[Rodent]

Waz, the ACR is 68. I was treating the pros like they were scratch amateurs. Therefore only 3/57 had a "played to" of par or better. You need to shoot 2 under to play to par. Unless of course 90% of the field have high handicaps. Then you will probably need to shoot 3 or 4 under.

[3Puttpete]

Not wanting to get into the debate too much but actually I think the figures are 12/57 (21%) at Hurstville and 13/60 (21.7%) at Helensvale par or better ???

BTW nice to see Wayne Riley still chopping it around Hurstville for a +4... although if like the year I went to watch he probably had a bout a dozen stubbies during the round!

Pro's shooting 10over+ there is quite comical also!
Nup. Sticking with 3. You and your facts


Interesting too that of the 3 who managed to play to par or better at Hurstville, 2 of them finished in the top 3 on the senior order of merit.

[Rodent]

Nup. Sticking with 3. You and your facts
Look at the title of the thread. "Home course rating easy rant". It's a clue. You obviously don't have one. With a par of 70 and an ACR of 68, you need to shoot 2 under or better in order to play to par or better. Only 3 players in the field shot better than 2 under. Got it?

[markTHEblake]

It seems to me that having all those scores and only dropping 0.7 off the handicap that something is out. Why? Flagged Scores also drop out of your top 20 rounds too.

[markTHEblake]

Only 3 players in the field shot better than 2 under. Got it? The entire field you refer too are not scratch markers. Most of them would be on more than that, there is a small number that can't even play off 10.

[3Puttpete]

Look at the title of the thread. "Home course rating easy rant". It's a clue. You obviously don't have one. With a par of 70 and an ACR of 68, you need to shoot 2 under or better in order to play to par or better. Only 3 players in the field shot better than 2 under. Got it?

From GA

"Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
• The average net score for a field.
• The average handicap of a field.
• The field size.
• The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).
• The gender of the competitors.
Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.)


GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen."



So, unless you know the formula, it seems you're banging on about something about which you know nothing.

[Webster]

Look at the title of the thread. "Home course rating easy rant". It's a clue. You obviously don't have one. With a par of 70 and an ACR of 68, you need to shoot 2 under or better in order to play to par or better. Only 3 players in the field shot better than 2 under. Got it?

Are you suggesting that every one of those senior pros, playing at two different courses, at different times of the year, in different weather conditions, has a scratch handicap?

[wazandnic]

Waz, the ACR is 68. I was treating the pros like they were scratch amateurs. Therefore only 3/57 had a "played to" of par or better. You need to shoot 2 under to play to par. Unless of course 90% of the field have high handicaps. Then you will probably need to shoot 3 or 4 under.

Roger

[3oneday]

When you say "it uses the difference between what happened and what was expected", how does it use that? Does it add it to the days average, or subtract from it?

Also, does the expected average relate to the time of year, or its just overall for those factors?

[Matt 3 Jab]

Why? Flagged Scores also drop out of your top 20 rounds too.

Yes, but for my current handicap, the next 7 rounds are not flagged and won't be. It was a great period of chopping it.

So these hypothetical next 3 40 point rounds would count and no flags would drop off.

[WBennett]

You shoot 40 points on Sunday and you will come down

[Steve57]

Yes, but for my current handicap, the next 7 rounds are not flagged and won't be. It was a great period of chopping it.

So these hypothetical next 3 40 point rounds would count and no flags would drop off.

The three worst flags would drop off and be replaced by the 3 hypothetical 40 point rounds!

[Matt 3 Jab]

Yes I've taken that into consideration as well. Like I've said if I have 3 40 point rounds with the DSR being the same as it has, then I would lose 0.7 and be off 8 instead of 9 for a daily handicap.

[3oneday]

The system is responsible for the bad scores you have as flags though.

That's just the way it has worked out, clearly for 15 of your 20 recorded rounds, your scores are crap :)

[Matt 3 Jab]

Yeah true 3OD, I'm not saying I should be a 'X' marker, just the fact that the rounds for everyone here don't seem to be matching the current system.

If having 40 points each week keeps you at a handicap then the slope is too high or the ratings are off it the DSR system is out. Of a mix of all 3.

More than happy to play off 9 each week

[markTHEblake]

If having 40 points each week keeps you at a handicap then the slope is too high or the ratings are off it the DSR system is out. Of a mix of all 3.
having 40 points each week means nothing at all. its your "played to" compared with your "played off" that matters.
That you think the slope is too high, shows that you don't understand it well enough to justify that its wrong.

If you want to insist, show your calculations.

[markTHEblake]

Wow, you really have made quite a few claims that are simply false. I'll stick to the facts.good because you havent so far.5300m par 70 course. Its doddle. I suggest you get a short game lesson.
You said no water. Wrong. There is water as well as numerous lateral water hazards. Have a look at this website and you'll see water and trees if you don't believe me. http://hurstvillegolf.com.au/i think you are going to have to point out where are the photos that show the numerous lateral water hazards
I play golf everywhere. I'm a 6.6 hcp at the moment and not a bad litmus test. At one stage I had 8 flags at 8 different courses. Congratulations, based on that its not really a surprise that a single course doesn't figure in your best 8. Partticularly a course that you cant get your head around that its so much harder than its DSR
My argument is that the current DSR calculation which at Hurstville is worked out from a pool of very high handicaps is turning an already low ACR into a figure that is clearly inaccurate for lower markers. You said low markers dont play there, so how do you know its innacurrate?
If there are any low markers out there who have played Hurstville since April 2014, I'd be interested to know what they think. As it stands, our result sheets show G/L numbers and whenever I see a player with a low handicap whether they be member or visitor, I check their G/L record and guess what? that they play one round at a golf course and its not in their best 8 - shock!
They only have flagged rounds at Hurstville if they play all their golf there! Uncanny observation.
Is that enough evidence?yes, thats confirmation bias that Hurstvilles ACR of 68(par 7270) should be about 72, making it the toughest 5300m course in the country.They should be hosting an Australian open soon.

[sms316]

Rodent should practice more

[Matt 3 Jab]

having 40 points each week means nothing at all. its your "played to" compared with your "played off" that matters.
That you think the slope is too high, shows that you don't understand it well enough to justify that its wrong.

If you want to insist, show your calculations.

Calculations of what? I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the slope system because to me if a course has a high slope then it's more difficult than a low slope.

Why can't all courses have the ACR / scratch rating as the true par and the slope reflect how easy / hard a course is?

All my point is / was is that if you shoot over 36 points continually at any course, then something with the handicapping system is out or the slope rating is off.

I don't remember exactly who, maybe Andy P, put up stats about how often people break their handicap. I think it was 30-40% of the time only that you break handicap as a guide.

In the end I don't care what I play off, but I do care that I can compete against people on a level playing field, and that's what the handicap system is supposed to do. And as it stands I don't think it's a fair system for all handicaps, especially 12 and below markers

[Dotty]

Alternatively, the condition of Hurstville (especially if the greens are inconsistent) would work against the finely-tuned player and favour the hit-and-hope hackers.

i.e. When a ball hits a bump on the green, and it was already on the perfect line, it can only be knocked offline. (But if it was going to flay past the cup, then it could be knocked back online and into the cup.)

Ditto for green speeds, and amount of spin/roll on wedges.

[Scifisicko]

From GA

"Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
• The average net score for a field.
• The average handicap of a field.
• The field size.
• The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).
• The gender of the competitors.
Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.)


GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen."


So, unless you know the formula, it seems you're banging on about something about which you know nothing.

Or to restate that..."because you cannot show where the formula wrong, STFU..."

For a long time people couldnt prove the earth wasnt flat either!

The DSR calculation might be right, if it is the DSR will average out to the SCR over time. Since I also think the way they calculate course rating is stupid this doent mean much. The difficulty of any given golf course is far too subtle to reduce it to a mathmatical formula. This is where they should use the millions of rounds played by millions of golfers across thousands of courses to work out the relative difficulty of one course to another.

[Rodent]

Great observation Dotty. I played Kogarah on Wednesday and had 11 putts on the front 9 for 1 over with an oob on the 7th. No hope of those putting stats at Hurstville.

[Rodent]

Hurstville is a 5300m par 70 golf course with stuff all trees, buggar all bunkers and no water.

If there's no water, would you mind letting me know what's in the dam in this photo? Also, if there are bugger all trees, what are those green leafy things in the photo?
33685

[Rodent]

yes, thats confirmation bias that Hurstvilles ACR of 68(par 72) should be about 72, making it the toughest 5300m course in the country.They should be hosting an Australian open soon.
Hurstville is a par 70. I don't know where you got par 72 from. Probably from the same place that said there was no water.

[markTHEblake]

If there's no water, would you mind letting me know what's in the dam in this photo? Also, if there are bugger all trees, what are those green leafy things in the photo? 33685That water shows no signs of being in play. Many holes on your course have a single line of trees separating the fairway thus not penalising a wide tee shot.

[Webster]

Great observation Dotty. I played Kogarah on Wednesday and had 11 putts on the front 9 for 1 over with an oob on the 7th. No hope of those putting stats at Hurstville.

What about the back nine where you shot 7 over. Greens no good there?

[markTHEblake]

Hurstville is a par 70. I don't know where you got par 72 from. Probably from the same place that said there was no water. Quite plainly obviously a typo from the grammar used, I even stated it was a par 70 a couple of lines above.

I think you're too keen to reply too quickly. When are you going to post your Golflink record?

[Coldtopper]

Life is too short to play golf at shitholes........... dont do it, but never admit it!

[Matt 3 Jab]

I dont think the thread is about saying certain courses are shit holes. It's about DSR. People play where they want to play or is close or can afford or whatever.

Why can't the slope just be lower and it'll rate par all day??

Also, is there a course that rates the 113 middle slope score and it's par for ACR?

[Rodent]

That water shows no signs of being in play. Many holes on your course have a single line of trees separating the fairway thus not penalising a wide tee shot.
Of course, given you have never set foot on the course, you couldn't be expected to know whether or not the water is in play. The green you see on the left side of the photo is the 3rd. It's a par 5. The water is to the left of the green, to the right of the green and short of the green. The beige coloured path you see next to the dam is the path used walking from the 4th tee to the 4th green. The water is very much in play on the 4th as there is a large tree protecting the right side of the 4th green and anything striking this tree often ends up in the water.
The path to the 3rd green is a bridge across the water hazard which is obscured. The dam in the foreground feeds a wetland in front of the 3rd green that wraps around to the right side of the green and ends about half way up the green.
I don't know why it's so hard to admit your statement was false.
If despite never having set foot on the course, you have faith in the accuracy of the rating/slope, you should have no trouble with me playing all my golf there and bringing my new handicap to your club.
For the record, my GA handicap is 6.4. My 8 flags are at Liverpool x 2, Massey Park x 2, Barnwell Park, Camden Lakeside, Macquarie Links and Kogarah. I've played 4 of my last 20 at Hurstville for 0 flags. If you calculated my GA hcp from my last 20 rounds at Hurstville, my hcp would be 10.6. In April I was off 4.2.
To me, it would seem really unfair if I restricted my golf to Hurstville and maintained a handicap that was several shots higher than what my potential is on all the other courses I've played.

[Rodent]

What about the back nine where you shot 7 over. Greens no good there? I had 14 putts on the back 9. I wasn't hitting it very well. Still easily enough to beat the best "played to" I've ever had at Hurstville.

[Rodent]

When are you going to post your Golflink record? I PM'd my golflink number to Jack. I'm sure if you look at his posts, you'll be in no doubt that if I claim anything that isn't true, he'll be all over it. Hurstville hcp 10.6. Hcp based on Liverpool, Lakeside, Mac Links, Kogarah, Massey and Barny is 6.4. Which would be a more accurate reflection of my ability?

[sms316]

I PM'd my golflink number to Jack. I'm sure if you look at his posts, you'll be in no doubt that if I claim anything that isn't true, he'll be all over it. Hurstville hcp 10.6. Hcp based on Liverpool, Lakeside, Mac Links, Kogarah, Massey and Barny is 6.4. Which would be a more accurate reflection of my ability? Shall I post it?

[Rodent]

Also, is there a course that rates the 113 middle slope score and it's par for ACR?
Had a quick look.......Gulargambone in country NSW, slope 113, par 71 ACR 71. I'm sure there'd be others.

[Matt 3 Jab]

Had a quick look.......Gulargambone in country NSW, slope 113, par 71 ACR 71. I'm sure there'd be others.

Wonder how it plays and if it rates at par a lot. Must be one place where you play off your handicap each week and not a few higher. Wonder what their scores are like week in and out.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see after 12 months of the system if anything changes

[gumby]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030804252

5/8 rounds at -2 or better and he's playing off 0.9!!! talk about getting shafted!

[3Puttpete]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030804252

5/8 rounds at -2 or better and he's playing off 0.9!!! talk about getting shafted!

DSR 3 or 4 shots lower and he scores 39 or 40 points. Sounds about perfect

[Coldtopper]

I dont think the thread is about saying certain courses are shit holes. It's about DSR. People play where they want to play or is close or can afford or whatever.

Also, is there a course that rates the 113 middle slope score and it's par for ACR? Never seen a decent course with low slope. Simple if you play at cheap shit holes shut up and just be thank full that you are playing golf. Simple fix save up and join somewhere decent!.

[markTHEblake]

http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=2030804252
5/8 rounds at -2 or better and he's playing off 0.9!!! talk about getting shafted!
Golfers are handicapped on the course rating not Par. That he has rounds of 2 under par is completely irrelevant.



Of course, given you have never set foot on the course, you couldn't be expected to know whether or not the water is in play.
Water in play on two holes. Should rename the course "Hurstville Lakes" to reflect its true character.


If despite never having set foot on the course, you have faith in the accuracy of the rating/slope, you should have no trouble with me playing all my golf there and bringing my new handicap to your club.
My golf course would do your head in, its 5300m par 70 and an ACR of 68, most of the golfers are old high handicappers


I've played 4 of my last 20 at Hurstville for 0 flags.
of which you have spent the entire round whining about how you cant get your handicap down, and then you get on the computer all night and check other golf link records to justify it. Its no wonder you cant score well there, it would make much more sense to not play there.

On probabilities, if you play a course 4 times, than 1.6 of those rounds should be flagged. So basically you a justifying that the DSR system is wrong because 1.6 rounds in the last 20 were not flagged. A single golfers deviation of 1.6 rounds is meaningless to prove anything.

[gumby]

honestly i don't give a flying flap anymore, just going to go out, play my best and hope for the rest

[Steve57]

honestly i don't give a flying flap anymore, just going to go out, play my best and hope for the rest
Hallelujah!
I bet your golf improves.
Enjoy!

[3oneday]

That's what a few have been saying.

[Rodent]

Hallelujah!
I bet your golf improves.
Enjoy!
I see in your last 20, the DSR has averaged 0.85 OVER the scratch rating. No wonder there's no empathy :lol:

[Steve57]

It wouldn't matter what it was. The bottom line is that is what Golf Australia have given us, we can't change it so accept it and get on with life! Everyone plays by the same rules across the country.

[Rodent]

It wouldn't matter what it was. The bottom line is that is what Golf Australia have given us, we can't change it so accept it and get on with life! Everyone plays by the same rules across the country.
Sure we play by the same rules and until those rules unfairly impact on you, your attitude won't change.

[mudrat]

Can't believe people are whinging about this! You choose the course you play, suck it up or join somewhere better.