how to enter a score for an unrated course

[jeffc]

played anderson links today. anyone know how to do this?

Nice course, lots of fun holes and the greens were in great shape and rolling beautifully.

[Kilroy]

Pracrice round. No way to use it for handicap until rated.

[jeffc]

go figure. i can play 2/3 of a round and have to enter scores in for holes I never played but when I play a round that is legit, i can't even enter it. how does that make any sense? What if I played half my golf there? I'm not sure my index would be too accurate? It seems you can ballpark everything else, like playing 2/3 of a round, would it not make sense to ballpark the rating of a course?

[Kilroy]

If it's an unofficial cap, sure. If it's official, you have to go by the book.

[BC MIST]

go figure. i can play 2/3 of a round and have to enter scores in for holes I never played but when I play a round that is legit, i can't even enter it. how does that make any sense? What if I played half my golf there? I'm not sure my index would be too accurate? It seems you can ballpark everything else, like playing 2/3 of a round, would it not make sense to ballpark the rating of a course?

If the system of rating a course was simple then a "temporary course rating" could be applied. However, the process is quite involved as it includes a large number of factors: topography, fairway width in landing area, green size, prevailing wind, doglegs, altitude, roll, elevation, recoverability, rough, bunkers, out of bounds, hazards, trees, speed of greens, psychological factors, etc. for both the scratch and bogey golfers. Approximating all of these and then calculating the two ratings and slopes, would lead to hugely inaccurate ratings and slopes.

The training for course raters by the RCGA takes several days and includes many hours of on course practice and supervision before certification is granted.

Putting down scores for unplayed holes does make sense as it is based on your current existing handicap and will reflect the average scores you would make on these holes.

[jeffc]

I don't discount its not an easy thing to do to rate a course, however I have to disagree with the logic that it makes more sense to put down a score that i didn't shoot then putting down one that I did.

[BC MIST]

I don't discount its not an easy thing to do to rate a course, however I have to disagree with the logic that it makes more sense to put down a score that i didn't shoot then putting down one that I did.

Your handicap is, say 10. You don't play the last 4 holes and they are handicapped as follows:
#15 -10,
#16 - 2,
#17 - 18
#18 - 8.
This means that you would get strokes on #15, #16, and #18. So your MOST LIKELY SCORE for these holes would be PAR+1, PAR+1, PAR and PAR+1. This is determined from your handicap which was obviously established by your playing a multitude of games. While the scores on any given day for these last 4 holes will vary, they would reflect the AVERAGES that you would likely achieve over a period of time.

It is not necessarily 100% accurate, but it is perfectly logical. It is infinitely more accurate that using a temporary course rating and certainly will give a more accurate handicap factor than just forgetting about a score on a 9 or 18 where you don't finish one or more holes.

Part of the logic behind this is to prevent the cheaters who are playing well, usually, or poorly, and who walk in with a hole or two to play and then NOT have to post a score. It used to be this way, but the current system of not allowing this, sure makes sense.

[Fallys0820]

However, what's ridiculous about this is that in golf, you must never assume anything. I feel bad taking a par on a hole you can't play (because of construction) during a round let alone just giving yourself imaginary scores.

I played with Jeff and was surprised by the fact that it wasn't rated yet. It's a really nice course and close to both of us so if, as jeff said, a lot of our golf was played there, we'd be dinged. I guess it's up to the course to get rated though right?

BTW, thanks for the round Jeff, was great to play a new course with you and great to meet you too.

Fallys
aka Scott

[Kilroy]

No it's up to the OVGA to send a team to rate it.

[jeffc]

Your handicap is, say 10. You don't play the last 4 holes and they are handicapped as follows:
#15 -10,
#16 - 2,
#17 - 18
#18 - 8.
This means that you would get strokes on #15, #16, and #18. So your MOST LIKELY SCORE for these holes would be PAR+1, PAR+1, PAR and PAR+1. This is determined from your handicap which was obviously established by your playing a multitude of games. While the scores on any given day for these last 4 holes will vary, they would reflect the AVERAGES that you would likely achieve over a period of time.

It is not necessarily 100% accurate, but it is perfectly logical. It is infinitely more accurate that using a temporary course rating and certainly will give a more accurate handicap factor than just forgetting about a score on a 9 or 18 where you don't finish one or more holes.

Part of the logic behind this is to prevent the cheaters who are playing well, usually, or poorly, and who walk in with a hole or two to play and then NOT have to post a score. It used to be this way, but the current system of not allowing this, sure makes sense.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. If I am stinking it up that day, there is A HIGH PROBABILITY that my scores would LIKELY NOT be 3 over over the last 4 holes.

I think if I can estimate a score for a hole, I could estimate pretty closely the ranking for a course.

[jeffc]

However, what's ridiculous about this is that in golf, you must never assume anything. I feel bad taking a par on a hole you can't play (because of construction) during a round let alone just giving yourself imaginary scores.

I played with Jeff and was surprised by the fact that it wasn't rated yet. It's a really nice course and close to both of us so if, as jeff said, a lot of our golf was played there, we'd be dinged. I guess it's up to the course to get rated though right?

BTW, thanks for the round Jeff, was great to play a new course with you and great to meet you too.

Fallys
aka Scott

Yes, thanks for the round Scott. Let's do it again sometime soon.

[Kilroy]

Jeff, it's not about agreeing. There is a proper proceedure for entering incomplete rounds. There is no proceedure for enterng rounds played on an unrated course. These are the rules of handicapping as layed out by the RCGA. The variables and pros and cons of methods to achieve the fairest system possible have been bandied about since way before we were born. It's not perfect and it may seem strange, but upon reflection you can see what they are trying to do.

[jeffc]

I understand the procedure and respect it but it doesn't mean some of the rules aren't a tad flawed. There can be more than one viewpoint to a rule, even if it is the rule. It's also good to hear the logic for some of the rules and I don't think my comments are unrealistic. I appreciate hearing from some of the rules experts here and I hope they appreciate seeing the other side sometimes. As with every sport, there are rules that need to be tweaked over time as the game evolves.

[jvincent]

I'll weigh in.......

Since rating and slope are LARGELY determined by total yardage it would be pretty simple to come up with a temporary rating for courses that have yet to be officially rated.

[Kilroy]

For an unofficial 'cap sure. You could come to a pretty good guestimate that would return a reasonable 'cap estimation.
Officially it would be invalid that's all.

[Kilroy]

I understand the procedure and respect it but it doesn't mean some of the rules aren't a tad flawed.

It isn't perfect and that's always going to be the case. It's tough to make rules about such things when there are people who will go out of thier way to manipulate the system (sandbaggers). The ESC and unfinished round proceedures are both specificlly aimed at keeping people from taking undue advantage of the potential abuses.

[jvincent]

So how about this situation.

Based on the RCGA course lookup, both Stonebridge and Loch March are not currently RCGA members. They must have been at one time since they have ratings, although the ones on the Loch March scorecard are wrong (the slope ratings have decimals).

If they aren't members, are their ratings still valid?

If I were to build a course and assign it a rating/slope, how would anyone know that it wasn't official?

EDIT: One other thing, both of those courses have made changes to the layout recently and have not adjusted the slope/rating.

[Kilroy]

Good questions.

[Kilroy]

Soon we should be able to edit the course ratings without waiting for the RCGA updates. We'll still have to confirm the numbers are accurate, but it will be less of a time lag for updates we are told about.

[jeffc]

For an unofficial 'cap sure. You could come to a pretty good guestimate that would return a reasonable 'cap estimation.
Officially it would be invalid that's all.

and that is where the rule needs to be looked at. If you're saying that entering scores for holes that one didn't play is different from estimating a courses rating and using that then we will have to disagree.

I think everyone is missing the point. I am trying to be as fair as possible by entering ALL my scores. To me it seems a bit ironic how the handicap system is set-up according all these rules and misses this key point. Do you honestly think that entering in no score is better than entering in a score with an estimated rating?

Let's say I joined Anderson Links (or any new course for that matter) and played all my games there this year (and the course was yet to be rated still). And say I started out as a 13 index but started shooting in the 70's on a regular basis. Now tell me that any of you would want to play me in a match play event if my real index was somewhere in the 6 range....

[Kilroy]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you. The question was "how to enter a score for an unrated course" The official answer is... you don't.

[BC MIST]

I'll weigh in.......

Since rating and slope are LARGELY determined by total yardage it would be pretty simple to come up with a temporary rating for courses that have yet to be officially rated.

90% of a course rating is based on distance so let's say that the rating of two equidistant courses came out to be 70. 10% is based on all the other factors so let's go to extremes and imagine two courses, one very difficult and one very easy. The more difficult could be rated up to 77.7 and the easy, 62.3, a range of 15.4 strokes. How accurate is this?

It seems that others don't yet grasp the concept of MOST LIKELY SCORE. If I skip the last 3 holes at Greensmere, I am to put down my MLS. Checking my scoring record for 2006, I average .95 (1) strokes under par for these three easier holes. Therefore, my most likely scores would be par, par, birdie, in some order. At different times over the years, I have made a 10 on 16, an 8 on 17 and a 9 on 18 and perhaps could do this again on any given day. But, the stats show that 1 under is the norm. The RCGA Handicap System asks us to apply this exact principle to ensure as accurate a handicap factor as possible. The scores I put down for my last three unplayed holes, are NOT a matter of opinion, have nothing to do with logic, but are matters of FACT, the fact that I average 1 under for the 3.

[jeffc]

I'm confused now. Is most likely score based on your scoring for that course over a period of time, OR simply the par + any handicap strokes? In the post way above you indicate one way (using par+handicap strokes), just above a different way (based on previous scoring). Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.

While those scores might be your average, what if those 3 holes eat my lunch every time I play them, then my average might be double, double, double (or worse). Despite that, I am to put down par or par +1?

[jvincent]

90% of a course rating is based on distance so let's say that the rating of two equidistant courses came out to be 70. 10% is based on all the other factors so let's go to extremes and imagine two courses, one very difficult and one very easy. The more difficult could be rated up to 77.7 and the easy, 62.3, a range of 15.4 strokes. How accurate is this?

While mathematically correct, in practice it's just not the case for the courses in Ottawa.

All of the course ratings around here (back tees) range from 68 to 72 that I'm aware of. I think it would be better to have a temporary rating than to ignore scores posted there.

[BC MIST]

and that is where the rule needs to be looked at. If you're saying that entering scores for holes that one didn't play is different from estimating a courses rating and using that then we will have to disagree.

Again, it is infinitely easier to determine a most likely score(for holes not completed or concessions) than it is a rating. Have you ever seem a course rating booklet? With all the measurements that have to be made and the fractions of each factor that could be added or subtracted to determine a final rating, there is little chance that you could get within 1 or 2 of the actual rating.

I think everyone is missing the point. I am trying to be as fair as possible by entering ALL my scores. To me it seems a bit ironic how the handicap system is set-up according all these rules and misses this key point. Do you honestly think that entering in no score is better than entering in a score with an estimated rating?

Neither are acceptable

Let's say I joined Anderson Links (or any new course for that matter) and played all my games there this year (and the course was yet to be rated still). And say I started out as a 13 index but started shooting in the 70's on a regular basis. Now tell me that any of you would want to play me in a match play event if my real index was somewhere in the 6 range....

If you played at an unrated course you would NOT have a handicap factor, so the numbers mean nothing. But, if you occasionally played elsewhere, then your factor would be based on those outside games and would likely be somewhat higher because of this, as you would be less familiar with the outside courses than you would be at AL, even if it was rated.

For holes not completed entering no score is unfair. Entering a score of par plus any handicap strokes, is very fair.

[jeffc]

If you played at an unrated course you would NOT have a handicap factor, so the numbers mean nothing. But, if you occasionally played elsewhere, then your factor would be based on those outside games and would likely be somewhat higher because of this, as you would be less familiar with the outside courses than you would be at AL, even if it was rated.

For holes not completed entering no score is unfair. Entering a score of par plus any handicap strokes, is very fair.

well, I had one from 2006 so I do have one (I didn't just start golfing this year). My factor could be a lot higher than what is listed. Is that FAIR? So I'm reasking the question....

don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the rules that exist. They are what they are. All I am simply saying is that despite everything that the system is trying to do (equalize players), there are definitely some holes.

[BC MIST]

I'm confused now. Is most likely score based on your scoring for that course over a period of time, OR simply the par + any handicap strokes? In the post way above you indicate one way (using par+handicap strokes), just above a different way (based on previous scoring). Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.

While those scores might be your average, what if those 3 holes eat my lunch every time I play them, then my average might be double, double, double (or worse). Despite that, I am to put down par or par +1?

Your confusion of my posts is understandable as I have combined what to do with unfinished holes + concessions, with holes not played. Regardless, a similar score must be entered under both circumstances which does NOT reflect what you actually scored, but what most closely reflects what you would score, had you played out the holes. This is a lot more FAIR that a golfer who frequently plays say, 15 holes, walks in, and posts no scores. In fact, for this kind of golfer, the RCGA Handicap System allows the Handicap Committee to adjust or modify this kind of golfer's factor to reflect what they consider, his truer golfing potential.

[jeffc]

thanks Lyle, I understand it is to protect against this kind of thing but that was never the intent of the questioning, in fact I had to do this recently as we played 14 holes a few weekends ago, only to have to leave to get to a wedding.

[BC MIST]

well, I had one from 2006 so I do have one (I didn't just start golfing this year). My factor could be a lot higher than what is listed. Is that FAIR? So I'm reasking the question....

don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the rules that exist. They are what they are. All I am simply saying is that despite everything that the system is trying to do (equalize players), there are definitely some holes.

Two extremes. A 10 handicap golfer is even par through 15 holes and quits because of darkness. Another 10 handicapper is 20 over through 15 holes and quits because of darkness. Neither enters a score. Contrast this with the same golfers who are permitted to enter par + handicap strokes for the unplayed holes and then must enter their scores. Which scenario has the biggest "HOLE" or is the most "UNFAIR" or which COULD lead to the biggest discrepancy between an accurate factor and an unfair one?

The obvious answer is why we have the MLS or par + allotted handicap strokes, worked into the system. Having been part of the "enter no score" system 40 years ago, what we have now is much more accurate.

[jeffc]

sorry, i was referring to playing the majority or all of my rounds at an unrated course. I am all for fair, but if I am not entering in those scores because the course is not rated, then I would have to think it would be more fair if a temporary rating is somehow used rather than not entering them.