18 hole par 3 comp

[Swango1980]

Oof course that is all speculation without any hard data to back it up
I would speculate (without data) that higher 'cappers will miss the green more often than low and miss the long to middling putts more often.
At 160-170 yards, a mid/short iron for a low capper is more accurate than a long wood/driver for the high capper

I agree with you on every point. But, you need to extend your logic. Lower handicappers will also generally be better at driving. They'll be generally better at long irons. They'll generally be longer. They'll generally be better at course management. Basically across the board, they'll be generally better at all aspects of the game. So, by removing many of these aspects by making every hole a par 3, you are narrowing the margin.

If you simply say the handicaps should just stay the same, you are basically assuming that high and low handicappers are exactly the same standard when they are outside approach distance to green, and once they get to approach distance, that is purely where the total difference in handicap lies. Stats shouldn't he necessary to appreciate that this assumption is highly unlikely.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

I'm sorry to go off point, but every time this thread comes back near the top, I'm reminded of a sad course closing this past year.

There was a truly lovely par 54 course in Middleton, Massachusetts that I've enjoyed playing for years.
Distinguished Canadian course designer Geoffrey Cornish built a beautiful little layout, and it was always beautifully maintained.
Even though I play mostly at my club, I loved to play Middleton at least a couple of times each summer. For one thing, I could easily walk it with a either a light pencil bag or a trolley.
I always ride at my club. Beyond that, the holes were so diverse in length that i got to hit a good number of different clubs.

It closed, sold to a developer, probably for house lots. I miss it already.

OK, sorry for the interruption. Please carry on.

 

[rosecott]

I agree with you on every point. But, you need to extend your logic. Lower handicappers will also generally be better at driving. They'll be generally better at long irons. They'll generally be longer. They'll generally be better at course management. Basically across the board, they'll be generally better at all aspects of the game. So, by removing many of these aspects by making every hole a par 3, you are narrowing the margin.

If you simply say the handicaps should just stay the same, you are basically assuming that high and low handicappers are exactly the same standard when they are outside approach distance to green, and once they get to approach distance, that is purely where the total difference in handicap lies. Stats shouldn't he necessary to appreciate that this assumption is highly unlikely.

It's a pretty common attitude - particularly expressed by those at the lower end of the handicap scale - that those pesky high handicappers neither need nor deserve all those shots. As Rulefan points out, the attitude is not supported by any available evidence.

Feel free to write a full page to support your argument.

 

[williamalex1]

It's a pretty common attitude - particularly expressed by those at the lower end of the handicap scale - that those pesky high handicappers neither need nor deserve all those shots. As Rulefan points out, the attitude is not supported by any available evidence.

Feel free to write a full page to support your argument.

And maybe provide some smelling salts for the 37 handicappers, when you tell them they're losing 25 shots and now playing of 12 , but the 3 h/c only loses 2 and is off 1

 

[Swango1980]

It's a pretty common attitude - particularly expressed by those at the lower end of the handicap scale - that those pesky high handicappers neither need nor deserve all those shots. As Rulefan points out, the attitude is not supported by any available evidence.

Feel free to write a full page to support your argument.

Ok, well next time a scratch handicapper has an 18 hole putting competition with an 18 handicapper, good luck when you tell him he has to give 18 shots. Just tell him nobody has written a dissertation to say it is not fair, so just get on with it

 

[Swango1980]

In actual fact, this could potentially be an interesting example for the WHS system.

Let me evaluate the argument that handicaps should remain unchanged. If all par 3's on a par 3 18 hole course are standard par 3's you'd find on any course, then the question might be "why should the handicaps change, the holes are all legitimate holes after all?"

However, despite my reservations about WHS, this could be its strength. Because, I suspect the slope of a par 3 course would be miles lower than a normal course. So, under our current system, for a par 3 course, or maybe a really short course, a low handicapper would be at a disadvantage, currently. But, under WHS, the difference in shots between low and high handicappers would shrink rapidly.

This is just a theory, but a quick google search I found a par 3 american course, slope 98. It even had a few par 3's over 210 yards, so not pitch and putt. A slope of 98 is miles lower than and slope I've seen for standard courses, which are usually around 125 to 149 in lincolnshire

 

[rulefan]

This is just a theory, but a quick google search I found a par 3 american course, slope 98. It even had a few par 3's over 210 yards, so not pitch and putt. A slope of 98 is miles lower than and slope I've seen for standard courses, which are usually around 125 to 149 in lincolnshire

Do the math for CH = HI * (98/113) for scratch & 18

113 is the 'standard' (not average)

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, I can do maths. I'll do it for you.

Let us say that, the OP's course has a slope of 135. That would give the following course handicaps:

0 index = 0
15 index = 17.9
30 index = 35.8

So, in normal circumstances, those are the course handicaps for those indexes.

Now, the course is changed so every hole is a par 3. According to you, the entire course behind the temporary tee boxes you are no longer using doesn't matter, because every golfer no matter the ability would have had the same ability and not gained or lost shots on any other golfer. It is only what happens from the temporary tee boxes that counts.

Very strange theory.

But, let's say by moving the tee boxes, the Slope changes to 98 instead of 135. Now, the course handicaps are as follows:

0 index = still 0
15 index = drops from 17.9 to 13
30 index = drops from 35.8 to 26

So, the margin between all golfers DROPS which is, in effect, the major benefit of the slope system in the first place. Basically, in this example, everybodies handicap is adjusted by 98/135 = 72.6%

So, if the OP knows the slope of his standard course, and then had some sort of way of estimating what the slope could be when changing it to a par 3 course, then he'd have a method of determining the percentage at which handicaps should be adjusted.

 

[IanMcC]

Yes, I can do maths. I'll do it for you.

Let us say that, the OP's course has a slope of 135. That would give the following course handicaps:

0 index = 0
15 index = 17.9
30 index = 35.8

So, in normal circumstances, those are the course handicaps for those indexes.

Now, the course is changed so every hole is a par 3. According to you, the entire course behind the temporary tee boxes you are no longer using doesn't matter, because every golfer no matter the ability would have had the same ability and not gained or lost shots on any other golfer. It is only what happens from the temporary tee boxes that counts.

Very strange theory.

But, let's say by moving the tee boxes, the Slope changes to 98 instead of 135. Now, the course handicaps are as follows:

0 index = still 0
15 index = drops from 17.9 to 13
30 index = drops from 35.8 to 26

So, the margin between all golfers DROPS which is, in effect, the major benefit of the slope system in the first place. Basically, in this example, everybodies handicap is adjusted by 98/135 = 72.6%

So, if the OP knows the slope of his standard course, and then had some sort of way of estimating what the slope could be when changing it to a par 3 course, then he'd have a method of determining the percentage at which handicaps should be adjusted.

Thanks for this, Swango. It is probably the closest we will get to a scientific assessment of this problem.
The Men's course is sloped 129, and the Ladies is 128.
If we make the sweeping assumption that making all of the holes par 3 will make the slope as easy as it gets, then it will be sloped at 55.
55/129 = 42%
The nearest 'workable' percentages would be 1/2 or 1/3 of handicap.
As 1/2 handicap would still give some players 2 shots at some holes, then maybe going with 1/3 handicap is not a million miles away after all.
I know this is juggling figures to reach an outcome, but I think that in this case a definitive percentage is difficult.
As an aside, a 54 handicapper receiving 42% would come out at 23 shots, which is not unreasonable. I am not going to create a 42% matrix, however. My members will have enough grief after November with all that palaver!

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks for this, Swango. It is probably the closest we will get to a scientific assessment of this problem.
The Men's course is sloped 129, and the Ladies is 128.
If we make the sweeping assumption that making all of the holes par 3 will make the slope as easy as it gets, then it will be sloped at 55.
55/129 = 42%
The nearest 'workable' percentages would be 1/2 or 1/3 of handicap.
As 1/2 handicap would still give some players 2 shots at some holes, then maybe going with 1/3 handicap is not a million miles away after all.
I know this is juggling figures to reach an outcome, but I think that in this case a definitive percentage is difficult.
As an aside, a 54 handicapper receiving 42% would come out at 23 shots, which is not unreasonable. I am not going to create a 42% matrix, however. My members will have enough grief after November with all that palaver!

No problem. It seems like the "fairest" way to approach the issue, as it can at least you have some sort of methodology rather than "plucking a number out of the air". Obviously, guessing the slope of your par 3 course would be "picking a number out of the air", but maybe if you are able to do a google search, perhaps you may find par 3 courses (probably in USA) that have Slope ratings, and that might give you a feel for the type of slope numbers to expect, especially if they are of similar yardage. Mind you, I bet it is rare that par 3 courses are rated

 

[rulefan]

I like the idea.

But just a tweak if I may. Would 4 tenths not be an easy figure to calculate and as close as dammit to 42%
4/10 of 54. 54 * 4 = 216 / 10 = 22

Incidentally the USGA rating system does not apply to par 3 courses. The problem being that the scratch and bogey ratings will be either the same or very close. To get the slope you multiply the difference by 5.381 (for men). Course handicaps are (Index * (slope / 113)). The player would have to have a very high Index to get even one stroke. It doesn't really work.

 

[IanMcC]

I like the idea.

But just a tweak if I may. Would 4 tenths not be an easy figure to calculate and as close as dammit to 42%
4/10 of 54. 54 * 4 = 216 / 10 = 22

Incidentally the USGA rating system does not apply to par 3 courses. The problem being that the scratch and bogey ratings will be either the same or very close. To get the slope you multiply the difference by 5.381 (for men). Course handicaps are (Index * (slope / 113)). The player would have to have a very high Index to get even one stroke. It doesn't really work.

Cheers. I knew we would get there in the end.
4 tenths of handicap it will be. I will make a spreadsheet up for the pro shop to convert handicaps.
The comp is the end of May. I will report back and let you know how it worked out.

 

[rulefan]

Cheers. I knew we would get there in the end.
4 tenths of handicap it will be. I will make a spreadsheet up for the pro shop to convert handicaps.
The comp is the end of May. I will report back and let you know how it worked out.

Please do.

 

[Swango1980]

This has turned out to be a very interesting topic for me.

For example, it is not unusual in winter for our course to be on winter greens for some comps. If this is the case, the course is about 500 yards shorter than normal yellow course, and as the vast majority of greens are shorter than main greens, there is often no green side bunkers to worry about, or hit over.

Low handicappers constantly complain that they are at an unfair advantage, and it is true that some higher handicappers come up with tremendous scores at times (45+ points). So, although I have sympathy for that, it was always difficult to just simply, say, stick a 75% handicap limit, because we wouldn't want to appear to be putting high handicappers at a disadvantage simply to please the fewer low handicappers, when there appeared to be no advice as to recommended approach.

However, our yellow course has a slope of 130. It pretty much goes without saying, if on temp greens that slope would probably be a lot lower. So, if I was able to work out that slope, we'd have solid grounds to working out a fair handicap percentage for any comps played on winter greens. They are non qualifying anyway, so it is simply a way of trying to make things as fair as possible.

So, I wonder if there is any advice online as to how course and bogey ratings are actually measured? If so, I could get on Google Earth and start to work out these, and therefore Slope, for my course when on temporary greens.

 

[rulefan]

Unless you have been trained as a Course Rater I would suggest you would have little chance of calculating a reliable bogey rating. That's why teams spend a few hours actually on the course.

 

[Swango1980]

Unless you have been trained as a Course Rater I would suggest you would have little chance of calculating a reliable bogey rating. That's why teams spend a few hours actually on the course.

True, but would be nice to thi k that I could at least get a very basic idea of it. after all, I only need to use it to get a very approximate idea as to how handicaps could be adjusted for these non qualifiers. It wont be used as a basis to calculate players actual official handicaps, otherwise I appreciate an approximate value wouldn't be suffice

 

[williamalex1]

Can't you use the Ladies tee [ red ] slope rating ? , it'll will be nearer the number you're after.

 

[Swango1980]

Can't you use the Ladies tee [ red ] slope rating , it'll will be nearer the number you're after.

Sadly not. That would be based on the general abilities of female golfers rather than male for a start. To put that into context, the red tee SSS is 4 higher than yellow SSS, even though the red course is a lot shorter.

In addition, even if there was a slope relevant for men off red tees, it wouldn't take into account there are virtually no green side bunkers to worry about

 

[Swango1980]

Sadly not. That would be based on the general abilities of female golfers rather than male for a start. To put that into context, the red tee SSS is 4 higher than yellow SSS, even though the red course is a lot shorter.

In addition, even if there was a slope relevant for men off red tees, it wouldn't take into account there are virtually no green side bunkers to worry about

In fact, just checked. The slope for red tees is actually 10 higher than yellow tees (140 compared to 130 on yellows)

 

[rulefan]

Although you are using a very short course which cannot be rated, now that you have given us the slopes of full length tees, can you provide the rest?
Length and SSS/CR for each.