95% allowance.

[Voyager EMH]

Can't say I've said to anyone that I shot 10.2 over CR when asked what I scored .

My last qualifying score was 5.2 over CR. A differential of 4.6 was achieved.

I really do no longer consider par or stableford points as an indication (to me) of my performance.

If stableford ceased to exist, or had never been invented, I think most people would think the way I do now.

But it does exist and people choose to let it dominate their thinking.

Stableford is fun. Not counting some of your bad shots - what a wheeze. That is what makes it appealing.

 

[Swango1980]

You haven't met me. I do exist in the real world.

You don't count, you are on this forum. See my last sentence

 

[DickInShorts]

I always used to compare my score (Stableford points) whether a medal or Stableford as the course I played had a par of 72 SSS of 74 and usually a CSS of 76 which meant that for me to be in buffer (3 strokes) meant I could score 29 points and be in my buffer.

This was useful when standing on the 17th tee with a (paltry) 25 points knowing 2 bogeys (nett pars) would get me in buffer.

Same philosophy still applies under WHS except I get to know the extra strokes before play

 

[Swango1980]

I always used to compare my score (Stableford points) whether a medal or Stableford as the course I played had a par of 72 SSS of 74 and usually a CSS of 76 which meant that for me to be in buffer (3 strokes) meant I could score 29 points and be in my buffer.

This was useful when standing on the 17th tee with a (paltry) 25 points knowing 2 bogeys (nett pars) would get me in buffer.

Same philosophy still applies under WHS except I get to know the extra strokes before play

Sounds like a tricky course

 

[nickjdavis]

Can't say I've said to anyone that I shot 10.2 over CR when asked what I scored .

In the old system I always used to compare my score to SSS/CSS. With an SSS of 67 off the yellows (69 whites, both par 70) I was well aware that shooting 36 points wasn't playing to handicap. Given that the CR under the new system is only a few tenths different than the old SSS, it still is a habit that I roughly use 67 or 69 as my benchmarks when mentally deciding whether the score is a good one or not.

 

[rulefan]

My last qualifying score was 5.2 over CR. A differential of 4.6 was achieved.

I really do no longer consider par or stableford points as an indication (to me) of my performance.

If stableford ceased to exist, or had never been invented, I think most people would think the way I do now.

But it does exist and people choose to let it dominate their thinking.

Stableford is fun. Not counting some of your bad shots - what a wheeze. That is what makes it appealing.

I always compared my score with SSS.

Even when playing s'ford I always check hole score with marker/marked not points. I heard "I forgot you got/didn't get a shot there" too many times

 

[saving_par]

In the old system I always used to compare my score to SSS/CSS. With an SSS of 67 off the yellows (69 whites, both par 70) I was well aware that shooting 36 points wasn't playing to handicap. Given that the CR under the new system is only a few tenths different than the old SSS, it still is a habit that I roughly use 67 or 69 as my benchmarks when mentally deciding whether the score is a good one or not.

Agree, I always did the same but SSS/CSS was a whole number.

It appears round my way that all courses have the same CR as the old SSS. Not convinced they have been re-rated, just a copy and paste job.

 

[Colin L]

Agree, I always did the same but SSS/CSS was a whole number.

It appears round my way that all courses have the same CR as the old SSS. Not convinced they have been re-rated, just a copy and paste job.

Since SSS was and CR is a measure of what a scratch player would take to go round a measured course, you should expect them to be same. What you are seeing as the CR is what was the unrounded SSS.

 

[doublebogey7]

Agree, I always did the same but SSS/CSS was a whole number.

It appears round my way that all courses have the same CR as the old SSS. Not convinced they have been re-rated, just a copy and paste job.

The vast majority of course were re-rated over the last 5 or 6 (maybe longer) to the new WHS criteria and an SSS allocated accordingly to the whole number equivalent of CR. You would therefore not have expected to see a difference when the system changed.

 

[rulefan]

Agree, I always did the same but SSS/CSS was a whole number.

It appears round my way that all courses have the same CR as the old SSS. Not convinced they have been re-rated, just a copy and paste job.

It could not be a copy & paste job as the old system has no provision for bogey and slope.

All women's courses and all men's, except England, have been rated using the USGA system for at least 10 years (probably longer). England men's course were rated under the old English Golf Union system which was similar to but slightly less sophisticated and had no provision for bogey rating and therefore no slope. The clue is in the expansion of SSS (Standard Scratch Score).
Allowing for rounding, the figures for CR are virtually within 1 stroke of the old SSS nationwide. Differences outside that range are usually down to courses not being rated following changes made in the past. Courses were only required to have a check rating every 10 years.

England Golf introduced the USGA rating system a few years prior to and in anticipation of the introduction of WHS.



Edit. However, some English counties have not quite finished all their courses and those few will have been given temporary ratings.
Edit 2. doublebogey's comment above is pertinent. See my last sentence.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The vast majority of course were re-rated over the last 5 or 6 (maybe longer) to the new WHS criteria and an SSS allocated accordingly to the whole number equivalent of CR. You would therefore not have expected to see a difference when the system changed.

It's a 10 year re-rating process. I'll bow to rulefan on this, but as far as I know there was always a decimal point in the calculations, and the SSS was the rounded version of that, hence all courses immediately went to the new exact course rating. We're due a re-rating next year, be good to see if anything changes

 

[rulefan]

It's a 10 year re-rating process. I'll bow to rulefan on this, but as far as I know there was always a decimal point in the calculations, and the SSS was the rounded version of that, hence all courses immediately went to the new exact course rating. We're due a re-rating next year, be good to see if anything changes

I must admit I wasn't aware that the SSS was calculated to a decimal value. I wasn't a team leader at that time and I only ever saw a resultant integer value.

 

[Colin L]

I must admit I wasn't aware that the SSS was calculated to a decimal value. I wasn't a team leader at that time and I only ever saw a resultant integer value.

Perhaps I was too oblique in Post #48. 😉

 

[rulefan]

I understood. When the rest of CONGU had switched to USGA rating, England was doing its own thing. To keep consistency with the England SSS (ie integer) everyone else rounded the USGA CR rating.

 

[Backsticks]

Since SSS was and CR is a measure of what a scratch player would take to go round a measured course, you should expect them to be same. What you are seeing as the CR is what was the unrounded SSS.

Is a 'scratch player' one whose scratch is from the average of a statistical best 8 from a statistical profile last 20 rounds. Or the average of all rounds ? i.e on a sample so big that any round would not change the new average by more than 0.1 ?

 

[wjemather]

Is a 'scratch player' one whose scratch is from the average of a statistical best 8 from a statistical profile last 20 rounds. Or the average of all rounds ? i.e on a sample so big that any round would not change the new average by more than 0.1 ?

A scratch player is simply one with a Handicap Index of 0.0, and so has a Course Handicap of zero (assuming we are not including CR - Par) on all rated courses. For rating purposes it is a player who is consistently of this scoring ability in every round.

The old USGA handicapping system defined a scratch golfer as: "a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses (NB: the Course Handicap under the old USGA system did not include CR - Par). A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level. A female scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots at sea level.". Presumably this definition is derived from, or is part of, the rating system, so we can probably just replace "CH of zero" with "HI of 0.0".

 

[rulefan]

A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level.

From the USGA Course Rating System Guide:

A "scratch golfer" is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level.

A "bogey golfer" is a player who has a Course Handicap of approximately 20 [24] on a course of standard difficulty. A bogey golfer can hit tee shots an average of 200 [150] yards and can reach a 370 [280] yard hole in two shots at sea level.

The figures in square brackets relate to women golfers

 

[wjemather]

From the USGA Course Rating System Guide:

A "scratch golfer" is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level.

A "bogey golfer" is a player who has a Course Handicap of approximately 20 [24] on a course of standard difficulty. A bogey golfer can hit tee shots an average of 200 [150] yards and can reach a 370 [280] yard hole in two shots at sea level.

The figures in square brackets relate to women golfers

It this current? I thought it would have been updated post WHS, since "Course Handicap of zero" is no longer a constant (when it includes the CR-Par component).

 

[rulie]

Does it really matter? Imo, it's a hypothetical golfer only used for rating purposes.

 

[rulefan]

It this current? I thought it would have been updated post WHS, since "Course Handicap of zero" is no longer a constant (when it includes the CR-Par component).

I don't believe Course Rating as a process is concerned with par.