95% Calculation to go?

[Swango1980]

The fact that, as you have demonstrated, Par is an entirely arbitrary value!

Is Par an arbitrary value. That implies it is random, does it not?

If so, that shows little respect to the people who set Par on their courses, does it not? Personally, I've rarely, if ever questioned the Par on any hole I've played. Some will often feel very easy (usually shorter for their Par), others hard (usually longer for their Par), but I always feel the Par is reasonable. And, all we are talking about here is difficulty. Whether CR-Par is added or not, it ultimately does not change how WHS operates in the background. It is not a radical change.

I definitely should have guessed my original post on this would generate such an animated discussion . I think it proves what I said, some people think Par is a naughty word when used in the same sentence as handicaps.

 

[rulefan]

Is Par an arbitrary value. That implies it is random, does it not?

Not necessarily.
"Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference"

 

[Foxholer]

Is Par an arbitrary value. That implies it is random, does it not?
...

No! I means it's an 'arbitrary' value. Though perhaps 'somewhat arbitrary' would have been a better description.

 

[wjemather]

Including CR-Par would not get rid of the Differential Calculation. For anybody that is obsessed with their Score Differential, WHS can still provide you with this number when you view your App and the various round stats.

Course Differential is pretty meaningless for anybody putting their scores on a Scorecard and viewing their scores after, as they cannot be expected to work it out. So, unless you just tell them to get their phones out and use the App, if CR-Par was included in their course handicap, they can at least easily tell how they've played by comparing their score to 36 points. You are happy. They are happy? What is the problem here? Not confrontational. I just don't see it. I'd love to here the view of the decision makers at other national authorities who DID use CR-Par, and ask them why they are less educated than the UK, and why they felt they needed to make the "wrong" decision to use CR-Par

This misrepresents how each handicapping authority chose their WHS options. There are many options available that have been judged not to impact on the integrity or equity of the system, that allow local authorities to tailor WHS to suit their players, both with respect to how golf is played (comps/social, medal/Stableford/matchplay, individual/team, etc.) and for ease of transition. These choices have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", other than opinions differ.

With respect to "CR-Par", CONGU opted for continuity with how UHS operated; some authorities, such as EGA, already incorporated CR-par in their previous handicap systems; others, such as USGA, chose to embrace the change. There was/is nothing sinister going on.

 

[Swango1980]

This misrepresents how each handicapping authority chose their WHS options. There are many options available that have been judged not to impact on the integrity or equity of the system, that allow local authorities to tailor WHS to suit their players, both with respect to how golf is played (comps/social, medal/Stableford/matchplay, individual/team, etc.) and for ease of transition. These choices have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", other than opinions differ.

With respect to "CR-Par", CONGU opted for continuity with how UHS operated; some authorities, such as EGA, already incorporated CR-par in their previous handicap systems; others, such as USGA, chose to embrace the change. There was/is nothing sinister going on.

That is a good answer. Thus, Par is not a naughty word that should be dismissed from discussion related to handicaps. Just because some people only wish to look at their Score Differential, that does not mean that others would not prefer to compare their score to the Par.

Furthermore, to truly get an indication as to how hard a golf course will feel to the typical golfer, the difference between CR and Par is important. Yes, I indeed get the fact that a 460 yard hole should effectively play in the same way, regardless if it is called a par 4 or a par 5, and therefore the Course Rating is important, not Par. When working out the average score differential from the best 8 (i.e. the Index), Par has no relevance, nor should it.

However, at the risk of speaking for most golfers, they compare their performance to what the Par is. I expect that Par has been reasonably set in virtually all cases, their has been a process and logic behind the decision, so I would not call it an arbitrary decision. In the UK, a scratch golfer plays off scratch everywhere (using the scratch golfer as the easiest demonstration, as we can ignore the added benefit of Slope). This does not feel logical to many golfers. However, if CR-Par was accounted for, all that would happen is that they'd play off 3 at Wentworth, whereas they could play off -3 at a course considered easy. So, WHS could tell them that Wentworth is 6 shots harder than the easy course, simply by giving them an extra 6 shots on to their handicap. Yes, it is clearly personal opinion. But, to me anyway, I feel including CR-Par makes a massive amount of good sense.

And, to point out. I was never saying NOT using Par was a fundamental flaw with WHS. I just wanted to know why some were so dead against it? Was it wrong? What was I missing, especially if other national authorities used it? I'm guessing the conclusion is that, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using Par within WHS as other nations have, it is just some people are less bothered about it than others.

 

[Colin L]

Par was used in the UHS and is used in the WHS in the same ways: to limit the maximum score on any hole (nett double bogey or par+5 when returning scores for a new handicap)) and to equalise handicaps in mixed tee stablefords.

Using par to compare players' scores in a round played on the same course is fine - you are using the same base for comparison. Using par to compare your own performances on different courses is not so fine. That's because each club has the freedom to determine the par of a hole within overlapping parameters: a hole between 240 and 260 yards could be a par 3 on one course and a par 4 on another; a hole between 450 and 490 yards could be a par 4 or a par 5. Variations like those between courses mean that you could be comparing your scores from different bases. Thus, 1 over par on one course could be mean you had played better than when you scored one under par on another. On the other hand, 1 under the Course Rating of one course is always better than one over the Course Rating of another.

 

[Foxholer]

...Par is not a naughty word that should be dismissed from discussion related to handicaps. Just because some people only wish to look at their Score Differential, that does not mean that others would not prefer to compare their score to the Par.

And, to point out. I was never saying NOT using Par was a fundamental flaw with WHS. I just wanted to know why some were so dead against it? Was it wrong? What was I missing, especially if other national authorities used it? I'm guessing the conclusion is that, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using Par within WHS as other nations have, it is just some people are less bothered about it than others.

My only 'objection' to using Par in any calculation of Handicap is that it's not a 'true' stat (attribute) - in the way that all the other stats (CR, Slope and even SSS) are.

 

[Swango1980]

Par was used in the UHS and is used in the WHS in the same ways: to limit the maximum score on any hole (nett double bogey or par+5 when returning scores for a new handicap)) and to equalise handicaps in mixed tee stablefords.

Using par to compare players' scores in a round played on the same course is fine - you are using the same base for comparison. Using par to compare your own performances on different courses is not so fine. That's because each club has the freedom to determine the par of a hole within overlapping parameters: a hole between 240 and 260 yards could be a par 3 on one course and a par 4 on another; a hole between 450 and 490 yards could be a par 4 or a par 5. Variations like those between courses mean that you could be comparing your scores from different bases. Thus, 1 over par on one course could be mean you had played better than when you scored one under par on another. On the other hand, 1 under the Course Rating of one course is always better than one over the Course Rating of another.

Completely agree with all of this. And, of course the reason comparing your score to Par is NOT the correct way to look at evaluating your performance is because Par is not currently included within the course handicap calculation.

Course A, Par 72, CR 74
Course B, Par 72, CR 70

In UK now:

Scratch Player shoots 36 points at both courses. However, these are not equal in terms of performance. At Course A they are 2 better than handicap, Course B 2 worse
Scratch Player shoots 36 points at A, 40 points at B. These are equal in terms of performance at both courses.

In USA (i.e. using CR-Par):

Scratch Player (Course Handicap at A = 2, B = -2) shoots 36 points at both courses. These scores are now comparable and reflect an equal performance
Scratch Player shoots 36 points at A, 40 points at B. The player can now say they performed better at Course B

Whether adding Par or not is done, it does not damage the integrity of Course Rating and its role in handicaps. It simply shifts the base point, so when a player evaluates their score they do not need to do so against Course Rating, but they can now do it against Par. This is a lot easier and transparent for most golfers. And, particularly as Stableford is popular, it means that the 36 points target remains the same, regardless of course you play.

Of course, I think this goes a little on a tangent to the original point, in which we were talking about the difficulty of a course. There are plenty of examples were simply only knowing the Course Rating and Slope only would give you no indication as to how hard the course is. Both these values will often be a lot smaller for very short courses for obvious reasons, and higher for very long courses. That does not mean short courses are easy, long courses are hard. You could have a very short course that is incredibly tough, and an extremely long course with barely any penalty areas, trees of bunkers making it fairly easy. A player would still expect to shoot a lower gross score at the very short course purely down to length (hence the lower ratings), but find it much more of a challenge than the very long course.

 

[rulefan]

In USA (i.e. using CR-Par):

Scratch Player (Course Handicap at A = 2, B = -2) shoots 36 points at both courses. These scores are now comparable and reflect an equal performance
Scratch Player shoots 36 points at A, 40 points at B. The player can now say they performed better at Course B

Of course any handicap adjustment then gets processed ignoring par. So the player may not get the adjustment he expected.

 

[Swango1980]

Of course any handicap adjustment then gets processed ignoring par. So the player may not get the adjustment he expected.

Handicap adjustments (Index) would be done in exactly the same way as now, I've no issue with that. They are more likely going to get "expected" adjustments if CR-Par was included, as they know 36 points is the target (generally speaking, 36 points would provide a small cut, depending on the score they lose). More players are confused now, when they don't get a cut after shooting 37-39 points (for example), but not taking into account CR is quite a bit lower than Par.

At any rate, there will always be cases where players do not get the cut they were expecting anyway, if they are not fully aware of the score they are losing, and what their 8th best score is. Unless they fully evaluate their scoring history, like I am sure many keen forum users do. I am pretty sure that IF CR-Par was added in the UK, it would not confuse the knowledgeable folks in this forum.

 

[Foxholer]

This article is worth a read https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth
The author knows a bit about handicapping!

 

[wjemather]

This article is worth a read https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth
The author knows a bit about handicapping!

DK may know a bit about handicapping but (as hinted at previously) he is either being incompetent (mathematically) or disingenuous when it comes to his "biggest concern", the effect of par.

 

[Swango1980]

This article is worth a read https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth
The author knows a bit about handicapping!

He may know a bit about handicapping. But, surely the people in the USGA also know a bit about handicapping as well, along with handicapping authorities across the world. I don't know anything about this guy, but I'll always be cautious about agreeing with the opinion of one guy.

He complains that the range of handicaps across different courses would be too high. Firstly, I'd ask, why is that a problem? Golfers thought that they'd get less shots at very easy courses, more at very hard courses. So, if that means they get a lot more or a lot less shots from one course to another, so be it. Mind you, he seems to be taking it to the absolute extreme, saying a zero indexer could be playing off +12 to 6. Well, I've never seen a course with a CR 12 less than par, or even 6 over par. However, as I'm sure they exist somewhere, then if CR is 12 less than par, that would indicate it is ridiculously easy, and 6 over par very very hard. Maybe the course designers got their par wrong, maybe not. But, that is how they set it, and that factors into how easy they want it to be. If a course designer wants to present a real challenge to golfers, they may designate a 470 yard hole a par 4, another committee may see that as a par 5.

He also tries to say it is incorrect because CR-Par may be a decimal, and therefore depending on rounding, some might gain a shot, others not. Again, how is this even an issue? Index is a decimal point. There will be players whose Index is only 0.1 different to another player, but their course handicap / playing handicap is a full shot.

He quotes John Bodenhamer, the USGA's Senior Manager of Championships and the association's senior representative on the World Handicap Committee, who explains why CR-Par was included. Would you be prepared to accept he knows a little about handicapping as well?

It sounds to me that Dean Knuth is simply upset that his baby (the US handicapping system pre WHS) has changed. Golfers who complained about WHS were accused of not liking change. Sometimes the same argument can be applied to people at the top.

 

[Foxholer]

He may know a bit about handicapping. But, surely the people in the USGA also know a bit about handicapping as well, along with handicapping authorities across the world. I don't know anything about this guy, but I'll always be cautious about agreeing with the opinion of one guy.

He complains that the range of handicaps across different courses would be too high. Firstly, I'd ask, why is that a problem? Golfers thought that they'd get less shots at very easy courses, more at very hard courses. So, if that means they get a lot more or a lot less shots from one course to another, so be it. Mind you, he seems to be taking it to the absolute extreme, saying a zero indexer could be playing off +12 to 6. Well, I've never seen a course with a CR 12 less than par, or even 6 over par. However, as I'm sure they exist somewhere, then if CR is 12 less than par, that would indicate it is ridiculously easy, and 6 over par very very hard. Maybe the course designers got their par wrong, maybe not. But, that is how they set it, and that factors into how easy they want it to be. If a course designer wants to present a real challenge to golfers, they may designate a 470 yard hole a par 4, another committee may see that as a par 5.

He also tries to say it is incorrect because CR-Par may be a decimal, and therefore depending on rounding, some might gain a shot, others not. Again, how is this even an issue? Index is a decimal point. There will be players whose Index is only 0.1 different to another player, but their course handicap / playing handicap is a full shot.

He quotes John Bodenhamer, the USGA's Senior Manager of Championships and the association's senior representative on the World Handicap Committee, who explains why CR-Par was included. Would you be prepared to accept he knows a little about handicapping as well?

It sounds to me that Dean Knuth is simply upset that his baby (the US handicapping system pre WHS) has changed. Golfers who complained about WHS were accused of not liking change. Sometimes the same argument can be applied to people at the top.

I'd suggest that the guy who invented the Slope system knows a bit more about handicaps than the Manager of Championships (which, as far as I know don't actually use handicaps!)
Here's Knuth's blog http://www.popeofslope.com/index.html

 

[Swango1980]

I'd suggest that the guy who invented the Slope system knows a bit more about handicaps than the Manager of Championships (which, as far as I know don't actually use handicaps!)
Here's Knuth's blog http://www.popeofslope.com/index.html

I have no doubt he understands the Slope system. And, I have not criticised it, and Slope is still used regardless of CR-Par or not.

Just because he invented the Slope system, that does give him the right to dictate everything that is right and wrong with handicaps. If he is that highly regarded, was he involved in the development of WHS? If not, why not? If so, why didn't every single person in the USGA bow down to everything he said?

Also, when referencing John Bodenhamer, you conveniently ignored "association's senior representative on the World Handicap Committee". I suspect you feel you know a lot more about handicaps than him? I wonder how he got himself into such a position? I wonder about all the other people that work within the USGA, and if any of them know much about handicaps? I am guessing they do, so I'm still not prepared to hold one guys opinion over an entire organisation.

 

[Foxholer]

...
Also, when referencing John Bodenhamer, you conveniently ignored "association's senior representative on the World Handicap Committee". I suspect you feel you know a lot more about handicaps than him? I wonder how he got himself into such a position? I wonder about all the other people that work within the USGA, and if any of them know much about handicaps? I am guessing they do, so I'm still not prepared to hold one guys opinion over an entire organisation.

I don't know Bodenhamer from a bar of soap. I'm pretty sure you are in the same position. I strongly suspect he had nothing to do with the details of whether or not to include Par in any handicap calculation of the US implementation!

 

[Foxholer]

I have no doubt he understands the Slope system. And, I have not criticised it, and Slope is still used regardless of CR-Par or not.

Just because he invented the Slope system, that does give him the right to dictate everything that is right and wrong with handicaps. If he is that highly regarded, was he involved in the development of WHS? If not, why not? If so, why didn't every single person in the USGA bow down to everything he said?

It's called the Slope system for convenience. 'Slope system' is the entire US Handicapping system!

He resigned from USGA in 1997 to take up a completely different role elsewhere http://www.popeofslope.com/about/memo.html

 

[Swango1980]

I don't know Bodenhamer from a bar of soap. I'm pretty sure you are in the same position. I strongly suspect he had nothing to do with the details of whether or not to include Par in any handicap calculation of the US implementation!

We can both agree on that. It is why I choose to treat what he says with caution, or any other individual for that matter. Because, like us, sometimes it is simply down to opinion and little to to with right or wrong with the system itself. If he was to talk about how Course Rating and Bogey ratings were measured, and why they chose the techniques to do this and assumptions they made, I would listen with fascination. I presume this was his baby and he knows more than anyone in the world. And, seemingly, the world has adopted this system. However, I'm guessing he has little or nothing to do with PCC, judging by his article, so in that sense maybe he knows no more than you or me and we'd need to go to someone else to chat about that. Did he have anything or much to do with Playing handicap allowances?

Although WHS looks more like the US system than our old one, it still is different. From what I am aware, the old US system used the best 10 of the last 20 rounds, index was only updated a couple of times a month, it didn't use nett double bogey caps (but an alternative method of capping bad scores), it didn't have PCC and of course, it didn't have CR-Par. When introducing CR-Par, Steve Edmondson (USGA director of handicap and course rating) said "Previously, your course handicap represented the number of strokes you got based on your Handicap Index in relation to course rating, a metric that only the most avid golfers knew or understood. Now course handicaps reflect the strokes you get in relation to par, a more intuitive measure for most golfers" . I would class myself an avid golfer who understands WHS more than most golfers (having researched it extensively as a club handicap secretary, and using the useful discussions within these forums for the last few years), but I still agree with his assessment. The point is, WHS is different to the system the US had before, and it has changed in some more fundamental ways than simply applying CR-Par or not. So, is the system now weaker than the system created by the Slope system inventor, or has it been refined and improved?

 

[Swango1980]

It's called the Slope system for convenience. 'Slope system' is the entire US Handicapping system!

He resigned from USGA in 1997 to take up a completely different role elsewhere http://www.popeofslope.com/about/memo.html

Cheers, looks like he has been away from having an active role for quite some time.

 

[wjemather]

It's called the Slope system for convenience. 'Slope system' is the entire US Handicapping system!

The handicap system may have been referred to as the "slope system" colloquially, but the "handicap system" and "course and slope rating system" are most definitely not the same thing.