Foxholer
Blackballed
Banditry, a form of cheating, is a potential problem for any handicap comp. We have had similar issues here for high value prizes.
Stick to Scratch comps if you want to avoid that scourge!
95% Calculation to go?
- Thread starter Banchory Buddha
- Start date
Stick to Scratch comps if you want to avoid that scourge!
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
1. Par and overall yardage.
2. Course Rating and Slope Rating.
Which gives the best indication of "difficulty"?
Course near me,
1. Par 69, length 6125
2. Course Rating (leave this out for now), Slope Rating 120.
Does this look like an "easy" course?
To most golfers, I think it does.
Course Rating is 70.5. One and a half shots over par. It is a fairly difficult course for a scratch golfer and a 20-handicap golfer if they are measuring their score against par.
All courses are now equal in difficulty for amateurs (in theory) if they measure their differential achieved against their handicap index.
But I can't see many doing this as yet. We are still Par obsessed and in this country and Australia, Stableford obsessed.
CR-Par would pander to this obsession and alleviate much of the anxiety players are having in getting to grips with this system.
A greater focus on "differential achieved" rather than performance against Par (which Stableford is) would also be more appropriate under this new system for assessing one's performance.
1. Incorporate CR-Par
2. More focus on differential achieved
I really don't know which would be better. CR -Par at the moment would make a lot of sense.
But perceptions might change to a greater focus on differential achieved in the longer term.
We are still in the transition period, with regard to perceptions, and likely to be so for a few more years.
I, for one, am focussing more on differential achieved than performance against par.
The previous system made us all Stableford obsessed, me included.
Stableford score is not your golf score.
Total number of shots is your golf score. This was my thinking before the last system and has become so again.
Total Score minus Course Rating, adjusted by Slope Rating, gives me my performance against handicap. Don't need par for this.
Before all the replies and responses come, I know that I am in a tiny minority with regard to my own perceptions of the new system and I do not need this explaining to me.
I have offered a view.
2. Course Rating and Slope Rating.
Which gives the best indication of "difficulty"?
Course near me,
1. Par 69, length 6125
2. Course Rating (leave this out for now), Slope Rating 120.
Does this look like an "easy" course?
To most golfers, I think it does.
Course Rating is 70.5. One and a half shots over par. It is a fairly difficult course for a scratch golfer and a 20-handicap golfer if they are measuring their score against par.
All courses are now equal in difficulty for amateurs (in theory) if they measure their differential achieved against their handicap index.
But I can't see many doing this as yet. We are still Par obsessed and in this country and Australia, Stableford obsessed.
CR-Par would pander to this obsession and alleviate much of the anxiety players are having in getting to grips with this system.
A greater focus on "differential achieved" rather than performance against Par (which Stableford is) would also be more appropriate under this new system for assessing one's performance.
1. Incorporate CR-Par
2. More focus on differential achieved
I really don't know which would be better. CR -Par at the moment would make a lot of sense.
But perceptions might change to a greater focus on differential achieved in the longer term.
We are still in the transition period, with regard to perceptions, and likely to be so for a few more years.
I, for one, am focussing more on differential achieved than performance against par.
The previous system made us all Stableford obsessed, me included.
Stableford score is not your golf score.
Total number of shots is your golf score. This was my thinking before the last system and has become so again.
Total Score minus Course Rating, adjusted by Slope Rating, gives me my performance against handicap. Don't need par for this.
Before all the replies and responses come, I know that I am in a tiny minority with regard to my own perceptions of the new system and I do not need this explaining to me.
I have offered a view.
KenL
Tour Rookie
Anyone know why the sum of two 9 hole handicaps can be more than the 18 hole handicaps?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Again, we need to be crystal clear. I am NOT gauging course difficulty based on par. I am gauging it on the difference between CR-Par.
How many par 5's have you played that are 120 yards long? I am guessing none. Why? Because the hole would be ridiculously easy if it was played as a par 5.
How many par 3's have you played that are 600 yards long? I am guessing none. Why? Because it would play ridiculously difficult as a par 3.
Extend that to a course. Course Rating is 72. Is that a difficult course? No idea. However, then I am told par is 68. Then yes, it is a difficult course, because a scratch golfer is expected to only shoot 4 over par. However, if another course had a course rating of 72, but par was 75, then I would say that course is much easier than the first because a scratch golfer is expected to shoot 3 under par.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Par only tells you about how someone allocated a par value to a series of individual holes depending on what range of lengths were appropriate to the distance from tee to green.
Difficulty is about a combination of shot lengths and obstacles to play encountered on the way round.
The Course Rating tells you what the scratch golfer is expected to score. That is exactly what the Course Rating is designed to do. In both your cases he is expected to score 72
Take your first course. Two committee members are tasked with suggesting hole par allocations.
Member 1 suggests that four 460 yard holes be given a par of 4 with a course par of 68
Member 2 suggests that the same holes be given a par of 5 with a course par of 72
Same course, same holes, same CR but different pars.
So suddenly the course is easier or more difficult. Really?
The pro tours use hole by hole par so that they (and spectators) can measure their relative performance as they progress round the course. Hole par is simply an arbitrary number roughly indicating length. No more, no less. Course par is simply the sum.
Difficulty is about a combination of shot lengths and obstacles to play encountered on the way round.
The Course Rating tells you what the scratch golfer is expected to score. That is exactly what the Course Rating is designed to do. In both your cases he is expected to score 72
Take your first course. Two committee members are tasked with suggesting hole par allocations.
Member 1 suggests that four 460 yard holes be given a par of 4 with a course par of 68
Member 2 suggests that the same holes be given a par of 5 with a course par of 72
Same course, same holes, same CR but different pars.
So suddenly the course is easier or more difficult. Really?
The pro tours use hole by hole par so that they (and spectators) can measure their relative performance as they progress round the course. Hole par is simply an arbitrary number roughly indicating length. No more, no less. Course par is simply the sum.
Last edited:
wjemather
Well-known member
The 9-hoke handicap calculation includes the difference between the course rating and par; the 18-hole calculation does not (in CONGU's jurisdiction).
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Fine if that's the way you wish to gauge it.
As a mid-capper, Slope, alone, gives me a good indication. Though with CR, it gives me all I need.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Yes. Members 1 suggestion that those holes should be par 4's, makes them very tricky par 4's. Member 2 wishes to make them easy par 5's. As I said long long ago, most golfers compare their scores to par, not Course Rating. I am perfectly happy that I understand Course Rating and Slope more than most, and that I should compare my nett score (using course handicap, not playing handicap) to course rating, not par to evaluate how I've done. Just like I needed to compare my nett score to CSS pre WHS, not par.
However, let us be clear. Pre WHS, how many golfers argued that handicaps were not fair when going to other courses that were harder or easier than their own? Many. And, how did we explain that this was not something to worry about? We explained that the difficulty of the course IS taken into account by using the SSS. We explained that if Course A had an SSS over par it would be harder than Course B that had an SSS under par. Therefore, that is how we compared the difficulty of both courses.
It is exactly the same argument now, except SSS is replaced by Course Rating. The additional element thrown in is that WHS now accounts for relative difficulty between golfers, not just the absolute difficulty of the course.
However, what is WRONG with adding CR-Par into the Course Handicap calculation? I am not saying the system is broken without it, as it simply effects everyone. But, why the robust defence NOT to have it. What harm would it do. Why are other nations getting it so wrong, but we in the UK are correct?
Swango1980
Well-known member
What about as a scratch player?
If CR-Par WAS added to the Course Handicap equation, would you still be able to get a good indication how hard the course is for you?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Rounding?
Foxholer
Blackballed
CR would suffice - as SSS did under Congu.
rulefan
Tour Winner
One reason is that the differential calculation (the real measure of how you played) does not include par but your course handicap does; giving a false picture of performance.
Foxholer
Blackballed
The fact that, as you have demonstrated, Par is an entirely arbitrary value!
wjemather
Well-known member
Par is indirectly included in the SD calcs due to the function of net double-bogey adjustments, (EDIT...) although it's effect is relatively insignificant.
And ensuring the proper intended function of NDB adjustments is why CR-Par should be included in the CH calc, and Stroke Indexes should be allocated in accordance with WHS recommendations (rather than leaving them as they were under legacy CONGU guidance).
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
OK but even WHS SIs are pretty arbitrary. 4 - 5 has a 40 yard overlap.
wjemather
Well-known member
Indeed they are, but under WHS, SIs are principally a function of the difference between par and the scratch and bogey ratings, whereas many courses (such as ours) have SIs that are largely allocated according to match play values. Taking our course as an example, from 1 April (after reallocating per WHS recommendations) our current SI 18 hole (shortest hole but well guarded and with a very tricky green) will become SI 11, and holes that are currently SIs 5, 6 and 7 (relatively simple par 5s) will be SIs 16, 17 and 18.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Sorry. I had missed that you had switched from pars to SIs.
Steve Wilkes
Well-known member
CR-Par would pander to this obsession and alleviate much of the anxiety players are having in getting to grips with this system.
A greater focus on "differential achieved" rather than performance against Par (which Stableford is) would also be more appropriate under this new system for assessing one's performance.
1. Incorporate CR-Par
2. More focus on differential achieved
I really don't know which would be better. CR -Par at the moment would make a lot of sense.
But perceptions might change to a greater focus on differential achieved in the longer term.
We are still in the transition period, with regard to perceptions, and likely to be so for a few more years.
I, for one, am focussing more on differential achieved than performance against par.
The previous system made us all Stableford obsessed, me included.
Stableford score is not your golf score.
Total number of shots is your golf score. This was my thinking before the last system and has become so again.
Total Score minus Course Rating, adjusted by Slope Rating, gives me my performance against handicap. Don't need par for this.
Before all the replies and responses come, I know that I am in a tiny minority with regard to my own perceptions of the new system and I do not need this explaining to me.
I have offered a view.[/QUOTE]
I agree Voyager, I'm the same, I play off a relatively low handicap which last year had ranged between 3 and 5, My course rating is 1.4 shots under par (70.6 against 72), so when I'm playing I'm aiming to shoot at least 1 under my Index as slope is negligible at 115 and the 95% makes no difference
A greater focus on "differential achieved" rather than performance against Par (which Stableford is) would also be more appropriate under this new system for assessing one's performance.
1. Incorporate CR-Par
2. More focus on differential achieved
I really don't know which would be better. CR -Par at the moment would make a lot of sense.
But perceptions might change to a greater focus on differential achieved in the longer term.
We are still in the transition period, with regard to perceptions, and likely to be so for a few more years.
I, for one, am focussing more on differential achieved than performance against par.
The previous system made us all Stableford obsessed, me included.
Stableford score is not your golf score.
Total number of shots is your golf score. This was my thinking before the last system and has become so again.
Total Score minus Course Rating, adjusted by Slope Rating, gives me my performance against handicap. Don't need par for this.
Before all the replies and responses come, I know that I am in a tiny minority with regard to my own perceptions of the new system and I do not need this explaining to me.
I have offered a view.[/QUOTE]
I agree Voyager, I'm the same, I play off a relatively low handicap which last year had ranged between 3 and 5, My course rating is 1.4 shots under par (70.6 against 72), so when I'm playing I'm aiming to shoot at least 1 under my Index as slope is negligible at 115 and the 95% makes no difference
rulefan
Tour Winner
I have always worked to Shots vs SSS (or CSS).
My fellow players in stableford got quite upset when checking cards as I insisted on confirming strokes taken rather than points.
My fellow players in stableford got quite upset when checking cards as I insisted on confirming strokes taken rather than points.
Swango1980
Well-known member
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