CR and Slope - are some courses harder than others? And other course difficulty discussion

[Voyager EMH]

Par itself tells you nothing about relative or actual difficulty. It is simple the sum of the pars allocated to individual holes. The problem is that an 18 hole par 72 could be 18 holes of 490 yards (ie 8820 yards) or 18 holes of 240 yards (ie 4320 yards).

Hence the need for CR and Slope to address this discrepancy?

 

[Orikoru]

The theory behind CR and S is not to make all courses the same degree of difficulty. It is to make competition between hc golfers on a given course equal, and comoetition between golfers with hcs from different courses, equal. It is a rebalancing of relative difficulties.
Courses are, objectively, certainly not all of equal difficulty.

This is what confuses me in Voyager's wording. For me the 'difficulty' is how hard it is to get my ball from the tee to the hole 18 times, and whatever numbers have been assigned to the course make absolutely no difference to that. What they do is compensate for the relative difficulty of the course, and as you say, level the playing field between scratch and bogey golfers a bit more.

 

[Voyager EMH]

This is what confuses me in Voyager's wording. For me the 'difficulty' is how hard it is to get my ball from the tee to the hole 18 times, and whatever numbers have been assigned to the course make absolutely no difference to that. What they do is compensate for the relative difficulty of the course, and as you say, level the playing field between scratch and bogey golfers a bit more.

An excellent description of "ratings" ie Course and Slope.

 

[Backsticks]

This is what confuses me in Voyager's wording. For me the 'difficulty' is how hard it is to get my ball from the tee to the hole 18 times, and whatever numbers have been assigned to the course make absolutely no difference to that. What they do is compensate for the relative difficulty of the course, and as you say, level the playing field between scratch and bogey golfers a bit more.

Yes, I think people are talking at cross purposes.

Courses are unarguably not all equally difficult. CR and S exist for this reason. But are of various difficulties for unhandicapped golf. Gross scores. Some courses, I can break 80. They are easier courses than the ones where I struggle to break 90 - which are more difficult.

If you move to the handicapped universe, and apply CR and S, then, all courses are, or the aim is to have them be, equally 'net difficult'.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yes, I think people are talking at cross purposes.

Courses are unarguably not all equally difficult. CR and S exist for this reason. But are of various difficulties for unhandicapped golf. Gross scores. Some courses, I can break 80. They are easier courses than the ones where I struggle to break 90 - which are more difficult.

If you move to the handicapped universe, and apply CR and S, then, all courses are, or the aim is to have them be, equally 'net difficult'.

This is why I tend to think about my gross score and my "what I played to score" which is my Score Differential.

Number of stableford points, or nett score, is for sorting players in order in a competition.

Yesterday I finished 18th out of 45 entrants.
Gross 79 and SD 7.0
Those two figures tell me more about my personal performance than nett score or stableford points.
18th out of 45 is all that nett score or stableford points do for me.

 

[sjw]

Going back to the issue of whether to use CR or CR-Par to calculate course handicap...

Does this affect how adjusted gross scores are awarded?
Let's take an extreme example of a course with CR 6 less than par.
Let's assume we have a player with an index such that his course handicap is 10 using the CR method, and 4 using the CR-Par method.
Now suppose he NR's the holes with stroke indexes 5 to 10.
Under the CR method, I know he will be given a gross triple bogey (=net double) on those holes.
Using the CR-Par method, does he get given a gross double bogey, since he has no shot on those holes?
And if that is what happens, then his adjusted gross differential will be 6 lower under CR-Par method.

I'm not saying this does happen (because I don't know), just asking the experts here whether this is what would happen.

A gross triple bogey being given a shot and a gross double bogey with no shots are one and the same. We know that the differential is no different regardless of whether or not CR-Par is used because the differential calculation is the same behind the scenes.

 

[D-S]

A gross triple bogey being given a shot and a gross double bogey with no shots are one and the same. We know that the differential is no different regardless of whether or not CR-Par is used because the differential calculation is the same behind the scenes.

The difference is that under the CR-Par method you know which holes you are getting a shot on in the handicap calculation and can pick up or not appropriately.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm curious to know how often this "when-to-pick-up" issue occurs.
I've just looked at the 13 scores I've returned for handicap this year and I have not "picked up" once.
Does the frequency of the "when-to-pick-up" issue vary in some arithmetically recognisable way?

I would have to be looking at a treble on a non-shot hole or a quadruple on a shot hole.
We have changed our weekly weekday comps from stablefords to medals with max-5-over-gross-per-hole for competition purposes.
I have made one such score in the 13 rounds, but needed to hole out for less than a quintuple for competition purposes. I missed, but tapped in rather than pick up - it was the 18th.

Just how much of an issue is this? Genuinely curious to know.

I wonder if CR-Par could be used for competition play, but be left out of CH calculation? Merely add or subtract the appropriate amount in the conversion of CH to PH.
At present CH is merely HI adjusted for slope, it is not a "handicap" until the conversion to PH.

Another option would be to put CR-Par and 95% together and go straight from HI to PH for individual strokeplay as they do in Australia and have no such thing as CH.
Takes away some of the "when-to-pick-up" issue altogether for many as PH is the only handicap to consider.
Also takes away the "scoring of stableford points with 100% CH" which I continue to observe being done in roll-ups at my club.
Interestingly in Australia, they still use 90%, 85% etc for PH in other formats of play even though 93% (yes - not 95%) has been applied already.

 

[D-S]

I'm curious to know how often this "when-to-pick-up" issue occurs.
I've just looked at the 13 scores I've returned for handicap this year and I have not "picked up" once.
Does the frequency of the "when-to-pick-up" issue vary in some arithmetically recognisable way?

I would have to be looking at a treble on a non-shot hole or a quadruple on a shot hole.
We have changed our weekly weekday comps from stablefords to medals with max-5-over-gross-per-hole for competition purposes.
I have made one such score in the 13 rounds, but needed to hole out for less than a quintuple for competition purposes. I missed, but tapped in rather than pick up - it was the 18th.

Just how much of an issue is this? Genuinely curious to know.

I wonder if CR-Par could be used for competition play, but be left out of CH calculation? Merely add or subtract the appropriate amount in the conversion of CH to PH.
At present CH is merely HI adjusted for slope, it is not a "handicap" until the conversion to PH.

Another option would be to put CR-Par and 95% together and go straight from HI to PH for individual strokeplay as they do in Australia and have no such thing as CH.
Takes away some of the "when-to-pick-up" issue altogether for many as PH is the only handicap to consider.
Also takes away the "scoring of stableford points with 100% CH" which I continue to observe being done in roll-ups at my club.
Interestingly in Australia, they still use 90%, 85% etc for PH in other formats of play even though 93% (yes - not 95%) has been applied already.

It’s not necessarily when to pick up, it’s more of a Stableford mentality such as when you have a a chip or tricky putt for a point you are more likely to ‘go for it’.

 

[rulefan]

Another option would be to put CR-Par and 95% together and go straight from HI to PH for individual strokeplay as they do in Australia and have no such thing as CH.
Takes away some of the "when-to-pick-up" issue altogether for many as PH is the only handicap to consider.
Also takes away the "scoring of stableford points with 100% CH" which I continue to observe being done in roll-ups at my club.
Interestingly in Australia, they still use 90%, 85% etc for PH in other formats of play even though 93% (yes - not 95%) has been applied already.

I do prefer the Australian way.

 

[cliveb]

A gross triple bogey being given a shot and a gross double bogey with no shots are one and the same. We know that the differential is no different regardless of whether or not CR-Par is used because the differential calculation is the same behind the scenes.

I think you've misunderstood. Let me try again:

Let's suppose you've had a meltdown in a medal and scored 10 on a par 4.
If your course handicap calculated using just CR gives you a shot on that hole, you will be given an adjusted gross of 7 in your score differential.
If your course handicap calculated using CR-Par means you don't get a shot on that hole, you will be given a 6.

So it looks to me that it does make a difference to your differential.

 

[sunshine]

If it's so boring why bother reading it.

"why bother reading it" - it was an interesting thread until you took it off topic with a pedantic and trivial debate about the background of CONGU... thankfully we are back on topic so no more to say!

 

[sunshine]

Yes, I think people are talking at cross purposes.

Courses are unarguably not all equally difficult. CR and S exist for this reason. But are of various difficulties for unhandicapped golf. Gross scores. Some courses, I can break 80. They are easier courses than the ones where I struggle to break 90 - which are more difficult.

If you move to the handicapped universe, and apply CR and S, then, all courses are, or the aim is to have them be, equally 'net difficult'.

I struggle with the concept of "equal difficulty" too. The obvious way to think about it is that if a course is more difficult you should get more shots to compensate for this. So people assume that higher slope equals more shots equals harder course. But that's not how it works.

 

[sjw]

I think you've misunderstood. Let me try again:

Let's suppose you've had a meltdown in a medal and scored 10 on a par 4.
If your course handicap calculated using just CR gives you a shot on that hole, you will be given an adjusted gross of 7 in your score differential.
If your course handicap calculated using CR-Par means you don't get a shot on that hole, you will be given a 6.

So it looks to me that it does make a difference to your differential.

No, I understood what you meant, it's a question I have as well. I formulated an answer in my head, which made sense, but couldn't articulate it. I'm still thinking about it.

 

[rulefan]

"why bother reading it" - it was an interesting thread until you took it off topic with a pedantic and trivial debate about the background of CONGU... thankfully we are back on topic so no more to say!

See post #71

 

[Voyager EMH]

I struggle with the concept of "equal difficulty" too. The obvious way to think about it is that if a course is more difficult you should get more shots to compensate for this. So people assume that higher slope equals more shots equals harder course. But that's not how it works.

Which is why I think there is some truth in the "talking at cross purposes" that Backsticks mentions.

Some people can not, or will not or choose not to remove from their thinking the notion of "getting shots against a course."

I sought to change my thinking in order to adapt to WHS.
I see it as that I score stableford points or make a nett score against other players, but against the course I make a gross score. I do not get shots on or against a course.

But I think we are a long way yet from it being acceptable, or even considered reasonable for someone to describe their "I Played Today Post" as something like,

Made a Score Differential of 12.3 today and my HI of 10.1 will not be changing.

Even though the above is a good description of play against a course we will still be hearing about "Scored 35 points" etc for some considerable time and that really doesn't tell us much about play against a course.

Slope Rating expands or contracts the Handicap Index scale so that the relative differences between our handicaps become appropriate for that course.
But our handicaps are for play with and against each other - that is their purpose.
Against the course you achieve a Score Differential which is "based on" your gross score.
This is the way that I have come to think about it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In a similar vein I am struggling to understand why a balancing adjustment may be applied in mixed tee comps when the CR for sets of tees surely does the same by providing an adjustment when PH is defined for any CH according to CR and slope?

So for instance at my place CR for front tees is 1.6 lower than for back tees and that is reflected to some degree (for higher handicaps at least) by the PH, yet a balancing adjustment of -2 is then applied to the PH of any playing off the forward tees.

Maybe I just answered my own question…for mixed tee comps the CH to PH conversion does not sufficiently reflect any difference in CR between sets of tees. I then ask ‘why not?’

 

[wjemather]

In a similar vein I am struggling to understand why a balancing adjustment may be applied in mixed tee comps when the CR for sets of tees surely does the same by providing an adjustment when PH is defined for any CH according to CR and slope?

So for instance at my place CR for front tees is 1.6 lower than for back tees and that is reflected to some degree (for higher handicaps at least) by the PH, yet a balancing adjustment of -2 is then applied to the PH of any playing off the forward tees.

Maybe I just answered my own question…for mixed tee comps the CH to PH conversion does not sufficiently reflect any difference in CR between sets of tees. I then ask ‘why not?’

Without CR-Par as part of the calculation, Course and Playing Handicaps do not account for Course Rating at all, only Slope.

When CR-Par is part of the CH calculation, no adjustment is required for Stableford and Par/Bogey, but an adjustment is still required for regular stroke play (medal) & match play (because par is irrelevant in these formats).

 

[BridgfordBlue]

Question on this. I play at three or four local courses quite regularly and everyone that plays them agrees that the ratings aren’t right in terms of one of them being assessed as easier than the others when it’s actually the opposite by a significant margin.

How are reassessments done? Given the systems been in place for a while now, surely there’s a wealth of real world data that can now be used?

 

[wjemather]

Question on this. I play at three or four local courses quite regularly and everyone that plays them agrees that the ratings aren’t right in terms of one of them being assessed as easier than the others when it’s actually the opposite by a significant margin.

How are reassessments done? Given the systems been in place for a while now, surely there’s a wealth of real world data that can now be used?

On what basis does "everyone" say the ratings are incorrect, and which do they believe to be wrong - Course Rating or Slope?

Ratings are done by measurement, with reference to the distances hit by standard scratch and bogey handicap golfers; there is a little judgement involved but not enough to significantly affect the resultant ratings.