CR-Par

[Voyager EMH]

All of this may or may not be true but the key message is that all the Handicapping Authorities with the exception of CONGU introduced CR-Par when WHS was introduced as they must have felt that this was a good thing and the best way forward. CONGU did not want to make this transition as part of a big change on 1/11/2020.
After two and a half years of WHS implementation and considered reflection, CONGU have now decided that CR-Par is a sensible or better way to calculate course handicap, even if this means more education and cost to clubs - so they clearly now think it is worth doing.
So whatever you believe that are the downsides, the upsides are considered greater by all those experts in authority.

It is a different way, but not sensible or better, merely different.
It does add a further complication to the course handicap calculation.
And it makes no difference to Score Differentials or outcomes of competitions.
Unnecessary.

 

[rulefan]

All of this may or may not be true but the key message is that all the Handicapping Authorities with the exception of CONGU introduced CR-Par when WHS was introduced as they must have felt that this was a good thing and the best way forward. CONGU did not want to make this transition as part of a big change on 1/11/2020.
After two and a half years of WHS implementation and considered reflection, CONGU have now decided that CR-Par is a sensible or better way to calculate course handicap, even if this means more education and cost to clubs - so they clearly now think it is worth doing.
So whatever you believe that are the downsides, the upsides are considered greater by all those experts in authority.

I can understand CONGU's desire for commonality but IMO CR-Par is an unnecessary complication and can only confuse when the player's stableford calc doesn't tally with his SD.

 

[D-S]

I can understand CONGU's desire for commonality but IMO CR-Par is an unnecessary complication and can only confuse when the player's stableford calc doesn'y tally with his SD

It will be interesting to learn the reasoning that EG, WG, SG and Golf Ireland give. I feel sure it will not just be 'commonality' as they were perfectly happy to forgo this in the transition. Making this change, as said, requires a degree of education and cost (some of which will be borne by the Governing bodies) so it would have been a lot easier just to leave things as they were.
That being said another opportunity to educate some Handicap Committees as to perform better/correctly in the course of this particular change education will be good.

 

[IanG]

In a world where we are increasing seeing mixed-tee competitions the notion of 36 pts being 'playing to you handicap' is out the window anyway, and this will remain so after the change to CR-Par. Don't see the need for the change myself but frankly most folks at my place have given up trying to understand handicap calculations anyway and just get on with playing and grumbling .

 

[doublebogey7]

In a world where we are increasing seeing mixed-tee competitions the notion of 36 pts being 'playing to you handicap' is out the window anyway, and this will remain so after the change to CR-Par. Don't see the need for the change myself but frankly most folks at my place have given up trying to understand handicap calculations anyway and just get on with playing and grumbling .

How so, my understanding is that after this change there will be no need for the mixed tee calculation as it will already be built in, a major reason for supporting this change in my opinion.

 

[Swango1980]

I can understand CONGU's desire for commonality but IMO CR-Par is an unnecessary complication and can only confuse when the player's stableford calc doesn't tally with his SD.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you making an assumption that players calculate their Score Differential Manually, and then confirm it on the App? And thus they'll get confused if they see a different number? Even I don't do that, and I know how it is calculated. I just look at the App afterwards, see what it will be after the round assuming PCC=0, and double check the following day.

One of the biggest confusions I hear in the UK is players not understanding why they don't get more or less shots and harder or easier courses, in absolute terms. They simply don't understand the relative difficulty, between golfers. CR-Par would solve that confusion instantly. So, if a 0.0 Indexer went to my old club and played off yellows, they'd understand why their course handicap was -3. If it was white tees, they'd play off -1. And if they played the Championship tees at Wentworth, they'd have a course handicap of 5. This all seems absolutely and completely logical, especially to someone who doesn't know the handicap system in great detail. What seems very illogical to such a person is that the scratch player just plays off 0 at all courses.

But, outside the UK, do you think the rest of the world are struggling with the confusion CR-Par brings? Has much research been done on this? Would they consider scrapping CR-Par?

 

[IanG]

How so, my understanding is that after this change there will be no need for the mixed tee calculation as it will already be built in, a major reason for supporting this change in my opinion.

Only for stableford competitions I think.

 

[doublebogey7]

Only for stableford competitions I think.

Yes, sorry I think you are right. Though if we went to showing results as +/- par like they do at pro level, then my understanding would that the calculation wouldn't be required. I may though have embarrassed myself again?

 

[Alan Clifford]

How so, my understanding is that after this change there will be no need for the mixed tee calculation as it will already be built in, a major reason for supporting this change in my opinion.

I think you still need an adjustment if the par differs between tees, or between genders on the same tee (hmm is it logically the same tee?) or between gender on different tees.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you making an assumption that players calculate their Score Differential Manually, and then confirm it on the App? And thus they'll get confused if they see a different number? Even I don't do that, and I know how it is calculated. I just look at the App afterwards, see what it will be after the round assuming PCC=0, and double check the following day.

One of the biggest confusions I hear in the UK is players not understanding why they don't get more or less shots and harder or easier courses, in absolute terms. They simply don't understand the relative difficulty, between golfers. CR-Par would solve that confusion instantly. So, if a 0.0 Indexer went to my old club and played off yellows, they'd understand why their course handicap was -3. If it was white tees, they'd play off -1. And if they played the Championship tees at Wentworth, they'd have a course handicap of 5. This all seems absolutely and completely logical, especially to someone who doesn't know the handicap system in great detail. What seems very illogical to such a person is that the scratch player just plays off 0 at all courses.

But, outside the UK, do you think the rest of the world are struggling with the confusion CR-Par brings? Has much research been done on this? Would they consider scrapping CR-Par?

The scratch player "playing off" 0 on all courses is completely logical.
The handicap that you "play off" is when you are in competition with other players. So the scratch player always "playing off" 0 on all courses makes perfect sense.
Slope ratings above 113 move everyone away from the scratch player and slope ratings below 113 contract the handicap scale towards the scratch player.

When submitting a score for handicapping, no one is "playing off a handicap". In this process, you play to the best of your ability and return a gross score. Everyone does this.

The confusion that people sense is that their minds are searching for a non-existent equivalence to the old system where they returned a net score for handicapping and so "getting shots" on the course was a necessary and essential part of that process.
Now it is gross scores for handicapping and "getting shots" does not apply (apart from indicating which is the marginal shot-hole for net double bogey limit)

 

[IJames]

I can understand CONGU's desire for commonality but IMO CR-Par is an unnecessary complication and can only confuse when the player's stableford calc doesn't tally with his SD.

I agre, at least with the first part! I can't see the point of the CR-Par inclusion! CR provides everything that's needed; Par is somewhat random! However, if it makes UK consistent with rest of the world, that's a good thing - otherwise WHS is not a World Handicap System!

 

[GMcF]

Would this change affect how the score differentials of 9 hole scores are calculated?

My understanding is that the theoretical "back 9" score added is the 9 hole course handicap + 1 stroke.

 

[Swango1980]

The scratch player "playing off" 0 on all courses is completely logical.
The handicap that you "play off" is when you are in competition with other players. So the scratch player always "playing off" 0 on all courses makes perfect sense.
Slope ratings above 113 move everyone away from the scratch player and slope ratings below 113 contract the handicap scale towards the scratch player.

When submitting a score for handicapping, no one is "playing off a handicap". In this process, you play to the best of your ability and return a gross score. Everyone does this.

The confusion that people sense is that their minds are searching for a non-existent equivalence to the old system where they returned a net score for handicapping and so "getting shots" on the course was a necessary and essential part of that process.
Now it is gross scores for handicapping and "getting shots" does not apply (apart from indicating which is the marginal shot-hole for net double bogey limit)

You failed to read my post properly.

At no point did I say the current method is not logical. I understand it, you understand it, most people that take time to visit Gold Monthly forums probably understand it.

However, I was talking about the many many golfers who are baffled that their handicap doesn't change when they play a clearly tougher or easier course in absolute terms.

Add CR-Par, no longer baffled. And, I will understand it and you will understand it. You may not like it, but it'll change nothing about how your handicap is calculated

 

[Voyager EMH]

Would this change affect how the score differentials of 9 hole scores are calculated?

My understanding is that the theoretical "back 9" score added is the 9 hole course handicap + 1 stroke.

CR-Par is already in the 9-hole CH calculation.
I'm guessing that there will be no need to change this, or the resulting score differential calculation, though I can't be certain.

The "theoretical back nine CH is not necessarily the same as the CH for the nine actually played. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is one shot more and sometimes it is one shot less.
The "theoretical 9 holes" is nine net pars plus one shot.

These formulas are seriously flawed in my view and I have vowed to never return 9-hole scores.

 

[Voyager EMH]

You failed to read my post properly.

At no point did I say the current method is not logical. I understand it, you understand it, most people that take time to visit Gold Monthly forums probably understand it.

However, I was talking about the many many golfers who are baffled that their handicap doesn't change when they play a clearly tougher or easier course in absolute terms.

Add CR-Par, no longer baffled. And, I will understand it and you will understand it. You may not like it, but it'll change nothing about how your handicap is calculated

I was not addressing my post to you directly, but to the "such a person" that you mentioned.
I agree that there are a lot of them about. Confused people that is.

 

[GMcF]

CR-Par is already in the 9-hole CH calculation.
I'm guessing that there will be no need to change this, or the resulting score differential calculation, though I can't be certain.

The "theoretical back nine CH is not necessarily the same as the CH for the nine actually played. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is one shot more and sometimes it is one shot less.
The "theoretical 9 holes" is nine net pars plus one shot.

These formulas are seriously flawed in my view and I have vowed to never return 9-hole scores.

I thought the "theoretical back 9" was based on the 9 holes that your are submitting on, what else could it be based on?

The calculation gives you 9 net pars + 1 shot. If CR-Par changes how many shots you get and thus adjusted for net pars then surely this would have an impact on the differential.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I thought the "theoretical back 9" was based on the 9 holes that your are submitting on, what else could it be based on?

The calculation gives you 9 net pars + 1 shot. If CR-Par changes how many shots you get and thus adjusted for net pars then surely this would have an impact on the differential.

You might find this old thread interesting.

9 hole general play handicap

From yesterday. I don't understand how handicap has been calculated... 9 hole general play card. 18 hole course, card submitted on front nine. Course Rating: 36.2 Slope: 128 WHS Index: 6.0 Course Hdcp: 5 I had 5 pars and four bogeys. Score Diff: 6.7

forums.golfmonthly.com

 

[GMcF]

You might find this old thread interesting.

9 hole general play handicap

From yesterday. I don't understand how handicap has been calculated... 9 hole general play card. 18 hole course, card submitted on front nine. Course Rating: 36.2 Slope: 128 WHS Index: 6.0 Course Hdcp: 5 I had 5 pars and four bogeys. Score Diff: 6.7

forums.golfmonthly.com

Thanks very much and apologies for going off on a tangent, interesting reading.

Am I correct in saying that 18 hole course handicaps are based on slope only whereas 9 hole course handicaps already have CR-Par factored in?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Thanks very much and apologies for going off on a tangent, interesting reading.

Am I correct in saying that 18 hole course handicaps are based on slope only whereas 9 hole course handicaps already have CR-Par factored in?

I hope so.

 

[IJames]

Thanks very much and apologies for going off on a tangent, interesting reading.

Am I correct in saying that 18 hole course handicaps are based on slope only whereas 9 hole course handicaps already have CR-Par factored in?

Currently, Yes - along with CR of course.