CR-Par

[Voyager EMH]

Not entirely wrong (Stableford is a strokeplay format), but close.

And, WHS is based on Stableford scoring.

Thought I might be wrong.

My perception has been that WHS is based on gross scores (adjusted gross) and the consequential score differentials - best 8 from 20 score differentials.
Score Differentials being based on gross scores, not stableford points.

If a 20 handicapper makes 8 pars and ten bogeys and a 2 handicapper does the same, they make the same score differential, yet their stableford points are very different.
WHS does not keep a record their stableford points.

I'll keep an open mind and see if my perception can change to handicapping being based on the stableford points that are scored. I like a challenge.

 

[wjemather]

Thought I might be wrong.

My perception has been that WHS is based on gross scores (adjusted gross) and the consequential score differentials - best 8 from 20 score differentials.
Score Differentials being based on gross scores, not stableford points.

* Stableford (or nett double bogey) adjusted gross scores.

The Golf Australia manual is a good read if you still doubt it's a Stableford based system.

 

[cliveb]

Stableford points are only there for the purposes of placement in a competition.
In Stableford or medal the strokeplay handicap must be used.
Stableford points or nett score done with Course Handicap is an error or misconception.
You score Stableford points only one way and that is with Playing Handicap.
Stableford is a strokeplay format. It is not a handicapping format.

Unless I'm wrong.

Stableford points are NOT only used for placement in a competition.

Your score differential for handicapping purposes is based precisely on your stableford score using your course handicap.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Stableford points are NOT only used for placement in a competition.

Your score differential for handicapping purposes is based precisely on your stableford score using your course handicap.

In Australia there is no Course Handicap.
They only ever score stableford points using playing handicap for individual strokeplay which they call daily handicap.
I'd have no problem if we did the same.

I'll have no problem when CR-Par comes in.
I'd have no problem if CR-Par did not come in.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I'll have no problem when CR-Par comes in.
I'd have no problem if CR-Par did not come in.

Yeah I've been trying to work out if this changes anything, and I can't see that it does, everyone will lose or gain exactly the same number of playing handicap strokes. It seems a bit pointless really, just adding yet another calculation when you're explaining to folks how it works

 

[IanM]

That's where your going wrong @Banchory Buddha

Never try to explain "how it works," the pain isn't worth it.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

That's where your going wrong @Banchory Buddha

Never try to explain "how it works," the pain isn't worth it.

I know, but some folks want to know, and understandably, especially with such a monumental change.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

That's where your going wrong @Banchory Buddha

Never try to explain "how it works," the pain isn't worth it.

Will be fascinated to see the education package we will get to use with our members - most won't get past the first paragraph / slide.

 

[IanM]

education package

If it is like the launch of WHS, there'll be no point in opening it! That's if anything comes out at all.

 

[rulefan]

Just found this:

The flaw in the new World Handicap System

Dean Knuth, the USGA's first director of handicapping, writes that despite good intentions, the World Handicap System has issues that will impact U.S. golfers

www.golfdigest.com

 

[D-S]

Just found this:

The flaw in the new World Handicap System

Dean Knuth, the USGA's first director of handicapping, writes that despite good intentions, the World Handicap System has issues that will impact U.S. golfers

www.golfdigest.com

Having read Dean’s comments on this earlier he seems to be a bit bitter about something.

 

[wjemather]

Just found this:

The flaw in the new World Handicap System

Dean Knuth, the USGA's first director of handicapping, writes that despite good intentions, the World Handicap System has issues that will impact U.S. golfers

www.golfdigest.com

Dean Knuth isn't the most objective when it comes to what he sees as his baby, that he now has no control over. As a result, much of the reasoning for his objections is churlish; it's also flawed.

 

[Swango1980]

Just found this:

The flaw in the new World Handicap System

Dean Knuth, the USGA's first director of handicapping, writes that despite good intentions, the World Handicap System has issues that will impact U.S. golfers

www.golfdigest.com

Dean Knuth, the Pope of Slope, appears to be a little bitter. Or, at least, a purist who simply doesn't like CR-Par. It is simply an opinion, an opinion that most of the handicapping authorities seem to disagree with

 

[D-S]

Just found this:

The flaw in the new World Handicap System

Dean Knuth, the USGA's first director of handicapping, writes that despite good intentions, the World Handicap System has issues that will impact U.S. golfers

www.golfdigest.com

This was commented on earlier in this thread around post 114 and is also very similar to what you highlighted in your post in the (CR—Par) thread in the Rules of Golf forum last year.

 

[rulefan]

Dean Knuth, the Pope of Slope, appears to be a little bitter. Or, at least, a purist who simply doesn't like CR-Par. It is simply an opinion, an opinion that most of the handicapping authorities seem to disagree with

I certainly agree that Knuth has a large axe to grind but I know personally that there were people at EG (and CONGU) who were strongly in favour of not including Par in the first place; partially on the grounds that it was messier and also some of the points Knuth mentioned (and probably overegged). I understand there is still a feeling that EG was pressured on the grounds of compatibility.
However, I must admit to ambivalence still but recognise that world consistency and those who can't get away from 36 points are two reasonable arguments

 

[Voyager EMH]

Long before WHS came in, most at my club had got used to 36 points off the whites and you get cut, but it takes 38 points off the yellow to get a cut. Both par 70.
35 off whites and 37 off yellows meant playing to handicap. This was understood by a vast majority. (SSS of 71 and 69)
WHS came in and there was no change to this perception of playing to handicap. (CR 70.8 and CR 69.1)
I do not think there was much desire to fix a problem that did not seem to exist.

If 40 of us go on a captain's awayday in April, the rounded or unrounded CH will not matter a jot, because the majority-consensus will remain not to apply 95%.
Some will no doubt point out that if CR-Par was brought in to make 36 points playing to handicap, then applying 95% scuppers that for most players. (forumers, please don't bother!)
And so the chattering will continue, I have no doubt about that.

 

[Backsticks]

How much of the CR-Par change of heart was due to the cloud - justified or otherwise - of complaints, led but not exclusively by low HIs, about high stableford scores ?
Of the 'even 40 points wouldnt get you in the prizes around our place' ilk.
CR-Par will tend to pull this back in many clubs by a point or two.
Maybe the calculation is actually CR-Par=PR.

 

[D-S]

How much of the CR-Par change of heart was due to the cloud - justified or otherwise - of complaints, led but not exclusively by low HIs, about high stableford scores ?
Of the 'even 40 points wouldnt get you in the prizes around our place' ilk.
CR-Par will tend to pull this back in many clubs by a point or two.
Maybe the calculation is actually CR-Par=PR.

Don’t think this figured at all in the EG explanation of the rationale behind the decision.

 

[doublebogey7]

How much of the CR-Par change of heart was due to the cloud - justified or otherwise - of complaints, led but not exclusively by low HIs, about high stableford scores ?
Of the 'even 40 points wouldnt get you in the prizes around our place' ilk.
CR-Par will tend to pull this back in many clubs by a point or two.
Maybe the calculation is actually CR-Par=PR.

Not at all I'd wager and would also wager that most players handicaps will rise as a result if this change making 40+ points more likely. It will also not help the low guys in any way.

 

[Backsticks]

I wasnt suggesting it figured in their explanation. But that it did in their behind closed doors discussion.

My understanding is that handicaps will not noticeably change for anyone as a result of CR-Par.

It is not intended to help low guys in anyway. Low guys are not considered to be in need of any help. Other than possibly their understanding that WHS is fair to them as it is.