CR-Par

[Voyager EMH]

I'm glad to here your roll-up isn't over-complicating it for themselves by trying to apply 95% unnecessarily.

The Captain's away-day I attended where they did not over-complicate by ignoring 85% in a best-2-from-4 was disconcerting.

If applying 95% can be described as unnecessary, then ignoring 95% can also be described as unnecessary.
The 95% is applied for a reason. I support that reason.

Why not avoid over-complication by ignoring Slope Rating?
Got a HI ? - then play off that!
Job done.
I'm not being serious.

 

[clubchamp98]

We've had a whole season with CR-Par.
At my club I find it has added to misconceptions and not improved understanding and acceptance of WHS.

The "losing a shot" misconception has become even more deeply ingrained than it was before.
Yellow tees means subtracting 0.9 which many interpret as "losing a shot" and then 95% means "losing another shot". This is generally disliked.
And yet "gaining a shot or shots" is not a phrase I ever hear when the course is played from the white tees.
A chap might be 13.3 and then gets to play a comp off the whites off 16. (CR 70.8, Par 70, SR 132) No complaints or moaning ever about gaining 3 shots.

And yet 33 people in a roll-up off the yellows and the majority decision will be 100% CH, because they don't like "losing another shot" as CR-Par has already subtracted 0.9

Any single figure players in the roll-up have to put-up, shut-up or PO.

No improvement to understanding of the system. No progress. A backward step in this regard.

I have seen exactly the same thing at my club.

But the low guys have voted with their feet ,a lot don’t play in the comps anymore.
But how this will affect them in elite comps away from the club is a thing they will have to think about.

 

[Voyager EMH]

How can it not feel like that though? My index has gone up to 15.0 but I still only get 13 shots when playing a competition. And consequently I still need to shoot 13 over ish to get a decent cut. The index itself feels worthless.

In a competition, your handicap is relevant to other handicaps and the difference between those handicaps.

Your HI places you on a position in the scale of handicaps of the players you are competing with. That scale can be stretched out, contracted, all shifted up a bit or shifted down a bit.
But the relative differences between your handicaps are maintained.

Against the course, it matters not what your handicap is - you score the same score differential whatever your handicap is. (not withstanding a very very small possibility of nett double bogey limit change)

 

[Orikoru]

In a competition, your handicap is relevant to other handicaps and the difference between those handicaps.

Your HI places you on a position in the scale of handicaps of the players you are competing with. That scale can be stretched out, contracted, all shifted up a bit or shifted down a bit.
But the relative differences between your handicaps are maintained.

Against the course, it matters not what your handicap is - you score the same score differential whatever your handicap is. (not withstanding a very very small possibility of nett double bogey limit change)

We've had this conversation before I'm sure, but I really don't care what anyone else is doing. I just want to score well, and getting less shots means my round might be worth 32 points instead of 33 or whatever. It's just a state of mind thing, I only care about my own score, not anyone else's.

 

[wjemather]

The Captain's away-day I attended where they did not over-complicate by ignoring 85% in a best-2-from-4 was disconcerting.

If applying 95% can be described as unnecessary, then ignoring 95% can also be described as unnecessary.
The 95% is applied for a reason. I support that reason.

Yes, the reason being to mitigate the potential for exceptional scores by higher handicappers in medium-sized fields with a typical distribution of handicaps.

 

[Voyager EMH]

We've had this conversation before I'm sure, but I really don't care what anyone else is doing. I just want to score well, and getting less shots means my round might be worth 32 points instead of 33 or whatever. It's just a state of mind thing, I only care about my own score, not anyone else's.

Your stableford points can give you a finishing position in a competition.

But your-own-score is your golf score (the number of times you hit the ball) and this will be the same no matter what your handicap is.

 

[Orikoru]

Your stableford points can give you a finishing position in a competition.

But your-own-score is your golf score (the number of times you hit the ball) and this will be the same no matter what your handicap is.

But all courses are not equal, that's why the points system is a better frame of reference. 88 at my home course I'd be disappointed with, but 88 at Wentworth I'd be delighted.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yes, the reason being to mitigate the potential for exceptional scores by higher handicappers in medium-sized fields with a typical distribution of handicaps.

And when there are 6 single figure golfers in a roll-up of 38 players, are not those 6 disadvantaged by 95% being ignored?

Or are they not significantly enough disadvantaged?

 

[Voyager EMH]

But all courses are not equal, that's why the points system is a better frame of reference. 88 at my home course I'd be disappointed with, but 88 at Wentworth I'd be delighted.

This is where we differ in our thinking. Neither of us is more right or more wrong, just different.

I think gross score is my score.
This gets converted to score differential.
Score differential is the best frame of reference, because it tells me exactly what I played to on any course.

Stableford points and nett score merely give me a finishing position in a comp. Neither is used to calculate my handicap change - score differential is.

 

[Orikoru]

This is where we differ in our thinking. Neither of us is more right or more wrong, just different.

I think gross score is my score.
This gets converted to score differential.
Score differential is the best frame of reference, because it tells me exactly what I played to on any course.

Stableford points and nett score merely give me a finishing position in a comp. Neither is used to calculate my handicap change - score differential is.

Alright, but plenty of people don't put cards in on every round and course that they play, so they would never see a score differential. Much less understand how one is calculated. That's why the common golfer sees points as their frame of reference.

 

[wjemather]

And when there are 6 single figure golfers in a roll-up of 38 players, are not those 6 disadvantaged by 95% being ignored?

Or are they not significantly enough disadvantaged?

Full details of the distribution of handicaps in the field would be needed to assess what allowance would provide the best equity.
However, the simple answer is no, they would not be significantly disadvantaged by a 100% allowance unless there were a disproportionately large number of higher handicappers with potential for very exceptional scores.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Full details of the distribution of handicaps in the field would be needed to assess what allowance would provide the best equity.
However, the simple answer is no, they would not be significantly disadvantaged by a 100% allowance unless there were a disproportionately large number of higher handicappers with potential for very exceptional scores.

32 out of 38 isn't a large proportion to you?

 

[Voyager EMH]

And if that same group of 38 players were to play in a comp the following day where 95% is applied, would those 6 single figure players have an increased chance of success, due to the other 32 players having their handicaps reduced by one or two shots?
If in both cases, there is no difference, then always apply 95% instead of sometimes do sometimes don't for no discernible reason.

 

[wjemather]

32 out of 38 isn't a large proportion to you?

If the 32 non-single figure players have a handicap between 10 and 14, there would be no higher handicappers.

And if that same group of 38 players were to play in a comp the following day where 95% is applied, would those 6 single figure players have an increased chance of success, due to the other 32 players having their handicaps reduced by one or two shots?
If in both cases, there is no difference, then always apply 95% instead of sometimes do sometimes don't for no discernible reason.

The primary reasons for the GB&I mandatory allowances are the simplicity of application of a single allowance, and having consistency across all competitions run by affiliated organisations.
The simplest thing for small independent groups to do, is to use CH (100% allowance).

 

[cliveb]

Alright, but plenty of people don't put cards in on every round and course that they play, so they would never see a score differential. Much less understand how one is calculated. That's why the common golfer sees points as their frame of reference.

In that case, introducing CR-Par has helped them, because it now means that 36 points is "playing to handicap", regardless of the course and tees you're on.

 

[Orikoru]

In that case, introducing CR-Par has helped them, because it now means that 36 points is "playing to handicap", regardless of the course and tees you're on.

But they always believed that it was anyway!

 

[Voyager EMH]

If the 32 non-single figure players have a handicap between 10 and 14, there would be no higher handicappers.


The primary reasons for the GB&I mandatory allowances are the simplicity of application of a single allowance, and having consistency across all competitions run by affiliated organisations.
The simplest thing for small independent groups to do, is to use CH (100% allowance).

The simplest thing to do is always apply 95% instead of sometimes do and sometimes don't which is a complication.

This is what is done in Australia - always 93% there. There is no Course Handicap that anyone can play off in individual strokeplay in club or social golf.
No discussions or arguments.

 

[wjemather]

The simplest thing to do is always apply 95% instead of sometimes do and sometimes don't which is a complication.
...
No discussions or arguments.

This is demonstrably untrue. Applying 95% requires additional work beyond knowing HI and looking up CH. And then there's discussion over rounding.

 

[D-S]

But they always believed that it was anyway!

At least they’re right now.

 

[Voyager EMH]

This is demonstrably untrue. Applying 95% requires additional work beyond knowing HI and looking up CH. And then there's discussion over rounding.

Nope.

In Australia the simplest thing to do is play off your Playing Handicap for Individual Strokeplay (93%) all the time.
There is no ignoring 93%.

GB&I state "mandatory". I'm sticking with that.