CR-Par

[Voyager EMH]

"You don't have to do that calculation after your round, you can do it before your round. It is CR-Par.

Handicaps reflect the differences between us, the players. That is what they are for."

Your score against the course for handicapping will be the same whatever your course handicap is.

Well, from all the threads on here regarding, abnormal, good or bad performances and in the chat in spike bars across the country, I have hardly ever heard anyone quote their or anyone else's performance vs CR and Slope. This would suggest to me that very, very few are doing this calcioluation after and certainly not before their round. It will now be done for them which is a good thing.
I understand your point about handicaps being only important as relativity to other players but the amount of posts on here describing posters or unnamed bandits performance in terms of Stableford points achieved indicates that this is not a view shared by all.[/QUOTE]

I have said it on many occasions on many threads, my view, or perception on this is not a majority view.
My thinking is not stableford based.
I determined to free my mind from stableford-thinking in order to adapt to the new system.
I understand how the majority thinks, because I used to think that way. It is not how I think now. I am expressing my view.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Give me a sec

How many secs do you need?
Will it vary depending on how easy or difficult the thread is?
Or will it be mainly due to overall length of the thread?
I'll see your and raise you

 

[Alan Clifford]

What makes the addition of cr-par better for handicapping other than alignment with the rest of the world?

Well, the differential calculation is based on CR rather than par so it makes the course handicap more sensible. As everyone on a particular golf course would get the same change in playing handicap, it makes sense. The 9 hole course handicap already does this so it makes sense. If you play from different tees, you don't have to make a further arithmetic adjustment so it makes sense. When playing in a different jusrisdiction with your EG handicap, your course handicap is calculated under their rules. If you have a bit of a meltdown, a net double bogey under one system may not be under the other. So bringing EG in line with the world makes sense.

 

[nickjdavis]

I pity those players at all of those courses where 50+ stableford scores are regularly made and where CR>Par.....only going to make scores higher as players get more shots!!! The "WHS isnt working" thread will have a new raft of complainees.

 

[D-S]

I pity those players at all of those courses where 50+ stableford scores are regularly made and where CR>Par.....only going to make scores higher as players get more shots!!! The "WHS isnt working" thread will have a new raft of complainees.

My assumption is that the 50 plus scores will be off shortened or short winter courses and these point totals will be coming down.

 

[Swango1980]

I pity those players at all of those courses where 50+ stableford scores are regularly made and where CR>Par.....only going to make scores higher as players get more shots!!! The "WHS isnt working" thread will have a new raft of complainees.

I'm sure it is less likely 50 points are being scored on courses where CR is more than par. In reality, many of these scores will fall, and may fall significantly where CR is a lot less than par. Players may get less freaked out with scores in mid 40's, and keep that thread a bit quieter

Plus, it will stop the need for others asking what the CR is, before daring to acknowledge they are good scores.

 

[D-S]

Is this "just" England?

I understand that the other Home Unions have committed to the change.

 

[Region3]

Not everyone’s strokes received for the day will change by the same amount.

Taking all the players that would normally have a course handicap of 10 on my course. (Ignoring the fact that 11 loses a shot in singles and 10 doesn’t).

Par 72
Slope 128
CR 72.4

Currently players with indexes from 8.4 to 9.2 have a course handicap of 10.

With the CR-Par calculation, those from 8.4 to 8.8 won’t get an extra shot where the 8.9 to 9.2 will get an extra shot.

I‘m not even going to try explaining to my golf mates because they still don’t get it now. Most of the rest of the club can’t do 90% without a chart so I think we’re in for a world of confusion.

 

[jim8flog]

Does CR- Par also remove the need for 95% in singles

or given the Australian example will we now change to another % ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Does CR- Par also remove the need for 95% in singles

or given the Australian example will we now change to another % ?

No.
&
No.

 

[YandaB]

Are there any other ramifications that this rule change might have? Will it mess with ongoing eclectic? Does it remove the need for course adjustment shots? Anything else?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Not everyone’s strokes received for the day will change by the same amount.

Taking all the players that would normally have a course handicap of 10 on my course. (Ignoring the fact that 11 loses a shot in singles and 10 doesn’t).

Par 72
Slope 128
CR 72.4

Currently players with indexes from 8.4 to 9.2 have a course handicap of 10.

With the CR-Par calculation, those from 8.4 to 8.8 won’t get an extra shot where the 8.9 to 9.2 will get an extra shot.

I‘m not even going to try explaining to my golf mates because they still don’t get it now. Most of the rest of the club can’t do 90% without a chart so I think we’re in for a world of confusion.

Yes, there will be those transitional changes.
But once CR-Par is done, it will be done. What comes after will make very little or no difference from what came before in the whole scheme of things.

At the moment a group of you could go to another course and two of you who have the same handicap at your course could have differing handicaps at that course.
So we have to accept marginal transitional changes from course to course all the time.
CR-Par will merely be one marginal transitional change at one point in time - then its all over and done with.

I just don't see CR-Par as making things better or worse. That is why I think it is unnecessary.

 

[rulefan]

I just don't see CR-Par as making things better or worse. That is why I think it is unnecessary.

It doesn't really bother me either way but I wonder who will pay for all the notice board and software changes.

 

[Swango1980]

It doesn't really bother me either way but I wonder who will pay for all the notice board and software changes.

If only they thought about that before doing something fundamentally different to the rest of the world.

I personally think it is an important change. Not to the small % who truly know how the system works. But, to the vast majority who don't, and get confused when they play off the same handicap at a course they believe is vastly more difficult, or much easier than another course.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If only they thought about that before doing something fundamentally different to the rest of the world.

I personally think it is an important change. Not to the small % who truly know how the system works. But, to the vast majority who don't, and get confused when they play off the same handicap at a course they believe is vastly more difficult, or much easier than another course.

You are absolutely spot on with that comment.

"Playing off a handicap" refers only to when competing with and against others. Moving all handicaps up a bit or down a bit by the same amount - unnecessary.

Playing against the course - for handicapping purposes - no one's handicap plays a part. You are not "playing off a handicap" in this process.
(Gross Score - CR) x 113/SR.
This is the same for everyone regardless of handicap. The +2 or the 28-handicapper achieve the same score if they make the same gross score.
No one is "playing off a handicap" in the process of returning an acceptable score.
Introducing CR-Par makes absolutely no difference to playing on an "easy" or a "difficult" course in the process of returning a score for handicapping.

If everyone were able to separate these two processes clearly in their thinking, I think there would be no clamour for introducing CR-Par.

 

[doublebogey7]

You are absolutely spot on with that comment.

"Playing off a handicap" refers only to when competing with and against others. Moving all handicaps up a bit or down a bit by the same amount - unnecessary.

Playing against the course - for handicapping purposes - no one's handicap plays a part. You are not "playing off a handicap" in this process.
(Gross Score - CR) x 113/SR.
This is the same for everyone regardless of handicap. The +2 or the 28-handicapper achieve the same score if they make the same gross score.
No one is "playing off a handicap" in the process of returning an acceptable score.
Introducing CR-Par makes absolutely no difference to playing on an "easy" or a "difficult" course in the process of returning a score for handicapping.

If everyone were able to separate these two processes clearly in their thinking, I think there would be no clamour for introducing CR-Par.

I understand where you are coming from and the way you look at it from a personal point of view is pretty much the same as me.
The one clear advantage of the change though is that there will be no need to add or subject for the differences in CR/par when playing in mixed tee events.

 

[rulefan]

I understand where you are coming from and the way you look at it from a personal point of view is pretty much the same as me.
The one clear advantage of the change though is that there will be no need to add or subject for the differences in CR/par when playing in mixed tee events.

And I think the 36 points equals playing to handicap will make a difference to some. I must admit I've never considered the arithmetic so may have it all wrong
Even if I'm playing stableford I always think in gross score terms.

 

[wjemather]

It doesn't really bother me either way but I wonder who will pay for all the notice board and software changes.

With regular re-ratings, CH lookup boards have a limited lifespan anyway, so it's a cost clubs should be budgeting for - for example, our club purchased a metal board knowing that it would be obsolete within 18 months due to scheduled re-rating.

Software changes are trivial.

 

[doublebogey7]

With regular re-ratings, CH lookup boards have a limited lifespan anyway, so it's a cost clubs should be budgeting for - for example, our club purchased a metal board knowing that it would be obsolete within 18 months due to scheduled re-rating.

Software changes are trivial.

In any case why are boards necessary given the availability of technology that provides the same information.

 

[rulefan]

In any case why are boards necessary given the availability of technology that provides the same information.

Indeed. I think all the ISVs can produce printed labels for all formats and all apps can show everything.