CR-Par

[jim8flog]

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

They provide a key point of information for visitors

I play with a few guys who still cannot get their heads around computer systems.

Some even struggle understanding the boards. We have two variations of the main course and a 9 hole course which has to show both 9 hole and 18 hole details. It is quite common to see players using the wrong columns.

One of the troubles we have is we call one of the 18 hole variations one thing and for some reason the raters decided to call it something else it was what they called it that ended up on the database and EG. One of the direct results was that all our initial H.Is were wrong and it never really got sorted.

 

[sunshine]

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

Because lots of golfers are old and/or refuse to learn new things

 

[Voyager EMH]

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.

That is what a lot of people think - they are daft - or have not yet adapted to the new system.

The formula
(gross score - CR) x 113/SR
is not going to change with the introduction of CR-Par.

When you do a score where that figure is close to your HI, you have played to your handicap.
It is very simple.

Moving everyone's handicap (and thus net/stableford scores) up a bit or down a bit by the same amount is not necessary and achieves nothing.

 

[Swango1980]

That is what a lot of people think - they are daft - or have not yet adapted to the new system.

The formula
(gross score - CR) x 113/SR
is not going to change with the introduction of CR-Par.

When you do a score where that figure is close to your HI, you have played to your handicap.
It is very simple.

Moving everyone's handicap (and thus net/stableford scores) up a bit or down a bit by the same amount is not necessary and achieves nothing.

A lot of golfers are daft? Just imagine the authorities had such an arrogant view?

I congratulate you on your knowledge of how the system works, just like I can give all of us on here a congratulations, as we all know the same.

However, for the majority of golfers who don't spend time on golf monthly forums or read the details on how the handicap system works, I wouldn't refer to them as daft. I'd refer to them as normal. On one hand, supporters of WHS have said it is not overly complicated, the majority of golfers can just turn up and play, the tech will simply tell them their handicap. Yet, on the other hand, they are called daft because they are not aware of the Score Differential formula.

 

[rulefan]

I think the comment was referring to players believing 36 points is playing to handicap. Which isn't always so.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I think the comment was referring to players believing 36 points is playing to handicap. Which isn't always so.

I thought that as well.
It was the bit "will make a difference to some" that I thought was daft.

 

[jim8flog]

Because lots of golfers are old and/or refuse to learn new things

I partially agree with that.

I run a swindle and every week there are two or three that ask " are we playing off 95%" despite me say it will always be 95%

 

[Voyager EMH]

Before WHS, my course par 70 off both tees, white tee SSS 71, yellow tee SSS 69.
Today white tee CR 70.8 and SR 132, yellow tee CR 69.1 and SR 127.

Before WHS white tee 35 points to play to handicap, yellow tee 37 points to play to handicap. Under WHS - pretty much the same.

It would have been quite easy for the club to say,
"White tee comp today, everyone add one shot to your handicap."
"Yellow tee comp today, everyone subtract one shot from your handicap"
Cards submitted for handicap assessment would be unchanged.
There was no clamour to do this however.
For a few decades, no one at my club played off a handicap that reflected the rating of the course. No one was much bothered by this.
The anxiety being expressed today is due to players still being in a process of adapting to and understanding the new system.
There is no need for CR-Par.

 

[D-S]

Before WHS, my course par 70 off both tees, white tee SSS 71, yellow tee SSS 69.
Today white tee CR 70.8 and SR 132, yellow tee CR 69.1 and SR 127.

Before WHS white tee 35 points to play to handicap, yellow tee 37 points to play to handicap. Under WHS - pretty much the same.

It would have been quite easy for the club to say,
"White tee comp today, everyone add one shot to your handicap."
"Yellow tee comp today, everyone subtract one shot from your handicap"
Cards submitted for handicap assessment would be unchanged.
There was no clamour to do this however.
For a few decades, no one at my club played off a handicap that reflected the rating of the course. No one was much bothered by this.
The anxiety being expressed today is due to players still being in a process of adapting to and understanding the new system.
There is no need for CR-Par.

This is your view and you are entitled too it.

However for the past two and a half years all the Handicapping Authorities in the world with the exception of CONGU disagree with you and seemingly now, after a period of considered reflection, CONGU do not share your view too.

 

[Swango1980]

Before WHS, my course par 70 off both tees, white tee SSS 71, yellow tee SSS 69.
Today white tee CR 70.8 and SR 132, yellow tee CR 69.1 and SR 127.

Before WHS white tee 35 points to play to handicap, yellow tee 37 points to play to handicap. Under WHS - pretty much the same.

It would have been quite easy for the club to say,
"White tee comp today, everyone add one shot to your handicap."
"Yellow tee comp today, everyone subtract one shot from your handicap"
Cards submitted for handicap assessment would be unchanged.
There was no clamour to do this however.
For a few decades, no one at my club played off a handicap that reflected the rating of the course. No one was much bothered by this.
The anxiety being expressed today is due to players still being in a process of adapting to and understanding the new system.
There is no need for CR-Par.

Actually, golfers just accepted handicap was the same, but many did not think it was fair going from one course to the next as they didn't understand SSS.

We had a handicap league match against a club with a tough course. Their captain said "you guys will struggle today, as out players handicaps are based on rounds at our tougher course". I tried to explain SSS, but it was a lost cause. We beat them 5.5-0.5. He wasn't happy.

WHS comes in, and people like him thought they'd see significant changes in handicap going course to course, they often don't.

Also, most people at my last course would say they beat their handicap with 37 points, or nett 69 on par 70. Yet, in reality they needed 40 points to beat handicap.

 

[ger147]

This is your view and you are entitled too it.

However for the past two and a half years all the Handicapping Authorities in the world with the exception of CONGU disagree with you and seemingly now, after a period of considered reflection, CONGU do not share your view too.

CONGU? I thought it was England Golf.

Do you have confirmation that Scottish Golf are changing too?

 

[D-S]

CONGU? I thought it was England Golf.

Do you have confirmation that Scottish Golf are changing too?

It is mu understanding that all the home nations are committed to the change.

 

[wjemather]

This is your view and you are entitled too it.

However for the past two and a half years all the Handicapping Authorities in the world with the exception of CONGU disagree with you and seemingly now, after a period of considered reflection, CONGU do not share your view too.

There are people considered authorities in handicapping, e.g. Dean Knuth, who vehemently object to the inclusion of CR-Par.
However, Knuth is somewhat protective of 'his baby' (the old USGA system) and much of his analysis doesn't stand up to scrutiny - he knows most people won't understand the maths.

 

[D-S]

There are people considered authorities in handicapping, e.g. Dean Knuth, who vehemently object to the inclusion of CR-Par.
However, Knuth is somewhat protective of 'his baby' (the old USGA system) and much of his analysis doesn't stand up to scrutiny - he knows most people won't understand the maths.

He does sound strangely bitter.

 

[Voyager EMH]

This is your view and you are entitled too it.

However for the past two and a half years all the Handicapping Authorities in the world with the exception of CONGU disagree with you and seemingly now, after a period of considered reflection, CONGU do not share your view too.

Now tell me something that I don't know.

 

[D-S]

Now tell me something that I don't know.

Apparently there isn’t anything.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Apparently there isn’t anything.

You are wrong.

 

[D-S]

You are wrong.

Rarely.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Rarely.

Infinite number of things that I do not know.

 

[rulefan]

If you knew what it is you don't know you wouldn't know nothing.