Plus players’ handicaps?

[YandaB]

It sounds like Mr Knuth has not fully understood what the WHS does. WHS DOES use Course Rating when calculating Player Index values. It does not use Par at all. In the US, it only used Par when converting the Index back to Course Handicap so that the course handicap reflects both the absolute and relative difficulties of the course.

I'm only judging this by what I read in your post. I'm sure he has a plethora of knowledge of what the US did before (obviously), and maybe I have misinterpreted his statement in relation to WHS.

My understanding is the that the US system before WHS is like ours is now and that they have added in the CR-Par bit which he is against for a number of reasons. I agree that WHS isn't as straightforward as the old CONGU system to explain but I don't beleive that everyone understood, or even wanted to understand, the CONGU system. I don't think it matters that much, most people find what number they need and play, it will all work itself out in the end as long as it is the same for everyone .

 

[rulefan]

In fact, not adopting CR-Par has a very small detrimental effect on the aforementioned net double bogey adjustments.

So why bother with additional step?

But if the Par differs from the CR by +/- 1 then the player's CH differs by +/- 1. What exactly does that tell the player about how good or bad his score is?

 

[Swango1980]

So why bother with additional step?

But if the Par differs from the CR by +/- 1 then the player's CH differs by +/- 1. What exactly does that tell the player about how good or bad his score is?

Did you take the time to read my explanation? No?

 

[wjemather]

So why bother with additional step?

But if the Par differs from the CR by +/- 1 then the player's CH differs by +/- 1. What exactly does that tell the player about how good or bad his score is?

Golfers understand Par and will continue to measure their score against it, e.g. by aiming for 36 Stableford points as a "played to handicap" score regardless of the Course Rating, because they simply do not understand or care about CR.

 

[rulefan]

Golfers understand Par and will continue to measure their score against it, e.g. by aiming for 36 Stableford points as a "played to handicap" score regardless of the Course Rating, because they simply do not understand or care about CR.

Does (CR -Par) always mean that 36 points is 'played to handicap'?
I ask because I have always played against the SSS. I have always recorded my hole gross and never written points on a card. If marking a card I insist on the other player checking hole gross. Before I got a handicap I decided to read the rules and have tried to stick with them ever since.

 

[Swango1980]

Does (CR -Par) always mean that 36 points is 'played to handicap'?
I ask because I have always played against the SSS. I have always recorded my hole gross and never written points on a card. If marking a card I insist on the other player checking hole gross. Before I got a handicap I decided to read the rules and have tried to stick with them ever since.

Is this not quite a patronising response? I only ask because, not once in my entire life, have I ever heard of a club player comparing their score to SSS or course rating. Virtually anyone I have ever known sees 36 points as playing to their handicap, or nett par.

Now, a handful will understand the concept of SSS and course rating when they put their minds to it. And many regulars in this forum will understand as well, given they are enthusiastic enough to come on a golf forum.

Before WHS came out, we were told not to worry about how it is all worked out, just let the computer tell us our handicap and go out and play. Yet, we are still asking golfers to understand course rating if they are to truly understand what playing to handicap means. In fact, it seems like golfers need to do more homework than ever before to get their heads around what is going on.

Had they included CR-Par it would have got rid of one hurdle of confusion. A truly difficult course would provide more shots to ALL players, and an easier course less shots, whilst the relative difference between low and high handicappers would continue to be taken into account.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Does (CR -Par) always mean that 36 points is 'played to handicap'?
I ask because I have always played against the SSS. I have always recorded my hole gross and never written points on a card. If marking a card I insist on the other player checking hole gross. Before I got a handicap I decided to read the rules and have tried to stick with them ever since.

36 points won't really mean anything, only as a guide to others playing in the same competition, because not only are you not figuring in the CR-Par, there's also the 95%, to take into account

 

[backwoodsman]

Is this not quite a patronising response? I only ask because, not once in my entire life, have I ever heard of a club player comparing their score to SSS or course rating. Virtually anyone I have ever known sees 36 points as playing to their handicap, or nett par.

Now, a handful will understand the concept of SSS and course rating when they put their minds to it. And many regulars in this forum will understand as well, given they are enthusiastic enough to come on a golf forum.

Before WHS came out, we were told not to worry about how it is all worked out, just let the computer tell us our handicap and go out and play. Yet, we are still asking golfers to understand course rating if they are to truly understand what playing to handicap means. In fact, it seems like golfers need to do more homework than ever before to get their heads around what is going on.

Had they included CR-Par it would have got rid of one hurdle of confusion. A truly difficult course would provide more shots to ALL players, and an easier course less shots, whilst the relative difference between low and high handicappers would continue to be taken into account.

Well, I'll disabuse you of the notion by one. Under the old Congu system, I always regarded 35 points as playing to handicap. (Course was par 69, SSS 70)

 

[rulefan]

Is this not quite a patronising response?

I'm sorry you took it that way.
I may be the exception but from the day I read the rules I have only ever recorded gross hole score. I have never bothered to try and work out how many points I needed to play to handicap when (as is often the case) par was not equal to the SSS. Any adjustment for CSS was very straightforward. I had no issues with par being higher (or lower) than SSS and the CSS being different again (either higher or lower).
So can you please confirm or otherwise that the (CR - Par) adjustment always tells you that 36 points is playing to handicap.

Edit: Always ignoring the Playing Handicap as has just been pointed out.

 

[Swango1980]

Well, I'll disabuse you of the notion by one. Under the old Congu system, I always regarded 35 points as playing to handicap. (Course was par 69, SSS 70)

And I always saw 39 points as playing to handicap off yellows at my place. But, most golfers at the club would consider themselves playing better than handicap if they scored 37 or 38 points. I'd be very wealthy if I got a few quid every time I had to explain why they didnt get a handicap cut.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm sorry you took it that way.
I may be the exception but from the day I read the rules I have only ever recorded gross hole score. I have never bothered to try and work out how many points I needed to play to handicap when (as is often the case) par was not equal to the SSS. Any adjustment for CSS was very straightforward. I had no issues with par being higher (or lower) than SSS and the CSS being different again (either higher or lower).
So can you please confirm or otherwise that the (CR - Par) adjustment always tells you that 36 points is playing to handicap.

Edit: Always ignoring the Playing Handicap as has just been pointed out.

Well, so long as you use your Course Handicap, then yes.

For example, if course rating was 1 over par, currently you need 35 points to play to handicap. But, if CR-Par was added to Course Handicap, then you would get an extra shot on handicap, so that would be 36 points. Unless your extra shot came on a disaster hole and you still got 35 points, but that is fine, as the disaster hole contributed to you not playing to handicap anyway.

And if Course Rating was 1 under par, then the player would currently need 37 points. But, if CR-Par was added to course handicap, it would reduce by 1 and therefore 36 points would be playing to handicap.

 

[YandaB]

Well, so long as you use your Course Handicap, then yes.

For example, if course rating was 1 over par, currently you need 35 points to play to handicap. But, if CR-Par was added to Course Handicap, then you would get an extra shot on handicap, so that would be 36 points. Unless your extra shot came on a disaster hole and you still got 35 points, but that is fine, as the disaster hole contributed to you not playing to handicap anyway.

And if Course Rating was 1 under par, then the player would currently need 37 points. But, if CR-Par was added to course handicap, it would reduce by 1 and therefore 36 points would be playing to handicap.

And if it is 0.5 under par?

 

[Swango1980]

And if it is 0.5 under par?

There is no point in worrying about rounding issues. Otherwise you could say no one (in Scotland at least) could ever truly play to handicap unless their course handicap was a round number.

Furthermore, currently we are told to compare our score to course rating, not par (just like we used to have to compare to SSS). The exact same argument would apply if someone was going to worry about rounding.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Out of interest I just checked the handicap of our star lassie player...she’s HI of +5.8 with CH of +7 ?. Just wait until I get my new bats ?

 

[SammmeBee]

Out of interest I just checked the handicap of our star lassie player...she’s HI of +5.8 with CH of +7 ?. Just wait until I get my new bats ?

Off which tees/course?

 

[sweaty sock]

Makes perfect sense to me. If a scratch handicapper playing handicap never moves, but worse golfers get more shots because the scratch golfers increased talent means its easier for them to seperate, surely those plus golfers not only seperate further from the higher handicaps but also from the scratch golfer.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Off which tees/course?

Her HI is calculated from scores all over England as she plays in all of main English (plus wider UK and one or two European) Amateur Ladies comps even though at 17 she is still formally a ‘junior’. Her home course is Farnham - where the Ladies Championship tees have CR 75.8 SR 133. The ladies generally don’t play their comps off these tees...but her CH for these tees is +6.

 

[sunshine]

Why? Par is a meaningless arbitrary number.

I appreciate your deep technical knowledge provides you with a different understanding of scoring behaviour... but you're going out on a limb here.

Par is a fundamental concept of golf. It's not particularly scientific but scoring is anchored to the notion of par.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I appreciate your deep technical knowledge provides you with a different understanding of scoring behaviour... but you're going out on a limb here.

Par is a fundamental concept of golf. It's not particularly scientific but scoring is anchored to the notion of par.

Indeed - but only really useful as a playing measure/check on a hole-by-hole basis as overall assessment of your round is not based upon the aggregated par for the course.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I don’t see how par is arbitrary.
It’s basically a case of how many shots you’d be expected to take to reach the green, plus 2 putts.