WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

The low Course Rating tells me that Royston is an easier course.

 

[Swango1980]

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

You'd have got an extra shot or 2, but would have also had to shoot a better (NETT) score by one or 2 shots to play to handicap.

Edited to include the word Nett which is the score I meant

 

[Orikoru]

The low Course Rating tells me that Royston is an easier course.

Have you played it? Because it sounds like you haven't.

 

[Orikoru]

You'd have got an extra shot or 2, but would have also had to shoot a better score by one or 2 shots to play to handicap.

See this part is irrelevant for me. I only gauge it by how many points I get.

 

[wjemather]

Have you played it? Because it sounds like you haven't.

My subjective opinion isn't necessary. The objective Course Rating information is right there.

 

[PJ87]

The low Course Rating tells me that Royston is an easier course.

Lol it's anything but

You need to be a mountain goat to up and down the hills

It's course rating is only 1.5 lower than par

You'd have got an extra shot or 2, but would have also had to shoot a better score by one or 2 shots to play to handicap.

I'd of got extra shots aswell so we would still draw lol

 

[wjemather]

You'd have got an extra shot or 2, but would have also had to shoot a better score by one or 2 shots to play to handicap.

For clarity, the actual shots (i.e. gross score) needed to play to handicap would be the same.
It's only the number of Stableford points or nett score that would be different.

 

[wjemather]

Lol it's anything but

You need to be a mountain goat to up and down the hills

It's course rating is only 1.5 lower than par

So you're saying it's more difficult for unfit people than it is for fitter people. How would you factor that into a rating system?

A CR of 68.5 against a par of 70 is relatively easy. A Slope of 122 is fairly average. Overall, it's a relatively easy course.

 

[Orikoru]

My subjective opinion isn't necessary. The objective Course Rating information is right there.

And they couldn't be wrong at all of course. Somebody slapped an arbitrary course rating on it and that's the be all and end all.

 

[Orikoru]

So you're saying it's more difficult for unfit people than it is for fitter people. How would you factor that into a rating system?

A CR of 68.5 against a par of 70 is relatively easy. A Slope of 122 is fairly average. Overall, it's a relatively easy course.

Yeah, except it's not.

 

[PJ87]

So you're saying it's more difficult for unfit people than it is for fitter people. How would you factor that into a rating system?

A CR of 68.5 against a par of 70 is relatively easy. A Slope of 122 is fairly average. Overall, it's a relatively easy course.

Until you play it I'd say you can't judge.

As you should be aware slope isn't to do with difficulty.

My course is slope 111 but the actual difficulty is based on CR of 71.8 on a par 72

I think @Orikoru would testify my course is hard but yesterday was brutal

 

[wjemather]

And they couldn't be wrong at all of course. Somebody slapped an arbitrary course rating on it and that's the be all and end all.

If they are wrong, it won't be by any more than a small fraction unless the course has been substantially lengthened (by several hundred yards) without being rerated. There is nothing arbitrary about how course ratings are done.

 

[Swango1980]

See this part is irrelevant for me. I only gauge it by how many points I get.

Many do. Thus, when they score 36 points they often ignorantly feel like they've played to their handicap. But, if CR was 4 lower than Par, they really needed 40 points. It is also why many of these people think they are playing well, but then moan and complain when they shoot 36, 37, 38 points and don't see a handicap cut they were expecting.

But, it works both ways. If you went to a very long difficult course, previously you'd only need to shoot a less impressive nett score to play to handicap, but that score may not feel terribly exciting for you. For example:

Carnoustie Blue Tees (Par 72, CR 77.4, Slope 143)
Previously your Course Handicap would have been 19, but you'd only need 31 points to play to handicap
Now you play off 24, and you need 36 points.

 

[Swango1980]

Lol it's anything but

You need to be a mountain goat to up and down the hills

It's course rating is only 1.5 lower than par


I'd of got extra shots aswell so we would still draw lol

Absolutely. I wasn't making the point that the changes to the system benefit Orikoru over others

 

[Orikoru]

Many do. Thus, when they score 36 points they often ignorantly feel like they've played to their handicap. But, if CR was 4 lower than Par, they really needed 40 points. It is also why many of these people think they are playing well, but then moan and complain when they shoot 36, 37, 38 points and don't see a handicap cut they were expecting.

But, it works both ways. If you went to a very long difficult course, previously you'd only need to shoot a less impressive nett score to play to handicap, but that score may not feel terribly exciting for you. For example:

Carnoustie Blue Tees (Par 72, CR 77.4, Slope 143)
Previously your Course Handicap would have been 19, but you'd only need 31 points to play to handicap
Now you play off 24, and you need 36 points.

I wouldn't call it playing 'to handicap' these days anyway. Just playing to a number I'm happy with is fine by me.

 

[Swango1980]

I wouldn't call it playing 'to handicap' these days anyway. Just playing to a number I'm happy with is fine by me.

That is a fine way of looking at it. And, for people with that mindset, the addition of CR-Par is irrelevant anyway. If you are just playing to a number, and know that number at each course, you really do not need to worry what your Course Handicap is.

But, a lot of people tally up their Stableford score as they go along, rather than keep track of their gross score, let alone being aware what gross score they need for each individual course. So, the recent changes basically satisfy everyone. The purists who focus on gross score and Score Diff, can still do so. And those that focus on Stableford score or Nett Score are also easily catered for

 

[jim8flog]

So yesterday I played Royston and only received 14 shots off the yellow (14.7 index). Can anyone tell me what I would have received had we played it before April 1st? As 14 didn't feel like enough... Course rating 68.5, slope 122, par 70.

As has already been mentioned the changes affect all players so makes no real difference in comps.

 

[jim8flog]

See this part is irrelevant for me. I only gauge it by how many points I get.

I had this argument for many years (pre WHS and post WHS) with many players where I play.

I found it very hard to get over the point that playing off the yellows 38 points was playing to handicap not 36 points where I play.

The changes now makes it a lot easier to compare how you play from one course to another as the new calculation makes 36 points playing to handicap wherever you go.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

It’s subjective, but I don’t find Royston that difficult, its not a long course, though the hills can compensate for that depending on the wind direction. But, I have played it a few times and know my way round, and am used to playing courses like that up on the Yorkshire moors.

If you catch Royston on a particularly windy day (like you did) then it is a challenge. It wound interesting to see if PCC kicked in yesterday. We had it at 2 and we are as windy as Royston.

 

[Orikoru]

It’s subjective, but I don’t find Royston that difficult, its not a long course, though the hills can compensate for that depending on the wind direction. But, I have played it a few times and know my way round, and am used to playing courses like that up on the Yorkshire moors.

If you catch Royston on a particularly windy day (like you did) then it is a challenge. It wound interesting to see if PCC kicked in yesterday. We had it at 2 and we are as windy as Royston.

Yeah, PCC was 1 apparently.