WHS doesn't work

[D-S]

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.

I fully agree, however, like it or not, par is the standard by which almost everyone measures their performance. How often do you see here people saying I or he/she shot x beneath the Course Rating? - never. You always see x off 21 shot 6 under or scored 45 points. Just see almost every statement on performance on this forum or in any UK clubhouse.

Par although flawed is the shorthand of handicap golf - it is for this reason that it should be taken into account in Course Handicap using CR-Par as the rest of the world does.

 

[wjemather]

course


Nothing?

Why do you think that? It tells me several things. Have you ever played golf? I only ask as your reply is a suprise.

Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?

 

[IanM]

Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?

Your mate says it tells you NOTHING!!

If you think that, you've never played Stableford for starters! I could go on, but there's no point.

 

[Swango1980]

Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?

It tells me what score I need to get before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.

 

[IanM]

It tells me what score I need to get before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.

Ah, but can you quote Decision 15.1.4.6 without looking it up?

 

[rulefan]

course


Nothing?

Why do you think that? It tells me several things. Have you ever played golf? I only ask as your reply is a suprise.

My comment related to difficulty which was mentioned in the leadup to my post. To make it clear. Par tells you nothing about difficulty.

 

[rulefan]

It tells me what score I need to get before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.

The posts were in the context of (CR-Par). In this case what does par tell you about the course?

 

[IanM]

My comment related to difficulty which was mentioned in the leadup to my post. To make it clear. Par tells you nothing about difficulty.

ah, excuse me having the temerity to reply based on the words in the posting, rather than what you thought you meant

Is this why none of the people with “Rules“ in their screen name EVER show up at meets?

 

[Swango1980]

The posts were in the context of (CR-Par). In this case what does par tell you about the course?

You do realise the flaw in your argument here?

Had I said we should get rid of CR, and just focus on par, then you would be 100% correct in your argument.

The importance is the combination of both, CR-Par. Both feature in the equation, neither in isolation.

The rest of the world at least get it.

 

[sunshine]

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.

Yes this means nothing at all

 

[AussieKB]

Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?

I am a member of two clubs, play midweek comps at both (called scroungers) Wednesday and Thursday, then Saturday comp at one of them, plus I play in our veterans for the South West of OZ, (largest in OZ) they playing 26-30 times a year mostly Monday or Tuesday.

I also play in Opens which are Sat/Sun, so quite easily well over 120.

Plus our weather makes it possible, as play all year, most of our Majors (club champs) are held in our winter months.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

What's par got to do with it? If Fred's course is a short par 72, it's unlikely that knocking it round in 9 over par every week will give him a handicap of 9, likely much higher than that. Similarly Bob's handicap is probably lower.

Also your hypoithetical doesn't account for the individual, Fred's game sounds like it suits the type of course he plays. My two courses for example I score gross lower on what the CR syas is the harder course, so that can never be taken into account

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS.

It very much was not, SSS took care of it. Fred by the sounds of it is playing a course with an SSS of maybe 70 or 69, and Bob is playing a 74 or 75. likely Fred was off maybe 12 and Bob off 6 or 7

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Yes it definitely was the case under the old congu system, but it hasn't changed under WHS.

Slope isn't a measure of difficulty, rather relative difficulty compared to a different handicap. As WJEMather pointed out, difference between par and CR is commonly less than 2, so in my example both players have a HI of 9 even though one of them is much better than the other.

Not that commonly, plenty of 3 or more either way, but in your example CR could be 69 or 70 for the first player, and 74 or 75 for the second, quite easily they could be 6 shots different in handicap. You used a pretty extreme hypothetical without considering real world considerations, namley course rating

 

[Swango1980]

What's par got to do with it? If Fred's course is a short par 72, it's unlikely that knocking it round in 9 over par every week will give him a handicap of 9, likely much higher than that. Similarly Bob's handicap is probably lower.

Also your hypoithetical doesn't account for the individual, Fred's game sounds like it suits the type of course he plays. My two courses for example I score gross lower on what the CR syas is the harder course, so that can never be taken into account

When I read that first line, I imagined BB and rulefan singing their version of Tina Turner's "What's par got to do with it, got to do with it...."

 

[Voyager EMH]

More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.

Nail on the head here. I think this comment has been missed by many.

If stableford had never been invented, then I don't think there would be quite the clamour for CR-Par.

Your golf score is the total for the 18 holes played. Calculate the differential achieved and this will tell you what you played to.

After your game you can tell yourself, or others, your total score and/or your differential achieved.

This will help you to embrace the new system, be more comfortable with it and lessen the ingrained thinking that the last system engendered.

 

[Swango1980]

Nail on the head here. I think this comment has been missed by many.

If stableford had never been invented, then I don't think there would be quite the clamour for CR-Par.

Your golf score is the total for the 18 holes played. Calculate the differential achieved and this will tell you what you played to.

After your game you can tell yourself, or others, your total score and/or your differential achieved.

This will help you to embrace the new system, be more comfortable with it and lessen the ingrained thinking that the last system engendered.

Four things here:

1. Even without Stableford, players will often compare their scores to hole and course pars anyway. On a Par 70 course, a player will probably be pleased with a Nett 68, not so much with a Nett 75. The Nett 68, though, may not be as good as they think, if CR was 66. The Nett 75 may not be as bad as they think, if the CR was 75. CR-Par would make things more transparent
2. Stableford was invented
3. CR-Par is used everywhere else in the world. Have they got it wrong?
4. If CR-Par WAS used, this conversation would NOT be happening. Furthermore, I absolutely believe there would be nobody coming on here and moaning that CR-Par is used, and desperately trying to convince people that all they want to do is talk about their Score Differentials with other players. Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.

 

[wjemather]

Four things here:

1. Even without Stableford, players will often compare their scores to hole and course pars anyway. On a Par 70 course, a player will probably be pleased with a Nett 68, not so much with a Nett 75. The Nett 68, though, may not be as good as they think, if CR was 66. The Nett 75 may not be as bad as they think, if the CR was 75. CR-Par would make things more transparent
2. Stableford was invented
3. CR-Par is used everywhere else in the world. Have they got it wrong?
4. If CR-Par WAS used, this conversation would NOT be happening. Furthermore, I absolutely believe there would be nobody coming on here and moaning that CR-Par is used, and desperately trying to convince people that all they want to do is talk about their Score Differentials with other players. Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.

(Not that I agree with him - I don't - but) Dean Knuth would tell you they have.

Just a thought - given Course Ratings are measured and pars are arbitrarily assigned, why is no-one complaining that the pars are wrong?

 

[rulefan]

Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.

A player with an Index of 0.0 has a CH of (0 + (CR-par)). If CR = 69 and par = 72 what makes it easier? If CR = 69 and par = 67 what makes it harder?

 

[Swango1980]

(Not that I agree with him - I don't - but) Dean Knuth would tell you they have.

Just a thought - given Course Ratings are measured and pars are arbitrarily assigned, why is no-one complaining that the pars are wrong?

See, again, Course Pars are not arbitrary. They can sometimes be subjective, but they are not arbitrary.

As far as I am aware, arbitrary is defined as random or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I've never played a 100 yard par 5, or a 600 yard par 3. Have you? Par is set by people using logic and reason. Hopefully people you'd generally have a bit of respect for, and know what they are doing.