WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

It could be a 4 or 5.

My Hand is up, can I answer Sir?

It could either be a Par 4 or a Par 5.

Exactly; you cannot know from the information provided.

 

[D-S]

I've played plenty of courses where pars have been set to up the overall par of the course so it isn't "too low". For example, one facility near Bristol has a couple of downhill par 5s that are well under 400 yards from the back tees!!

Out of interest, as a local, which course is this?

 

[Swango1980]

I've played plenty of courses where pars have been set to up the overall par of the course so it isn't "too low". For example, one facility near Bristol has a couple of downhill par 5s that are well under 400 yards from the back tees!!

There you go - there was a logic to it. Maybe you don't agree with the logic at these particular courses. Maybe many others would not either, feeling it makes the course too "easy". As such, players, if CR-Par was taken into account, would find their handicap relatively lower at this course than others (and compared to what happens in the UK now)

 

[wjemather]

Out of interest, as a local, which course is this?

Woodlands.
I've just checked and it looks like new tees may have been put in to lengthen them a little, but they're still under 450 yards (and downhill) - and one is a questionably measured dogleg. There is also a 220-230 yard par 4, which is about 260 on the card because it's a dogleg (again, questionably measured).

 

[wjemather]

There you go - there was a logic to it. Maybe you don't agree with the logic at these particular courses. Maybe many others would not either, feeling it makes the course too "easy". As such, players, if CR-Par was taken into account, would find their handicap relatively lower at this course than others (and compared to what happens in the UK now)

That's at a whim - it isn't logic.

 

[Swango1980]

Exactly; you cannot know from the information provided.

Have I missed something here? I cannot seem to find the post were someone has claimed they KNOW the par of a hole based on yardage alone? I didn't even think anyone was having that debate?

 

[Swango1980]

That's at a whim - it isn't logic.

Definition of whim: a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained

There was nothing to suggest the Par was set on a sudden desire? There was a thought process, which you indicated, the reason being they didn't want the par too low. So, it is not unexplained either. Sure, it may well be unusual, but not all unusual things are a whim. As I said, the desire to have a higher par essentially makes the course play easier, relative to par, than maybe some agree with (don't know, never been there)

 

[D-S]

But if CR-par is included in the course handicap calculation and the par of the course is either artificially low or high then this will be immediately reflected in your course handicap. All I need to do as say a 5 handicapper, when CR-par is being used, is to check my Course Handicap and if it is 2 I now know what I need to shoot or if it is 9 equally I am aware straight away. No need to do any subsequent calculations or interpretations of my nett score or points total.

Surely as a region that is steeped in Stableford (see how posters on here almost always use points as a measure of their or others performance) CR-par is more suited to our golf culture than the US where Stableford is a rare beast. Why on earth we didn’t adopt it is beyond me and I still haven’t seen a strong rationale for this decision,.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

But if CR-par is included in the course handicap calculation and the par of the course is either artificially low or high then this will be immediately reflected in your course handicap. All I need to do as say a 5 handicapper, when CR-par is being used, is to check my Course Handicap and if it is 2 I now know what I need to shoot or if it is 9 equally I am aware straight away. No need to do any subsequent calculations or interpretations of my nett score or points total.

Surely as a region that is steeped in Stableford (see how posters on here almost always use points as a measure of their or others performance) CR-par is more suited to our golf culture than the US where Stableford is a rare beast. Why on earth we didn’t adopt it is beyond me and I still haven’t seen a strong rationale for this decision,.

I presume you mean CONGU region? You'd have to exclude Scotland, Stableford is far rarer here, my second course has no stabelefords at all between April-Sept for eg.

 

[Backsticks]

Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it.

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.

 

[Swango1980]

Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it.

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.

Your still confusing the argument (and Par is not the score a bogey golfer is expected to score?)

Nobody has any argument with Course Rating. It is essential. But, CR does not tell you anything about the difficulty of the course. If anything, it is based much more on length than Par is, given that out of all the factors that determine CR, length has about 85% of the influence.

 

[D-S]

Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it.

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.

Like it or not though it is how the majority of golfers measure their performance and is therefore current and important - combining this with the new improved SSS that is CR is sensible. Trying to deny this is forcing a culture change that just isn’t going to happen. The day I read the majority of posts assessing performance as a number versus CR I will agree with you, but that will be a long time coming.

 

[Swango1980]

Like it or not though it is how the majority of golfers measure their performance and is therefore current and important - combining this with the new improved SSS that is CR is sensible. Trying to deny this is forcing a culture change that just isn’t going to happen. The day I read the majority of posts assessing performance as a number versus CR I will agree with you, but that will be a long time coming.

Agreed.

How often do we look at the results sheets at our club, and say "Player x did really well, winning with 42 points / nett 65?" How many posts in this thread have refereed to ridiculous scores of 50 odd points (when complaining about high handicappers for example)?

I've absolutely never heard anyone say "Player x did really well in the comp, won with a Score Differential of -5.2 under their Index". Perhaps if Par is now redundant, we should ask the ISVs to report Score Differentials relative to Index in Comps, not Points?

We also here some players talk about very high Stableford Scores, and saying it is not right. One of the handicap gurus then have to step in and say the Points is not necessarily important, what is the CR relative to Par. This goes on for a while, and if it turns out CR is several shots lower than Par, then it needs to be explained 39/40 points is considered playing to handicap, and so maybe the score is not impressive as it looks. CR-Par would solve that issue.

 

[rulefan]

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

It was in the context of the discussion which I assume you were following.

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

Which 'meets' are these?

 

[IanM]

It was in the context of the discussion which I assume you were following.


Which 'meets' are these?

1) Apologies again for replying to a direct quote, I'll phone for for context next time! Just to check you haven't moved on and you can tell me which words to ignore.
2) You are kidding????

 

[rulefan]

1) Apologies again for replying to a direct quote, I'll phone for for context next time! Just to check you haven't moved on and you can tell me which words to ignore.
2) You are kidding????

1) Accepted
2) No

 

[Alan Clifford]

I essentially ignore the course handicap when playing casual games. I just know what I have to score for my handicap to stay the same and to get a reduction.

So, if I play the front 9 tomorrow, course handicap plus par is 12 + 35 = 47. I need 48 to stay the same and 47 for a cut. The cut may only be minute in decimal points.
If I play 18, course handicap plus par is 24 + 69 = 93. I need 92 for both same and cut. They'll be the same because of changing 1 point decimals to integers.

 

[Voyager EMH]

And so it continues...

The debate on,

Par of a hole.
Par of the course.
Course rating.
Difficult/easy hole or course.

with debate clouded by old system thinking.

New system,

Par of hole less important
Par of course less important
Course rating more important
All courses same difficulty/easiness by way of Course and Slope ratings.

I have over 50 years of previous systems colouring my thinking. But after two years of the new system I have managed to change my thinking.

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.

 

[Alan Clifford]

And so it continues...

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.

Par is not removed from the course handicap. Except it is! For 9 hole rounds. The inconsistency is so illogical.

 

[YandaB]

Par is not removed from the course handicap. Except it is! For 9 hole rounds. The inconsistency is so illogical.

Or even for 18 holes if you go round a 9 hole course twice!