New World Handicaps 2020

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > >

> > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > >

> > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

>

> In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

>

> In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

>

> It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

>

> dave

 

Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

[QEight]

> @Newby said:

> > @QEight said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > >

> > > The R and A countries seem they might have a bit more of a learning curve and trial and error on the slope ratings.

> > >

> > > Not really. It's only GB&I and Argentina that don't use slope at the moment. Mainland Europe, South Africa and Australia do.

> > >

> >

> > But you took some 10 extra months for transition in CONGU lands.

>

> Not all national associations around the world are transitioning at the same time.

 

No th> @rogolf said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > Ain't this terminology hard to keep straight? It keeps tripping me up, glad I'm not the only one.

> > >

> > > Actually, in North America, I think it's quite clear. When the non-North Americans (no insult intended) try understanding/discussing it, there can be confusion in the terminology and definitions.

> >

> > Ditto.

> >

> > Around here we only say 'slope' when we mean Course Handicap.

> > 'What is your slope on this course (from this tee)?'

> > 'It is 18, what's yours?'

>

> And here, we never refer to "slope" at all, just the course handicap that results from our handicap factor (sorry, but a Canadian copyright differentiation from USGA) and the slope rating, which is read from a chart or shows up on our computer/phone as a course handicap from the tees most regularly played (course handicap available from other tees at the push of button).

 

As Bean said, it is not the real slope, but just bad (and common) Finglish...

[Halebopp]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > > >

> > > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

> >

> > In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

> >

> > In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

> >

> > It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

> >

> > dave

>

> Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

 

Well, you could easily omit the par from the formula and say a player gets 83 strokes to play a course from a certain set of tees. That's fine for net stroke play but I'm willing to guess it's a lot easier for many to figure out stroke allocation etc. if they're told they get 11 strokes.

 

In my opinion it's the same as tournaments showing scores in relation to par as opposed to showing the total number of strokes. It makes things more simple.

[Newby]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > > >

> > > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

> >

> > In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

> >

> > In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

> >

> > It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

> >

> > dave

>

> Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

 

Take an extreme case.

18 holes, all 300 yards, par 72. CR approx 66

18 holes, all 400 yards, par 72. CR approx 75

How does that work?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > > > >

> > > > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

> > >

> > > In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

> > >

> > > In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

> > >

> > > It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

>

> Take an extreme case.

> 18 holes, all 300 yards, par 72. CR approx 66

> 18 holes, all 400 yards, par 72. CR approx 75

> How does that work?

 

I am not sure what the question is here, but that 'extreme case' is going to be found in a slightly different form all over the world where the TIPS play at par 72 and around 7200 yards, and the most forward tees play at 5400 yards (at the same par).

 

From a NDB perspective, a scratch golfer gets 3 strokes from the TIPS and gives 6 strokes from the most forward tees, if NDB was the context of the question.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > > >

> > > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

> >

> > In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

> >

> > In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

> >

> > It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

> >

> > dave

>

> Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

 

For both handicapping and Stableford scoring, scores are generated by hole. THere are probably alternatives, but a par basis is the natural solution given the history of the game. Also custom seems to be to not change par (usually) as the tees go from front to back.

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

>

> I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

>

>

 

My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

[North Butte]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> >

> > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> >

> >

>

> My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

 

Right. Making net double bogey the max score and then mixing and matching definitions of "double bogey" with various optional ways of figuring course handicaps is just not going to work. At all.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > >

> > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

>

> Right. Making net double bogey the max score and then mixing and matching definitions of "double bogey" with various optional ways of figuring course handicaps is just not going to work. At all.

>

 

Unless of course players were forced to post hole by hole scores and then the system automatically adjusted for Net Double Bogey only using one of the formulas for all players.

[North Butte]

Well while we're dreaming it also works just fine if nobody ever picks up or takes a big number on a hole.

 

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which of those two dreams is more likely to become reality.

[Colin L]

Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > >

> > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

>

 

 

There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

 

There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

_A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > >

> > > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

> >

>

>

> There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

>

> There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

> _A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

>

 

There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

 

dave

[North Butte]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > >

> > > > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

> > >

> >

> >

> > There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

> >

> > There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

> > _A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

> >

>

> There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

>

> dave

 

Just so. And that is not at all an unusual or "hypothetical" scenario. Very common.

[rogolf]

> @Newby said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume that par = 72 and CR = 74. On the number 1 handicap hole a scratch golfer (HI =0) posts no worse than 6 on the #1 handicap hole (par 4 in this example) using the current USGA CH calculation (HI x Slope/113). If the CR adjustment is used this golfer could post as high as a 7 on that same hole.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Understand all of that, but in the whole scheme of things, is the difference in the outcome going to be significant? It's potentially one stroke out of eight scores, ie, likely 1 in 570 or so.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > **In moving from the championship tees up to the most forward tees, a 10 stroke difference would be common. That is, admittedly, the most extreme case. **

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have no idea how big an impact this will have across the board. But you would just think that given the identical input in a **WORLD** Handicap System, you would get identical output. But this is probably not the last step. While making the CR/Par adjustment is the most sensible alternative and would simplify some things like mixed tees, making sense of Stableford scores, 'net score against par' actually means something, etc given where we are that may not be practical - or even worthwhile.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > > I don't follow what you're trying to say about 10 strokes difference?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I believe he means that one tee up or down is 2 strokes in slope index. Thus 5 tees equals 10 strokes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is not what I mean. Using the CR/Par adjustment on (just to pick a course) Pinehurst No. 6, a scratch golfer from the TIPS (CR = 74.9) has a CH of 3 (74.9 - 72 rounded). Playing the most forward tees (CR = 64.3) he has a CH of - 8. In this case the difference is 11 strokes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As is currently done, CH = 0 in both cases.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I thought my original question was about using existing ESC or NDB and a scratch player having a double bogey or a triple bogey on one hole in a round and its effect on his/her handicap index?

> > > > >

> > > > > If it is one hole only, then the max effect is (obviously) one stroke or less. But when you referred to "the outcome", I didn't make any particular assumptions and just looked across the board at the extremes (which are extreme).

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > With "outcome", I was referring to a single stroke on a single hole in a single round (of the eight counting rounds) having an insignificant impact (outcome) on the handicap index.

> > >

> > > In thinking about it, this is where I believe it matters. For low handicappers who tend to play tees where Par and CR are within a couple strokes, it doesn't matter much. But for the high handicappers (over 20) who are playing the tees where they (in most cases) "belong" (in quotes because if you can keep up you can play from anywhere IMHO), par and the CR are probably more like 5 strokes apart. And this is the 'missing' adjustment in their CH.

> > >

> > > In my experience playing with these guys in a typical round they will be picking up for NDB maybe 3 or 4 holes a round. So call it an average of 3.5 times per round. And on 5 of the 18 holes they get 'an extra stroke' because there is no CR/Par adjustment. On average that comes out to roughly 1 stroke per round difference between no CR/Par adjustment and having that adjustment.

> > >

> > > It is not nothing but also not a big deal on a high handicap basis (and it is based on no data at all - just my impression of things).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Personally, I have doubts about what "par" has to do with it. Imo, a huge difference between par and course rating would suggest that the par is incorrect. Since par is a fictitious integer based on distance only, why does it play a part in handicapping at all? If you have a 280 yard hole with a rating of 3.3, why should it show up as a par 4 instead of a par 3? What matters is how many strokes it took to complete 18 holes compared to the course rating, not compared to "par".

>

> Take an extreme case.

> 18 holes, all 300 yards, par 72. CR approx 66

> 18 holes, all 400 yards, par 72. CR approx 75

> How does that work?

 

The handicaps are based on the differential between score and course rating, not score and par. Works just fine.

[Deceptively Short]

So will CONGU calculate where you get shots (for handicap purposes) based on course handicap or course rating? I assume course handicap as this is sort of the case now.

[HatsForBats]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > >

> > > > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

> > >

> >

> >

> > There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

> >

> > There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

> > _A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

> >

>

> There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

>

> dave

 

From the previous post my takeaway is that the change will be at the USGA level. Either the USGA adopts CR-CoursePar or they do not for all players.

[Halebopp]

One thing I've never seen explained is how the NDB score will actually be transformed into the score from which the WHS counts the average. A NDB 84 is very different for players with playing handicaps of 5 and 18.

[North Butte]

> @Halebopp said:

> One thing I've never seen explained is how the NDB score will actually be transformed into the score from which the WHS counts the average.

 

Not sure I understand the question.

 

The "net double bogey max" is hole by hole. So on a particular hole where a player picks up or scores higher than net double bogey, the score used for handicapping purposes ON THAT HOLE is limited to net double bogey. On other holes, it's the actual score.

 

A typical scenario is a player scores 95 but that includes a 9 on one hole. If his personal "net double bogey" for that hole were 7 then he posts 93 into the computer rather than his true score of 95. That reflects the fact that his "net double bogey max" of 7 was two strokes less than his actual score of 9 on that hole.

 

>A NDB 84 is very different for players with playing handicaps of 5 and 18.

 

Are you're saying that players with handicaps of 5 and 18 might end up *posting* a different NDB-adjusted score depending on their personal "net double bogey" for certain holes even though their actual scores were both 84? If so that is correct.

[Colin L]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> So will CONGU calculate where you get shots (for handicap purposes) based on course handicap or course rating? I assume course handicap as this is sort of the case now.

 

Where you get strokes for handicap purposes is determined by the Stroke Index of the course you are playing.

 

[larrybud]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @larrybud said:

> > Anybody know the graduation of scores for new handicaps? From what I've read, a new player will require 54 holes (rather than 90 holes from the USGA).

> >

> Here you are. As you see there are reductions made for small numbers of scores returned.

>

>

 

Perfect, thanks!

[larrybud]

The term "slope" is used because it's equivalent to the slope of a line on a graph. It's a multiplier to convert your *handicap index* to your *course handicap* based on the tees you're playing. It's a ratio, based on the difficulty increase for a higher handicapped player. The higher the slope, the higher the relative difficulty for a higher handicapped player vs a low handicap (to be more specific, a scratch player vs a bogey golfer).

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

> > >

> > > There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

> > > _A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

> > >

> >

> > There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

> >

> > dave

>

> From the previous post my takeaway is that the change will be at the USGA level. Either the USGA adopts CR-CoursePar or they do not for all players.

 

And if the USGA adopts the CR/Par adjustment, then the problem described earlier (click 'show previous quotes') goes away. If they do not adopt that adjustment (which I believe will be the case), then the problem as describes exists.

 

dave

[North Butte]

> @larrybud said:

> The term "slope" is used because it's equivalent to the slope of a line on a graph. It's a multiplier to convert your *handicap index* to your *course handicap* based on the tees you're playing. It's a ratio, based on the difficulty increase for a higher handicapped player. The higher the slope, the higher the relative difficulty for a higher handicapped player vs a low handicap (to be more specific, a scratch player vs a bogey golfer).

 

There were at least 100 replies earlier in this thread rehashing the putative origins of the term “slope”.

 

Your description is slightly incorrect. The “multiplier” of which you speak is not the Slope Rating. It is the Slope Rating divided by 113.

 

 

[Colin L]

> @Halebopp said:

> One thing I've never seen explained is how the NDB score will actually be transformed into the score from which the WHS counts the average. A NDB 84 is very different for players with playing handicaps of 5 and 18.

 

Your _Handicap Index_ Is the average of your best 8 _Score Differentials_ out of 20. A _Score Differential_ is the difference between the _Gross Adjusted Score_ and the _Course Rating_ after taking away the effect of slope and any Playing Conditions Calculation

 

Say the _Course Rating_ is 70.5, both players will have the same _Score Differential_ . Let's say it is 12.5 but for the high handicapper that is 5.5 strokes better than his _Handicap Index_ while for the low handicapper it is 7.5 strokes above his _Handicap Index_. Any effect on each player's Handicap Index, it will be the result in one instance of playing above and in the other of playing below their handicap indices.

 

 

 

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

> There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

>

> dave

 

Player A getting more strokes than Player B for whatever reason does not in any way make the meaning of net double bogey ambiguous. A net double bogey is a precise term which remains exactly the same in any circumstances. The numerical value of it will be different between two players if one has a stroke and the other doesn't, but that does not make it ambiguous. It is not open to interpretation; it doesn't have more than one obvious meaning; it's not open to debate or argument; it's not equivocal or ambivalent; it's not ..........well, ambiguous.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> > There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

> >

> > dave

>

> Player A getting more strokes than Player B for whatever reason does not in any way make the meaning of net double bogey ambiguous. A net double bogey is a precise term which remains exactly the same in any circumstances. The numerical value of it will be different between two players if one has a stroke and the other doesn't, but that does not make it ambiguous. It is not open to interpretation; it doesn't have more than one obvious meaning; it's not open to debate or argument; it's not equivocal or ambivalent; it's not ..........well, ambiguous.

 

OK then - it isn't ambiguous. And there is NO Player B in this scenario. This is ONLY about Player A's competition score and his posting score. NDB (the actual number) in the competition (handicapped) scoring is different than NDB (the actual number) for purposes of posting a handicap score on some holes. So I guess the definition of ambiguous seems to be ambiguous :-)

 

dave

[Colin L]

You persist in confusing the numerical value of a particular net double bogey with the meaning of the term itself. The fact that the former is variable, does not make the term ambiguous. And with that, I give up from exhaustion. :)

[North Butte]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> >

> > > There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Player A getting more strokes than Player B for whatever reason does not in any way make the meaning of net double bogey ambiguous. A net double bogey is a precise term which remains exactly the same in any circumstances. The numerical value of it will be different between two players if one has a stroke and the other doesn't, but that does not make it ambiguous. It is not open to interpretation; it doesn't have more than one obvious meaning; it's not open to debate or argument; it's not equivocal or ambivalent; it's not ..........well, ambiguous.

>

> OK then - it isn't ambiguous. And there is NO Player B in this scenario. This is ONLY about Player A's competition score and his posting score. NDB (the actual number) in the competition (handicapped) scoring is different than NDB (the actual number) for purposes of posting a handicap score on some holes. So I guess the definition of ambiguous seems to be ambiguous :-)

>

> dave

 

Misunderstandings of meaning have been a constant throughout this thread. It's seems almost impossible for USA people (long accustomed to things like CH=HI*SR and applying ESC to scores) and CONGU people (used to thinking in terms of SSS and the ratchet) to distinguish in a given back-and-forth between things that apply to deciding a player's handicap on the day and things that apply to how his score will affect his future handicap.

 

And on this particular point, it's doubly difficult because we don't actually know for sure what combination of "options" are in place either in USA or Rest of World with regards to adjusting handicaps for slope rating, deciding the basic for NDB, stroke indices and so forth.

 

What a mess. I doubt it will be a heck of a lot clearer post-November-2020 if the "options" get thoroughly mixed and matched in each jurisdiction.

[HatsForBats]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > Where> @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > > I wrote that because a net double bogey is always a score for a particular hole ( par +2 + any handicap strokes allocated for that hole).

> > > > > > > What part does that play in the calculation of a Course Handicap which is a function of Handicap Index and Slope Rating? Am I the one missing something?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have a vague memory that some number crunching was done one the effect on Handicap Indices of the difference between using the CR-Par adjustment or not. Knowing my memory, I might have made that up and so will check on it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My concern is with the posting of the scores here in the USA. For Net Double Bogie max at my home course if I do not use the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment there are 9 holes where I can post a max of Par+3. If I use the adjustment then there only 6 holes where I can post a max of par+3. The value of Net Double Bogey is changed for those 3 holes. If I play the next tees up the difference is 8 holes versus only 2. ie. Anyone using the CourseRating-CoursePar adjustment has an advantage over players that are not using the adjustment.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There is a choice for Authorised Associations to calculate Course Handicaps by either including an adjustment for the difference between course rating and par or not including that adjustment. We, as players, will have our Course Handicaps calculated by whichever method has been chosen by the Authorised Association in whose jurisdiction we play. In the CONGU jurisdiction, I know my Course Handicap will not include the adjustment - in common with every other player in it. In the USA, yours will be calculated by whichever method the USGA adopts. Nowhere will players have an individual choice.

> > > >

> > > > There is one Definition of net double bogey. This is it, verbatim:

> > > > _A score equal to the par of a hole plus two strokes and adjusted for any handicap stroke(s) applied on that hole. It is the player’s maximum score for handicap purposes._

> > > >

> > >

> > > There may be only one definition, but it is ambiguous in some cases. Take a competition where the players have a choice of tees (with appropriate handicap adjustments - competition basis is the white tees) and Player A chooses to 'play back' to the Blue tees resulting in him getting 3 more strokes than he would normally get from those tees for a competition based on the Blue tees. So he now has 3 holes that are a "stroke hole" from the perspective of the handicapped competition that he competes in, but for purposes of posting a handicap score he does not get a stroke.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > From the previous post my takeaway is that the change will be at the USGA level. Either the USGA adopts CR-CoursePar or they do not for all players.

>

>.... If they do not adopt that adjustment (which I believe will be the case), then the problem as describes exists.

 

From a USA only perspective I don't see it is an issue if they do not adopt it. For the purposes of Course Handicap and purposes of posting a handicap score the player would get the same amount of strokes for Course Handicap and posting. I don't see how there would be discrepency or am I missing something?

 

 

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

> OK then - it isn't ambiguous. And there is NO Player B in this scenario. This is ONLY about Player A's competition score and his posting score. NDB (the actual number) in the competition (handicapped) scoring is different than NDB (the actual number) for purposes of posting a handicap score on some holes. So I guess the definition of ambiguous seems to be ambiguous :-)

>

> dave

 

A player has a Course Handicap of 8.

He scores 7 on the Par 5 hole that is Stroke Index 3. As he gets 1 stroke he has scored a net bogey (ie net 6)

..... No change to his gross score for handicap posting

He scores 8 on the Par 5 hole that is Stroke Index 6. As he gets 1 stroke he has scored a NDB (ie net 7)

..... No change to his gross score for handicap posting

He scores 9 on the Par 5 hole that is Stroke Index 2. As he gets 1 stroke he has scored over NDB (ie net 8)

..... His gross score is reduced by 2 for handicap posting