New World Handicap System

[larrybud]

From what I'm reading, they are allowing clubs to choose whether or not to use CR-Par?? If that's true, this whole exercise of switching over is INSANE. The idea is a consistent system, and once you let people decide how to calculate, that ideas is thrown out the window.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @larrybud said:

> From what I'm reading, they are allowing clubs to choose whether or not to use CR-Par?? If that's true, this whole exercise of switching over is INSANE. The idea is a consistent system, and once you let people decide how to calculate, that ideas is thrown out the window.

>

>

 

Not clubs, but at the regional association level where a region is a country or multiple countries.

[DaveLeeNC]

The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

 

Thanks.

 

dave

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

>

> Thanks.

>

> dave

 

The data exists, why not use it?

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

>

> Thanks.

>

> dave

 

I've wondered about that, too. I looked through the USGA Education Resource

[https://usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources.html](https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources.html "https://usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources.html")

and didn't see any mention of it.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > dave

>

> The data exists, why not use it?

 

In the case of hole by hole scores the data exists. That is FAR from the norm here in the US so a 'back calculation' is only an approximation, given that there is no way to apply the new Maximum Hole Score rule.

 

I guess that you could simply go with 'close enough'.

 

dave

 

ps. Depending on exactly how cards are marked, the data may not always exist even when hole by hole data is saved. Take a scratch golfer who carded a gross double bogey on the #1 handicap hole, where in the new system he now 'gets a stroke'. Unless there was a 'x' or some indication that he didn't hole out, you have the same problem. For those who post hole by hole, I don't know what the practices are here.

 

Also, no playing conditions adjustment (in most cases, anyway). On second thought I guess you could 'back calculate' PCC's using your approximate (but probably not that far off) data

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

> > >

> > > Thanks.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > The data exists, why not use it?

>

> In the case of hole by hole scores the data exists. That is FAR from the norm here in the US so a 'back calculation' is only an approximation, given that there is no way to apply the new Maximum Hole Score rule.

>

> I guess that you could simply go with 'close enough'.

>

> dave

>

> ps. Depending on exactly how cards are marked, the data may not always exist even when hole by hole data is saved. Take a scratch golfer who carded a gross double bogey on the #1 handicap hole, where in the new system he now 'gets a stroke'. Unless there was a 'x' or some indication that he didn't hole out, you have the same problem. For those who post hole by hole, I don't know what the practices are here.

>

> Also, no playing conditions adjustment (in most cases, anyway). On second thought I guess you could 'back calculate' PCC's using your approximate (but probably not that far off) data

 

My opinion is that any differences in final "low" handicap would be insignificant and hence the data should be used and start the new system with that limitation in place, even with any insignificant "errors".

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > The data exists, why not use it?

> >

> > In the case of hole by hole scores the data exists. That is FAR from the norm here in the US so a 'back calculation' is only an approximation, given that there is no way to apply the new Maximum Hole Score rule.

> >

> > I guess that you could simply go with 'close enough'.

> >

> > dave

> >

> > ps. Depending on exactly how cards are marked, the data may not always exist even when hole by hole data is saved. Take a scratch golfer who carded a gross double bogey on the #1 handicap hole, where in the new system he now 'gets a stroke'. Unless there was a 'x' or some indication that he didn't hole out, you have the same problem. For those who post hole by hole, I don't know what the practices are here.

> >

> > Also, no playing conditions adjustment (in most cases, anyway). On second thought I guess you could 'back calculate' PCC's using your approximate (but probably not that far off) data

>

> My opinion is that any differences in final "low" handicap would be insignificant and hence the data should be used and start the new system with that limitation in place, even with any insignificant "errors".

 

You could be right. "They" have shown a level of tolerance to small differences in allowing different organizations to use (somewhat) different rules regarding max hole scores.

 

dave

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > The new system no longer has the concept of T scores and T Score Reductions, but there are limits on how far/fast indexes can move from the 'low point' of a previous 12 months. Would I be correct in assuming that this 12 month look back will NOT be using (in any direct or calculated form) the previous 12 months of data on the date that the new system is rolled out. And further will only 'look back' to the roll out date for the first year?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > The data exists, why not use it?

> > >

> > > In the case of hole by hole scores the data exists. That is FAR from the norm here in the US so a 'back calculation' is only an approximation, given that there is no way to apply the new Maximum Hole Score rule.

> > >

> > > I guess that you could simply go with 'close enough'.

> > >

> > > dave

> > >

> > > ps. Depending on exactly how cards are marked, the data may not always exist even when hole by hole data is saved. Take a scratch golfer who carded a gross double bogey on the #1 handicap hole, where in the new system he now 'gets a stroke'. Unless there was a 'x' or some indication that he didn't hole out, you have the same problem. For those who post hole by hole, I don't know what the practices are here.

> > >

> > > Also, no playing conditions adjustment (in most cases, anyway). On second thought I guess you could 'back calculate' PCC's using your approximate (but probably not that far off) data

> >

> > My opinion is that any differences in final "low" handicap would be insignificant and hence the data should be used and start the new system with that limitation in place, even with any insignificant "errors".

>

> You could be right. "They" have shown a level of tolerance to small differences in allowing different organizations to use (somewhat) different rules regarding max hole scores.

>

> dave

 

Also, everyone's new handicap index will be calculated using "old" differentials - "old" only being used to describe differentials based on existing (2019) handicapping rules.

[Newby]

> @rogolf said:

>

> Also, everyone's new handicap index will be calculated using "old" differentials - "old" only being used to describe differentials based on existing (2019) handicapping rules.

 

Are you sure? The notes I have been given for an England Golf meeting this morning say: _Conversion will be based on the WHS calculations_

 

Not exactly clear but I will report back this pm

[Colin L]

> @turtlekc said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> >

> > dave

>

>

> Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

 

Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

 

If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

 

For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

[KevCarter]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @turtlekc said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> >

> > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

> White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

> Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

> Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

> Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

>

> Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

> Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

> Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

> White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

> Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

> Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

> The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

>

> If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

>

> For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

 

That's interesting Colin. Good point. The new guide from the USGA discusses stricter guidelines for setting Par for each hole based upon yardage. I'll have to take a closer look to make sure we are in compliance. I think we are fairly typical of US courses in this regard...

[Halebopp]

Changing the par number depending on the tees isn't really done here in Finland and I'm not sure it would always be a good thing. Obviously the actual playing difficulty of a hole doesn't change one bit when you change the par number but the change does affect the enjoyment a player gets from playing. Thus I'm inclined to say decreasing the par of a hole would likely have a negative effect on playing whereas increasing par for women when they move back might be a positive change.

 

Men playing the forward tees are usually boys, beginners and elderly men. If they reach a 430-yard hole in three strokes, I bet they're happier if that hole is a par 5 and they have a putt for birdie rather than a par 4 and trying to save par. Making people feel happy is what makes people come back and isn't that what we want? With the handicap system in place, the relative ease of the hole is considered in calculating the Playing Handicap and the Exact Handicap, so that's not a problem.

 

We finally put a set of "easy tees" into use this year, the tees are situated at the start of the fairways, one in a dropping zone etc.) but the par numbers were kept the same and even our national association wanted them to be kept that way. Our pro and others working with the juniors soon reported back how happy the juniors were about having putts for birdies, actually making some of them and the best of them even getting a look at eagle putts on the shortest par 4s (around 175 yards).

 

Apologies for going slightly off topic.

[bulls9999]

Whomever does these handicaps needs to get their crap together. In the USA, it used to be you had a limited amount over par depending on your handicap (i.e., 20 HC was something like triple bogie max for any hole). Then it changed to fixed number max score for any hole regardless of par depending on your HC range (i.e., 10-20 was 7 max); I don't like this because you can get a 7 down on a par 3 (quad) but only a 7 as well on a par5 (double bogie); I was told that this system was preferred was because it was easier to remember one number as the max score for every hole (geesh, you mean a double bogie on any hole max is hard to remember?). Now they are changing back to a version of the old system?

 

> @randywall said:

> I suspect the new WHS will cause my index to drop. If it weren't for 2 or 3 blow up holes each round, I'd be a "better" golfer. If the highest score for hcp purposes is NDB, as opposed to 8 (for my 28 index), some of my higher scoring holes will be taken out of the equation.

 

 

[HiTrajLoSpin]

bulls9999, not sure what you're trying to say above, but in 2020 the max score for handicap purposes will be NET double bogey (not simply double bogey), i.e., equal to Par + 2 + any handicap strokes for that particular hole.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Halebopp said:

> Changing the par number depending on the tees isn't really done here in Finland and I'm not sure it would always be a good thing. Obviously the actual playing difficulty of a hole doesn't change one bit when you change the par number but the change does affect the enjoyment a player gets from playing. Thus I'm inclined to say decreasing the par of a hole would likely have a negative effect on playing whereas increasing par for women when they move back might be a positive change.

>

> Men playing the forward tees are usually boys, beginners and elderly men. If they reach a 430-yard hole in three strokes, I bet they're happier if that hole is a par 5 and they have a putt for birdie rather than a par 4 and trying to save par. Making people feel happy is what makes people come back and isn't that what we want? With the handicap system in place, the relative ease of the hole is considered in calculating the Playing Handicap and the Exact Handicap, so that's not a problem.

>

> We finally put a set of "easy tees" into use this year, the tees are situated at the start of the fairways, one in a dropping zone etc.) but the par numbers were kept the same and even our national association wanted them to be kept that way. Our pro and others working with the juniors soon reported back how happy the juniors were about having putts for birdies, actually making some of them and the best of them even getting a look at eagle putts on the shortest par 4s (around 175 yards).

>

> Apologies for going slightly off topic.

 

I totally agree. The guys at our club are NOT playing the green tees in order to be facing three 420 to 440 yard par 4's (which would happen with a yardage based par system).

 

And if you were to do this you would really need to change hole handicaps for each set of tees. In a system where hole handicaps are based on difficulty against par, a white tee par 5 at 470 yards (probably a high hole handicap #) is a very different animal vs. its forward tee equivalent of being a 435 yard par 4 (probably a low hole handicap #). FWIW, this would easily solved since the USGA has enough data from the course ratings process to do this, but I am not sure how that would be communicated to the golfers (not enough room on the scorecard). Maybe that could be solved in the long run ..

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

> @Halebopp said:

> Changing the par number depending on the tees isn't really done here in Finland and I'm not sure it would always be a good thing. Obviously the actual playing difficulty of a hole doesn't change one bit when you change the par number but the change does affect the enjoyment a player gets from playing. Thus I'm inclined to say decreasing the par of a hole would likely have a negative effect on playing whereas increasing par for women when they move back might be a positive change.

>

> Men playing the forward tees are usually boys, beginners and elderly men. If they reach a 430-yard hole in three strokes, I bet they're happier if that hole is a par 5 and they have a putt for birdie rather than a par 4 and trying to save par. Making people feel happy is what makes people come back and isn't that what we want? With the handicap system in place, the relative ease of the hole is considered in calculating the Playing Handicap and the Exact Handicap, so that's not a problem.

>

> We finally put a set of "easy tees" into use this year, the tees are situated at the start of the fairways, one in a dropping zone etc.) but the par numbers were kept the same and even our national association wanted them to be kept that way. Our pro and others working with the juniors soon reported back how happy the juniors were about having putts for birdies, actually making some of them and the best of them even getting a look at eagle putts on the shortest par 4s (around 175 yards).

>

> Apologies for going slightly off topic.

 

I agree.

 

IMO it's in golf's best interests to have short-hitting players play up, and if a par 5 turns into a par 4 for them, it will only discourage play from the forward tee. And what, exactly, is the harm? With the adjusted par number on rare occasion a player getting a stroke who shoots an 8 will post a 7 instead of an 8? That's next to inconsequential, and not worth the trauma on the other side of the coin.

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @turtlekc said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> >

> > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

>

 

I think the way it is now is appropriate as far as par for each set of tees.

 

In the table below I have added the adjustment for Course Handicap using the Course Rating - Course Rating adjustment which is the way the USGA system works now when you have at least one player from the back tees. Going from CR-CR to CR-Par will not be much of a change except where a courses longest tees are a few strokes lower/higher than the Par for the course. The number of strokes difference between the tees will remain the same or at least very similar to what it already was (ie. in the 3rd course in the table below there is still a 5 stroke difference betwen the two tees but everyones CH would get adjusted down 2 strokes with the change to CR-Par).

 

 

 

[Newby]

> @Newby said:

> > @rogolf said:

> >

> > Also, everyone's new handicap index will be calculated using "old" differentials - "old" only being used to describe differentials based on existing (2019) handicapping rules.

>

> Are you sure? The notes I have been given for an England Golf meeting this morning say: _Conversion will be based on the WHS calculations_

>

> Not exactly clear but I will report back this pm

 

I got confirmation that England Golf (and I assume the rest of CONGU) will use the WHS formula for back calculating Handicap Index for transitioning to the WHS system. ie slope and CR will be used not SSS and CSS.

For those courses where rating has not been completed, a standard slope of 125 will be used. I am told that 125 is the average slope of England men's courses.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > >

> > > Also, everyone's new handicap index will be calculated using "old" differentials - "old" only being used to describe differentials based on existing (2019) handicapping rules.

> >

> > Are you sure? The notes I have been given for an England Golf meeting this morning say: _Conversion will be based on the WHS calculations_

> >

> > Not exactly clear but I will report back this pm

>

> I got confirmation that England Golf (and I assume the rest of CONGU) will use the WHS formula for back calculating Handicap Index for transitioning to the WHS system. ie slope and CR will be used not SSS and CSS.

> For those courses where rating has not been completed, a standard slope of 125 will be used. I am told that 125 is the average slope of England men's courses.

 

Thanks - it seems reasonable to expect the rest of the world to do the same thing regarding 'back calculations' for purposes of determining maximum HI movement.

 

dave

[HiTrajLoSpin]

 

>

> I think the way it is now is appropriate as far as par for each set of tees.

>

> In the table below I have added the adjustment for Course Handicap using the Course Rating - Course Rating adjustment which is the way the USGA system works now when you have at least one player from the back tees. Going from CR-CR to CR-Par will not be much of a change except where a courses longest tees are a few strokes lower/higher than the Par for the course. The number of strokes difference between the tees will remain the same or at least very similar to what it already was (ie. in the 3rd course in the table below there is still a 5 stroke difference betwen the two tees but everyones CH would get adjusted down 2 strokes with the change to CR-Par).

>

>

>

>

 

@HatsForBats The (CR - Par) entries for the last 2 lines (Par 70) should be 13 (CR 67.7) and 8 (CR 63.9).

 

[rogolf]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @turtlekc said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> >

> > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

> White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

> Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

> Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

> Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

>

> Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

> Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

> Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

> White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

> Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

> Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

> The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

>

> If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

>

> For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

 

Colin, it's my opinion that courses in North America don't like to have a par less than 70 for marketing reasons. It seems that the psyche in NA is that a par less than 70 denotes a less desirable course to play - something about "championship course" advertising. Just my two pence.

[Shilgy]

Quick question on plus handicaps..... if(and it may be a big if) I understand correctly the course handicap in theUS will be the same as the current calculation with the addition of the course rating-par so that we are always playing to par rather than course rating. Further it negates the need to adjust further if a competition is played from various tees. So a 8 course handicap playing tees rated at 73.0 on a par of 72 is a 9 from those tees? Conversely he would be a 7 if he played the tees at that course rated at 71. Makes sense to me. What of a +5 playing the same two sets of tees? Is he a +6 playing the tees rated at 71 or 73? And a +4 at the other?

[Augster]

> @rogolf said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > >

> > > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

> > White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

> > Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

> > Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

> > Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

> >

> > Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

> > Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

> > Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

> > White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

> > Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

> > Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

> > The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

> >

> > If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

> >

> > For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

>

> Colin, it's my opinion that courses in North America don't like to have a par less than 70 for marketing reasons. It seems that the psyche in NA is that a par less than 70 denotes a less desirable course to play - something about "championship course" advertising. Just my two pence.

 

Really, if you have a par 70 or less, it’s basically considered an “executive course”. NOBODY is going to pay full price to play an executive course.

 

I’ve played a fed executive courses that were in phenomenal shape, and you can play really fast because the holes are so short, but I won’t count “times I shot in the 60’s” when I shot a 69 on a par 67.

 

I shot a 62 once on a par 66. Of every drive you hit is on the green or close to pin high on all the 260-yard “par 4’s”, it’s really easy to score. I technically shot “4 under par” but I don’t count it as it wasn’t a “real course”.

 

If you’re going to put your par at 70 or less, people simply won’t play it AND they’ll never pay full price.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Augster said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

> > > White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

> > > Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

> > > Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

> > > Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

> > >

> > > Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

> > > Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

> > > Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

> > > White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

> > > Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

> > > Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

> > > The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

> > >

> > > If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

> > >

> > > For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

> >

> > Colin, it's my opinion that courses in North America don't like to have a par less than 70 for marketing reasons. It seems that the psyche in NA is that a par less than 70 denotes a less desirable course to play - something about "championship course" advertising. Just my two pence.

>

> Really, if you have a par 70 or less, it’s basically considered an “executive course”. NOBODY is going to pay full price to play an executive course.

>

> I’ve played a fed executive courses that were in phenomenal shape, and you can play really fast because the holes are so short, but I won’t count “times I shot in the 60’s” when I shot a 69 on a par 67.

>

> I shot a 62 once on a par 66. Of every drive you hit is on the green or close to pin high on all the 260-yard “par 4’s”, it’s really easy to score. I technically shot “4 under par” but I don’t count it as it wasn’t a “real course”.

>

> If you’re going to put your par at 70 or less, people simply won’t play it AND they’ll never pay full price.

>

 

For the case that we are talking about (forward tees only), the course is going to be advertised as it exists from the TIPS. So I don't see that as an issue. Making guys for whom the forward tees is the right choice suddenly start facing 440 yard par 4's - that would be an issue (for some folks).

 

FWIW, the typical US Open layout is a par 70 (during that competition, anyway).

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Shilgy said:

> Quick question on plus handicaps..... if(and it may be a big if) I understand correctly the course handicap in theUS will be the same as the current calculation with the addition of the course rating-par so that we are always playing to par rather than course rating. Further it negates the need to adjust further if a competition is played from various tees. So a 8 course handicap playing tees rated at 73.0 on a par of 72 is a 9 from those tees? Conversely he would be a 7 if he played the tees at that course rated at 71. Makes sense to me. What of a +5 playing the same two sets of tees? Is he a +6 playing the tees rated at 71 or 73? And a +4 at the other?

 

Should be +4 for CR of 73 and +6 for CR of 71. Can't wait. Our CR is 72.9. I get my stroke back. No more par -> net bogey on 18 handicap hole. Woohoo!

[Shilgy]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Quick question on plus handicaps..... if(and it may be a big if) I understand correctly the course handicap in theUS will be the same as the current calculation with the addition of the course rating-par so that we are always playing to par rather than course rating. Further it negates the need to adjust further if a competition is played from various tees. So a 8 course handicap playing tees rated at 73.0 on a par of 72 is a 9 from those tees? Conversely he would be a 7 if he played the tees at that course rated at 71. Makes sense to me. What of a +5 playing the same two sets of tees? Is he a +6 playing the tees rated at 71 or 73? And a +4 at the other?

>

> Should be +4 for CR of 73 and +6 for CR of 71. Can't wait. Our CR is 72.9. I get my stroke back. No more par -> net bogey on 18 handicap hole. Woohoo!

 

I hope you are correct. And agree it should be that way. Interesting that you mention the direction your course handicap will move. From what I have seen virtually every women’s handicap will go up as the rating is usually well over par. Should they all be rerated?

[Augster]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The conversation has moved on a bit, but I was taking a closer look at these figures in the context of the CR-Par discussion. The Pars of the shorter courses seemed higher than I would have expected and I noticed that all of the courses at each place have the the same Par despite the differences in length. I think that was touched on earlier in this or another thread. That seems odd to me, being accustomed at my own and other courses where the different lengths of course are reflected in their Pars. For example, my own club has three men's measured courses:

> > > > White tees 6016 yards. Par 70. CR 69.5 CR-Par= -0.5

> > > > Yellow tees 5746 yards. Par 69. CR 67.8. CR-Par= -1.2

> > > > Blue tees. 5434 yards. Par 66. CR 67.0 CR-Par= -1.0

> > > > Both Course Ratings **and** Pars reflect the different lengths of the courses. The effect of CR-Par if we adopt it in the future will be small.

> > > >

> > > > Compare that with the different tees on Turtleback: which vary from 6646 to 5592 yards but each with the same par 71.

> > > > Black 6646. Par 71. CR 72.2 CR-Par= +1.2

> > > > Blue . 6385. Par 71. CR 71.0. CR-Par= 0.0

> > > > White. 6002. Par 71. CR 69.2. CR-Par= - 1.8

> > > > Gold. 5592. Par 71. CR 67.6 CR-Par= -2.5

> > > > Red. 5250. Par 71. CR 66.0. CR-Par=. - 5.0

> > > > The Course Ratings reflect the different lengths of the courses but the Pars don't and so the CR-Par impact is skewed to the kind of extent that could have Dave's mates packing their bags :-)

> > > >

> > > > If it is commonplace in the USA for the courses played from different tees to have the same Par regardless of differences in length, as I think I have read, and if the comparison I've made between a UK and a USA club is replicated across our countries (that's some "if"!!), would it make sense for your clubs and owners to re-assess the pars of their courses individually and with regard for their varying lengths?

> > > >

> > > > For example, at Hayward, the 9th hole off the black tees is 533 yards long and a Par 5. Off the the gold tees it is 420 yards long and a Par 5. 420 yards is shorter by 30 yards than the recommended WHS minimum length for a Par 5 and should be a Par 4. The 4th off the black is 512 yards and off the gold it is 464 yards. While 464 is within the Par 5 range, the gold par could be 4. The 15th hole off the gold is a par 5, but at 413 yards is 37 yards short of the minimum Par 5 length and should be a Par 4. Par 72 for the gold course which is only 5271 yards long with a CR of 65.5 makes no sense to me. Take these 3 strokes off and Par 69 is a bit better.

> > >

> > > Colin, it's my opinion that courses in North America don't like to have a par less than 70 for marketing reasons. It seems that the psyche in NA is that a par less than 70 denotes a less desirable course to play - something about "championship course" advertising. Just my two pence.

> >

> > Really, if you have a par 70 or less, it’s basically considered an “executive course”. NOBODY is going to pay full price to play an executive course.

> >

> > I’ve played a fed executive courses that were in phenomenal shape, and you can play really fast because the holes are so short, but I won’t count “times I shot in the 60’s” when I shot a 69 on a par 67.

> >

> > I shot a 62 once on a par 66. Of every drive you hit is on the green or close to pin high on all the 260-yard “par 4’s”, it’s really easy to score. I technically shot “4 under par” but I don’t count it as it wasn’t a “real course”.

> >

> > If you’re going to put your par at 70 or less, people simply won’t play it AND they’ll never pay full price.

> >

>

> For the case that we are talking about (forward tees only), the course is going to be advertised as it exists from the TIPS. So I don't see that as an issue. Making guys for whom the forward tees is the right choice suddenly start facing 440 yard par 4's - that would be an issue (for some folks).

>

> FWIW, the typical US Open layout is a par 70 (during that competition, anyway).

>

> dave

 

Right. It’s a par 70 at 7500 yards. Nobody will argue that’s a “real course”. But if you try to stretch a course to a “par 70” with a bunch of 260 yard par 4’s and a 430 yard “par 5 because it plays uphill”, that’s going to be an executive course.

 

If the back tees are 7200 par 72 and the gold tees are a 5000 yard par 66, I’m not paying full price if the gold tees are where my friends want to play. I’d tell them to play whatever tees they’d like to play, but I’m going to play the actual course.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > Quick question on plus handicaps..... if(and it may be a big if) I understand correctly the course handicap in theUS will be the same as the current calculation with the addition of the course rating-par so that we are always playing to par rather than course rating. Further it negates the need to adjust further if a competition is played from various tees. So a 8 course handicap playing tees rated at 73.0 on a par of 72 is a 9 from those tees? Conversely he would be a 7 if he played the tees at that course rated at 71. Makes sense to me. What of a +5 playing the same two sets of tees? Is he a +6 playing the tees rated at 71 or 73? And a +4 at the other?

> >

> > Should be +4 for CR of 73 and +6 for CR of 71. Can't wait. Our CR is 72.9. I get my stroke back. No more par -> net bogey on 18 handicap hole. Woohoo!

>

> I hope you are correct. And agree it should be that way. Interesting that you mention the direction your course handicap will move. From what I have seen virtually every women’s handicap will go up as the rating is usually well over par. Should they all be rerated?

 

Actually most of the courses around here it will be opposite. Our course may be the only one with CR greater than par from the forward tees. Our raw yardage is 5425, but it effectively plays longer because of the forced layups. I don't think much is going to change here.

[Colin L]

Thanks for the another insight into the world of American golf! The picture I'm getting is that the par of a course is determined largely by commercial interests whereas I know it as being determined here by the length and difficulty of a hole for a scratch golfer and consequently by and large to expect a longer course to have a higher par. I know it's not that simple, given the overlaps in the recommended lengths for the par of a hole, and that total par could vary considerably amongst courses of similar length - which is why it is not a reliable basis for handicapping in comparison with course rating. Broadly speaking, however, I'd expect the par of a UK course to reflect its length and particularly expect the par off each set of tees on the same overall course to differ consistently by length as illustrated by my own club above.

 

By the way, I'm just observing differences, not making a value judgment!