New World Handicap System

[Newby]

> @rogolf said:

>

> 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.

Interesting. When rating courses in England, my impression is that club/course management are more concerned about 'What is the SSS (ie CR)?)' as that is more indicative of both length and difficulty.

Hole pars seem to be more tightly 'controlled' as they virtually always do relate to the specific tee. Until a few years ago, CONGU mandated the par/length relationship. It is now a 'should' rather than a 'must'.

 

 

[Augster]

> @"Colin L" said:

> 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!

>

>

>

>

 

Happy to help.

 

All the short hitting old timers I know will happily play a 5200 yard course. BUT if that 5200 yard course is a par 69, no chance. They’ll play a longer set of tees if the par is 71 or better.

 

71 or more=real course

70 or less=executive course or par 3 course.

 

[Colin L]

Flattering to deceive, then? :-)

[Deceptively Short]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Flattering to deceive, then? :-)

These differences do exist in the UK though maybe not to the extent as in the US. As I stated earlier in the thread ‘ my (UK CONGU) course par 70 white tees CR 71.6, blue tees 67.8 that’s a 3.8 shot differential.’ I am sure there a many larger differentials between tees out there especially at courses with extreme back tees to host major Pro events.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:In

> 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!

>

>

>

>

 

In my experience 'Par' is determined by the longest tee. All other tees (typically) get the same value for 'Par'. I can only remember a couple (say 2 or 3) holes where Par from the back tees was 'wrong'.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Augster said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > 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!

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Happy to help.

>

> All the short hitting old timers I know will happily play a 5200 yard course. BUT if that 5200 yard course is a par 69, no chance. They’ll play a longer set of tees if the par is 71 or better.

>

> 71 or more=real course

> 70 or less=executive course or par 3 course.

>

 

IMHO, a par 70 course is typically considered to be a full course. Par 69 raises eyebrows (IF that is par from the back tees - otherwise you don't even know until you get there). But I don't recall ever seeing a course where the back tees were a different par than something like the 'senior tees' (other than the US Open tees at Pinehurst No. 2).

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

>

> >

> > 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).

>

 

(12.5*118/113) = 13

67.7 - Par 70 = -2

Final = 11

 

(12.5*109/113) = 12

63.9 - Par 70 = -6

Final = 6

 

[Colin L]

I think I shall emigrate to the USA*, set up a 5100 yard course with not a hole over 300 yards, label a few of them as Par 5s and make sure the total par was 71. Bound to get a shed load of customers.. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the 8.8 strokes off their Playing Handicap when they discover the CR is 62.2.

 

I wish the emojees worked properly so that I could make sure I signalled this as just a cheeky remark amongst friends.

 

 

 

*I'll say it before anyone else does. The USA probably wouldn't have me.

 

[HiTrajLoSpin]

 

> >

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

> >

>

> (12.5*118/113) = 13

> 67.7 - Par 70 = -2

> Final = 11

>

> (12.5*109/113) = 12

> 63.9 - Par 70 = -6

> Final = 6

>

 

Then I suggest that your 3rd column should be labeled (CR - Par), and the values for the Par 70 lines should be -2 (CR 67.7) and -6 (CR 63.9).

[crazygolfnut]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> >

> > >

> > > 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).

> >

>

> (12.5*118/113) = 13

> 67.7 - Par 70 = -2

> Final = 11

>

> (12.5*109/113) = 12

> 63.9 - Par 70 = -6

> Final = 6

>

 

I am trying to build / replicate the spreadsheet and I am doing something wrong. Not getting the same numbers. Help! thanks

[HatsForBats]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

>

> > >

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

> > >

> >

> > (12.5*118/113) = 13

> > 67.7 - Par 70 = -2

> > Final = 11

> >

> > (12.5*109/113) = 12

> > 63.9 - Par 70 = -6

> > Final = 6

> >

>

> Then I suggest that your 3rd column should be labeled (CR - Par), and the values for the Par 70 lines should be -2 (CR 67.7) and -6 (CR 63.9).

 

The third column was labelled correctly but I think this is what you might be after.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @crazygolfnut said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > 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).

> > >

> >

> > (12.5*118/113) = 13

> > 67.7 - Par 70 = -2

> > Final = 11

> >

> > (12.5*109/113) = 12

> > 63.9 - Par 70 = -6

> > Final = 6

> >

>

> I am trying to build / replicate the spreadsheet and I am doing something wrong. Not getting the same numbers. Help! thanks

 

Attached. Good luck. It is a pain to build in Excel. It belongs in a database instead IMO.

[crazygolfnut]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @crazygolfnut said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 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).

> > > >

> > >

> > > (12.5*118/113) = 13

> > > 67.7 - Par 70 = -2

> > > Final = 11

> > >

> > > (12.5*109/113) = 12

> > > 63.9 - Par 70 = -6

> > > Final = 6

> > >

> >

> > I am trying to build / replicate the spreadsheet and I am doing something wrong. Not getting the same numbers. Help! thanks

>

> Attached. Good luck. It is a pain to build in Excel. It belongs in a database instead IMO.

 

Thanks!

[Bargegolf]

Only heresay not corroborated by information on USGA or Golf Canada websites, but I was told that all scoring rounds for WHS will need to be full 18 (or 9 I guess) hole by hole.

 

Any truth to that?

[Bargegolf]

I shouldn't have posted so fast. What I need to add is the WHS will require players to input full hole-by-hole scores (18 or 9) for the game to be taken into account. Is this true?

[HatsForBats]

> @Bargegolf said:

> I shouldn't have posted so fast. What I need to add is the WHS will require players to input full hole-by-hole scores (18 or 9) for the game to be taken into account. Is this true?

 

I wish but haven't seen anything that says that yet.

[Newby]

> @Bargegolf said:

> I shouldn't have posted so fast. What I need to add is the WHS will require players to input full hole-by-hole scores (18 or 9) for the game to be taken into account. Is this true?

 

The WHS provides for unplayed holes to be allocated a score but I have only seen the process for when hole by hole scores are entered. This is mandatory in CONGUland.

I haven't seen any information about how it would be handled when/if only total gross is entered.

[HatsForBats]

> @Newby said:

> > @Bargegolf said:

> > I shouldn't have posted so fast. What I need to add is the WHS will require players to input full hole-by-hole scores (18 or 9) for the game to be taken into account. Is this true?

>

> The WHS provides for unplayed holes to be allocated a score but I have only seen the process for when hole by hole scores are entered. This is mandatory in CONGUland.

> I haven't seen any information about how it would be handled when/if only total gross is entered.

 

There is a change from the USGA side that 9-hole scores allowed to be entered are when 7 to 13 holes are played (used to be 7 to 12). 18 hole scores require 14 holes are played (used to be 13).

[HiTrajLoSpin]

 

> > Then I suggest that your 3rd column should be labeled (CR - Par), and the values for the Par 70 lines should be -2 (CR 67.7) and -6 (CR 63.9).

>

> The third column was labelled correctly but I think this is what you might be after.

>

>

>

 

Very nice, thanks!

[landolakes]

So course condition adjustments will be based on how closely most golfers decide to follow the rules on a given day.... and weather?

[Augster]

> @landolakes said:

> So course condition adjustments will be based on how closely most golfers decide to follow the rules on a given day.... and weather?

 

Not “most golfers”. All golfers with handicaps that post that day. WAY WAY WAY more than most golfers with handicaps follow the rules when they play. The only reason to have a handicap is competition and almost everyone I know with a cap has some sort of wager going on every time they play.

 

So, I’d guess, the scoring correction will be very, very minor and pretty accurate to how the course played that day.

 

[davep043]

> @Augster said:

> > @landolakes said:

> > So course condition adjustments will be based on how closely most golfers decide to follow the rules on a given day.... and weather?

>

> Not “most golfers”. All golfers with handicaps that post that day. WAY WAY WAY more than most golfers with handicaps follow the rules when they play. The only reason to have a handicap is competition and almost everyone I know with a cap has some sort of wager going on every time they play.

>

> So, I’d guess, the scoring correction will be very, very minor and pretty accurate to how the course played that day.

>

 

This was my thought. For me, and the group of guys I play with regularly, we play by the rules no matter what the conditions are like. I'd guess that most players are similar. The ones who kick the ball into preferred lies, who drop a ball where they think their first one was with a single penalty stroke, they'll do that whether its a perfect day or whether the conditions are miserable. The primary variant will be conditions.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @landolakes said:

> > > So course condition adjustments will be based on how closely most golfers decide to follow the rules on a given day.... and weather?

> >

> > Not “most golfers”. All golfers with handicaps that post that day. WAY WAY WAY more than most golfers with handicaps follow the rules when they play. The only reason to have a handicap is competition and almost everyone I know with a cap has some sort of wager going on every time they play.

> >

> > So, I’d guess, the scoring correction will be very, very minor and pretty accurate to how the course played that day.

> >

>

> This was my thought. For me, and the group of guys I play with regularly, we play by the rules no matter what the conditions are like. I'd guess that most players are similar. The ones who kick the ball into preferred lies, who drop a ball where they think their first one was with a single penalty stroke, they'll do that whether its a perfect day or whether the conditions are miserable. The primary variant will be conditions.

 

I think that there will be two other (related) variables here

 

1) It is unreasonable to think that various course rating outcomes will be completely consistent (it just isn't that kind of process). So this will be a factor

 

2) "Who played the course" will matter. When our ancient MGA plays a course, the course scoring will be dominated by guys in their 70's and 80's playing the tees one set forward of the middle tees. These outcomes (vs rating/slope) will be quite different when compared to 'resort players' who are far younger, probably playing the blue tees, and have 'higher than scratch' indexes for far different reasons than group #1 (in the typical case)

 

I am going to be following this closely (if I can figure out how to do that) just because I am curious - not because I am opposed to something here.

 

dave

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> 2) "Who played the course" will matter. When our ancient MGA plays a course, the course scoring will be dominated by guys in their 70's and 80's playing the tees one set forward of the middle tees. These outcomes (vs rating/slope) will be quite different when compared to 'resort players' who are far younger, probably playing the blue tees, and have 'higher than scratch' indexes for far different reasons than group #1 (in the typical case)

> dave

 

It was suggested today at a WHS seminar that the PCC calculation will in part examine the scores from each set of tees independently and then amalgamate the result(s) into the physically 'shared' course.

I may have misunderstood as the presenter wasn't very clear about it.

[Imp]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @landolakes said:

> > > So course condition adjustments will be based on how closely most golfers decide to follow the rules on a given day.... and weather?

> >

> > Not “most golfers”. All golfers with handicaps that post that day. WAY WAY WAY more than most golfers with handicaps follow the rules when they play. The only reason to have a handicap is competition and almost everyone I know with a cap has some sort of wager going on every time they play.

> >

> > So, I’d guess, the scoring correction will be very, very minor and pretty accurate to how the course played that day.

> >

>

> This was my thought. For me, and the group of guys I play with regularly, we play by the rules no matter what the conditions are like. I'd guess that most players are similar. The ones who kick the ball into preferred lies, who drop a ball where they think their first one was with a single penalty stroke, they'll do that whether its a perfect day or whether the conditions are miserable. The primary variant will be conditions.

 

And the kickers will be doing a disservice to all, if they record their handicap. If the average scores stay low (because of the kickers) on the "bad weather" days, would it be adjusted as much, if they didn't kick and instead took their lumps?

 

--kC

[Sean2]

I played today and the wind chill was in the mid-20s and the course was soaked. The course certainly played different than on a warm, dry, sunny day in July. I will be curious to see how all this plays out. I can't see the new system having a drastic effect on one's HI, but I really don't know.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > 2) "Who played the course" will matter. When our ancient MGA plays a course, the course scoring will be dominated by guys in their 70's and 80's playing the tees one set forward of the middle tees. These outcomes (vs rating/slope) will be quite different when compared to 'resort players' who are far younger, probably playing the blue tees, and have 'higher than scratch' indexes for far different reasons than group #1 (in the typical case)

> > dave

>

> It was suggested today at a WHS seminar that the PCC calculation will in part examine the scores from each set of tees independently and then amalgamate the result(s) into the physically 'shared' course.

> I may have misunderstood as the presenter wasn't very clear about it.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I would expect this one to kind of evolve as things mature.

 

dave

[landolakes]

My handicap has not in the past been dictated by other peoples' scores (except when a course is re rated)... if I shoot 75 that's what I shot, and my handicap is adjusted based on my score... under the new system, it will be adjusted on weather, and how the players who posted that day shot - seems my handicap is now tied to the guys who take putts and mulligans-why?. At my club on any given day, I would guess 30-40% take mulligans on their first shots, let alone the putts I have seen taken and post scores. Im sure the impact will be small, but I don't get it. weather is part of the game (like being in a divot)--mostly I don't see the need to tie scores to other players.

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > 2) "Who played the course" will matter. When our ancient MGA plays a course, the course scoring will be dominated by guys in their 70's and 80's playing the tees one set forward of the middle tees. These outcomes (vs rating/slope) will be quite different when compared to 'resort players' who are far younger, probably playing the blue tees, and have 'higher than scratch' indexes for far different reasons than group #1 (in the typical case)

> > > dave

> >

> > It was suggested today at a WHS seminar that the PCC calculation will in part examine the scores from each set of tees independently and then amalgamate the result(s) into the physically 'shared' course.

> > I may have misunderstood as the presenter wasn't very clear about it.

>

> Thanks for the feedback. I would expect this one to kind of evolve as things mature.

>

> dave

I understood the algorithm was settled but the presenter didn't really understand so didn't dwell on it.

 

[gwt]

> @landolakes said:

> My handicap has not in the past been dictated by other peoples' scores (except when a course is re rated)... if I shoot 75 that's what I shot, and my handicap is adjusted based on my score... under the new system, it will be adjusted on weather, and how the players who posted that day shot - seems my handicap is now tied to the guys who take putts and mulligans-why?. At my club on any given day, I would guess 30-40% take mulligans on their first shots, let alone the putts I have seen taken and post scores. Im sure the impact will be small, but I don't get it. weather is part of the game (like being in a divot)--mostly I don't see the need to tie scores to other players.

 

I get to play 3 mos/year in Australia. Mid Feb to Mid May. Pristine wx with perhaps 3 windy and rainy days/yr of which I might play on one. All scores are competitions with 40-100 players. No one is cheating as each group invariably has a partnership game between themselves.

 

Here are the results of 67 comp scores over those 3 years:

 

Daily Scratch Rating (PCC WHS): increase 1 19 time; decrease 1 24 times.

 

Something besides wx sneaks into the calculation! Lots of luck trying to get something as uniform as an Australian Comp in the USA!