New World Handicap System

[Roadking2003]

> @"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

 

Not true at all.

 

It is true that there is a strong interest in having par 72 courses, but they are appropriately designed to be par 72. I am not aware of any courses that are par 72 but should be par 69. Par in the USA is determined exactly like par is determined in the UK.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> > @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'.

>

>

 

Just like it is here in the USA.

[KevCarter]

> @Roadking2003 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

>

 

Colin, you nailed it. The state of golf in the US has been tough for years. A lot of courses closing, or just trying to stay afloat. We're making all our decisions based upon survival. You've been reading this forum for years, the entitlement has been very transparent. It's all about me, and if we don't like something, there's another course just down the road who will cater to me for my business. When it comes to rules, we are very righteous. We'll follow all the rules, unless we disagree with them, then we'll break them while still justifying the taking of the moral high ground. :(

 

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

Par in the USA is determined exactly like par is determined in the UK.

>

 

Not so.

 

USGA

Par 3 < 251

Par 4 - 251 - 470

Par 5 - 471 - 690

 

CONGU

Par 3 < 250

Par 4 - 220 - 500

Par 5 - 440 -720

 

WHS

Par 3 < 260

Par 4 - 240 - 490

Par 5 - 450 - 710

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> Par in the USA is determined exactly like par is determined in the UK.

> >

>

> Not so.

>

> USGA

> Par 3 < 251

> Par 4 - 251 - 470

> Par 5 - 471 - 690

>

> CONGU

> Par 3 < 250

> Par 4 - 220 - 500

> Par 5 - 440 -720

>

> WHS

> Par 3 < 260

> Par 4 - 240 - 490

> Par 5 - 450 - 710

 

The METHOD of determining par is the same. The poster was saying the METHOD is different in the USA. It's not.

[Sawgrass]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > Par in the USA is determined exactly like par is determined in the UK.

> > >

> >

> > Not so.

> >

> > USGA

> > Par 3 < 251

> > Par 4 - 251 - 470

> > Par 5 - 471 - 690

> >

> > CONGU

> > Par 3 < 250

> > Par 4 - 220 - 500

> > Par 5 - 440 -720

> >

> > WHS

> > Par 3 < 260

> > Par 4 - 240 - 490

> > Par 5 - 450 - 710

>

> The METHOD of determining par is the same. The poster was saying the METHOD is different in the USA. It's not.

 

Except "the poster" didn't say that at all, did he.

[Roadking2003]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > Par in the USA is determined exactly like par is determined in the UK.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not so.

> > >

> > > USGA

> > > Par 3 < 251

> > > Par 4 - 251 - 470

> > > Par 5 - 471 - 690

> > >

> > > CONGU

> > > Par 3 < 250

> > > Par 4 - 220 - 500

> > > Par 5 - 440 -720

> > >

> > > WHS

> > > Par 3 < 260

> > > Par 4 - 240 - 490

> > > Par 5 - 450 - 710

> >

> > The METHOD of determining par is the same. The poster was saying the METHOD is different in the USA. It's not.

>

> Except "the poster" didn't say that at all, did he.

 

So, how did you interpret this comment? "The picture I'm getting is that the par of a course is determined largely by commercial interests"

 

"commercial interests" is a very different method of determining par in my book.

[Augster]

It’s correct. In the US you can’t have the blue tees at a par 72, and the gold tees for the seniors at a par 68 and expect those guys to pay full price to play the course. They won’t. They’ll go somewhere else.

 

Our men’s club has one “gold tee” event every year. For the event, they change the par to a par 67, which it is, whereas the every day card still says par 71. MANY of our members skip the event because they refuse to pay full price for a par 67 course. It is the event we get the least participation in every year. They don’t want to “pay full price for half the course”. I have a season pass, so I don’t care what tees I play.

 

Having a 6500 yard set of tees at par 71 and a 5000 yard set of tees at a par 71 is laughable. But the course has to do it or they won’t get any seniors at that course. There are too many other “real courses” they can play in the area.

 

This is the “commercial interests” Colin was mentioning that determines the par for the course.

[Colin L]

Am I right then in thinking that the commercial interest rests on the vanity of golfers who want to kid themselves they are better than they really are by matching their scores against an unrealistic par figure, or is that too harsh?

[Sawgrass]

> @Augster said:

>

> Our men’s club has one “gold tee” event every year. For the event, they change the par to a par 67, which it is, whereas the every day card still says par 71. MANY of our members skip the event because they refuse to pay full price for a par 67 course. It is the event we get the least participation in every year. They don’t want to “pay full price for half the course”.

 

I'd venture a guess that the lack of participation in the gold tee event has more to do with your members not wanting to play a 5,000 yard course than their caring about the par number that's associated with it. (And maybe even their disinterest in dealing with the possibility of scoring relatively poorly from the front.)

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Augster said:

> It’s correct. In the US you can’t have the blue tees at a par 72, and the gold tees for the seniors at a par 68 and expect those guys to pay full price to play the course. They won’t. They’ll go somewhere else.

>

> Our men’s club has one “gold tee” event every year. For the event, they change the par to a par 67, which it is, whereas the every day card still says par 71. MANY of our members skip the event because they refuse to pay full price for a par 67 course. It is the event we get the least participation in every year. They don’t want to “pay full price for half the course”. I have a season pass, so I don’t care what tees I play.

>

> Having a 6500 yard set of tees at par 71 and a 5000 yard set of tees at a par 71 is laughable. But the course has to do it or they won’t get any seniors at that course. There are too many other “real courses” they can play in the area.

>

> This is the “commercial interests” Colin was mentioning that determines the par for the course.

 

It is no more "laughable" than a course with a set of tees at 7500 yards at par 72 and another at 6200 yards and the same par. I have no idea where this condescension is coming from. Do you have the same attitude toward courses that the ladies play? If not what is the difference between a typical 78 year old male and a 35 year old female golfer?

 

Seniors expect to encounter a course that is 'scaled down' to their distance just like 'normal golfers' are hoping to encounter courses that are 'scaled down' to their distance WRT what the PGA Tour plays.

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @Augster said:

>

> Having a 6500 yard set of tees at par 71 and a 5000 yard set of tees at a par 71 is laughable. But the course has to do it or they won’t get any seniors at that course. There are too many other “real courses” they can play in the area.

>

 

Why is it laughable? Seems about the perfect distances for me to play a round of golf with my father and would mostly require both of us to hit about the same number of good shots to reach each green. I can't blame shorter hitters for not wanting to play a set of tees that should be a par 71 (for their game) but for one tournament a year it is played as a par 67. Of course many aren't going to want to pay to play in such a tournament. It may play like a Par 67 for the longer hitters but those tees aren't designed for the longer hitters.

 

 

> @"Colin L" said:

> Am I right then in thinking that the commercial interest rests on the vanity of golfers who want to kid themselves they are better than they really are by matching their scores against an unrealistic par figure, or is that too harsh?

 

I don't think that is accurate at all. If players wanted to kid themselves that they are better than they really are then they would be moving up to shorter tees with the same overall Par. In my experience players are **much** more likely to play tees that are too long for their game rather than too short. IMO, with a few exceptions, Par should be consistent hole by hole for the whole course no matter what tees a player is playing and par should be based on 2 + the number of shots it would take for the players **the tees were designed for** to reach the green. Par shouldn't be based on what the hole would play like for longer/shorter hitters than the tees were designed for.

 

One guy I play with is about 20 years older than me and I generally can outdrive him by 40 yards and my irons are about 20 yards longer than his shots with the same club number. His index is only a few strokes higher than mine but I don't think there is any doubt that he is a better player than me. If he was playing the appropriate tees for his distance rather than playing further back with us then he would on average shoot better than me relative to Par which I think is a better representation of the quality of his game versus mine. The only thing I have on him is distance and he has almost no room to add distance to his game as he ages.

 

 

[Colin L]

@HatsForBats

 

 

Thanks for all that information. By the golfers who I suggest kid themselves, I was in fact thinking of those who play a short course as long as it has an unrealistically high par.

 

Where we differ rests on your understanding of par when you say

_Par should be consistent hole by hole for the whole course no matter what tees a player is playing and par should be based on 2 + the number of shots it would take for the players **the tees were designed for** to reach the green. Par shouldn't be based on what the hole would play like for longer/shorter hitters than the tees were designed for._

 

That is a long way from the fact that par by definition is based on a scratch player no matter the course, not on a higher handicapped player for whom a course would be more suited. It would seem that a different concept of par has developed in the USA - which would account for some of my bewilderment at what I read in this forum! The definition will not change when the WHS comes in and so it looks as if the clubs being described will continue to be out of kilter with what is meant to be.

_Par reflects the score a scratch golfer is expected to score on a given hole...._

 

I guess that could have an impact on handicapping in terms of Net Double Bogeys and Course Rating - Par.

 

Just a reflection, not a criticism.

 

 

 

 

 

[Augster]

Our 16th hole is a 480 yard uphill par 5 with no forced carries or trouble. From the gold, it’s a 374 yard par 5. That’s a par 4.

 

On our 4th hole, it’s a 500 yard par 5. From the gold it’s a 446 yard downhill par 5. Again, a par 4.

 

We have 3 par 4’s that are 251, 248, and 249 from the gold.

 

That is what is laughable about calling it a par 71. 3 “drivable” par 4’s because they are really just long par 3’s and 2 par 5’s that play as par 4’s. They only call it a par 67 (4 below par 71) instead of par 66 because there is a steep hill up to the green on 2 which plays 248. If you can carry the ball 250, it’s a par 3, but if you can’t, it plays as a par 4. Most of our membership can’t carry 250, so they call that a par 4.

 

Paying full price for a 5000 yard par 67, a lot of guys just won’t do that.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> @HatsForBats

>

>

> Thanks for all that information. By the golfers who I suggest kid themselves, I was in fact thinking of those who play a short course as long as it has an unrealistically high par.

>

> Where we differ rests on your understanding of par when you say

> _Par should be consistent hole by hole for the whole course no matter what tees a player is playing and par should be based on 2 + the number of shots it would take for the players **the tees were designed for** to reach the green. Par shouldn't be based on what the hole would play like for longer/shorter hitters than the tees were designed for._

>

> That is a long way from the fact that par by definition is based on a scratch player no matter the course, not on a higher handicapped player for whom a course would be more suited. It would seem that a different concept of par has developed in the USA - which would account for some of my bewilderment at what I read in this forum! The definition will not change when the WHS comes in and so it looks as if the clubs being described will continue to be out of kilter with what is meant to be.

> _Par reflects the score a scratch golfer is expected to score on a given hole...._

>

> I guess that could have an impact on handicapping in terms of Net Double Bogeys and Course Rating - Par.

>

> Just a reflection, not a criticism.

>

>

Colin, I am curious. On your end of the world I assume that courses where the back tees are 6600'ish yards (or longer) and par =72 is common. I also assume that these courses have multiple sets of tees and that tees down to (or maybe a bit lower than) 5400 are common. Is the par changed on holes from the 5400 yard tees in your experience? I don't know how many US courses that I have played but I have **NEVER EVEN ONCE** seen par change when going forward WRT tee boxes. The reaction (IMHO) to that would not be one of "I guess I won't play that course". Folks would be incredulous and would not know what to think (or how to score a mixed tee event using Stableford scoring - at least using this year's rules).

 

dave

 

ps. I take back my NEVER EVEN ONCE statement. It is not unusual on US Open courses to see cases where you move up from the Championship Tees and par gets HIGHER. More US silliness, I guess.

[Colin L]

Just as an example, my own club has four sets of tees

 

 

**White. 6016 yards**

Men Par 70.

Women Par 75

 

**Yellow. 5746 yards**

Men Par 69.

Women Par 74

 

**Red. 5550 yards**

Men Par 68.

Women Par 74

 

**Blue 5354 yards**

Men Par 66.

Women Par 73

 

I had a chat with a fellow member who is an experienced course rater and who has played many courses around Scotland. He would expect a similar pattern at other courses.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Colin, thanks. Interesting info as you just wouldn't see that here in the US.

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Colin, thanks. Interesting info as you just wouldn't see that here in the US.

>

> dave

 

Not sure I have ever seen a scorecard that could accomodate all those numbers. I presume handicap holes would be different between men and women as well.

[davep043]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Just as an example, my own club has four sets of tees

>

>

> **White. 6016 yards**

> Men Par 70.

> Women Par 75

>

> **Yellow. 5746 yards**

> Men Par 69.

> Women Par 74

>

> **Red. 5550 yards**

> Men Par 68.

> Women Par 74

>

> **Blue 5354 yards**

> Men Par 66.

> Women Par 73

>

> I had a chat with a fellow member who is an experienced course rater and who has played many courses around Scotland. He would expect a similar pattern at other courses.

>

>

 

I have seen Course Ratings that follow that general pattern, or SSS when I've visited Scotland and Ireland, but I don't see the stated par change between tees that way anywhere near me. I've seen occasions where the ladies par differs from the mens occasionally, generally where the layout of the hole requires a carry that is thought to exceed what an average woman can do. If they need to go the long way around a pond, they get an extra stroke for par. I still refuse to give my wife an extra stroke there.

[Colin L]

The WHS recommended lengths for the par of holes differ for men and women. Both based on the scratch player, but differing unsurprisingly since a scratch female player can't hit a golf ball as far as a male one. The current CONGU recommendations similarly differ and I'd expect the USGA to do so as well.

 

 

 

 

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

 

> I have seen Course Ratings that follow that general pattern, or SSS when I've visited Scotland and Ireland, but I don't see the stated par change between tees that way anywhere near me. I've seen occasions where the ladies par differs from the mens occasionally, generally where the layout of the hole requires a carry that is thought to exceed what an average woman can do. If they need to go the long way around a pond, they get an extra stroke for par. I still refuse to give my wife an extra stroke there.

 

I quoted all three (USGA, CONGU & WHS) par statements in post #334

 

When rating in England, I have found that virtually all courses have applied the appropriate CONGU par to each set of tees.

 

Incidentally, I notice that the current USGA table has no overlap between each par length. Both CONGU and WHS do (as does the EGA in fact)

[mark m]

We had an example here in MN: Keller Golf course hole #16 - prior to reconstruction - was a par 5 from the back/Blue tee at 550. There was a ravine and the next tee up (White) was a 440 par 4.

It was listed as 5/4 on the scorecard. And 36/35 for nine and 72/71 for 18.

 

I read an article awhile back which basically stated a course of around 5600 yards is good for a very large segment of senior golfers. In short, based on my experience, I would tend to agree. (My home course's forward men's tees are around 5950 and are too long for many of the guys.) Often courses around 5600 yards or shorter will have at least 3 holes that do not meet the new WHS system standards. The most common thing you will see is par 5's shorter than 450 yards. It will be interesting to see if they decide (or are forced) to change par or not?

 

Because CH will be tied to par, attention will be needed for tournament scoring if par is different between sets of tees and players are competing against one another in a net event. You could have the situation where player A scores net 67 from par 72 tees and player B scores net 64 playing from par 68 tees. Player A score = -5. Player B = -4. But you might have player B saying he "won" by 3 strokes (64 vs 67).

[crazygolfnut]

> @"mark m" said:

> We had an example here in MN: Keller Golf course hole #16 - prior to reconstruction - was a par 5 from the back/Blue tee at 550. There was a ravine and the next tee up (White) was a 440 par 4.

> It was listed as 5/4 on the scorecard. And 36/35 for nine and 72/71 for 18.

>

> I read an article awhile back which basically stated a course of around 5600 yards is good for a very large segment of senior golfers. In short, based on my experience, I would tend to agree. (My home course's forward men's tees are around 5950 and are too long for many of the guys.) Often courses around 5600 yards or shorter will have at least 3 holes that do not meet the new WHS system standards. The most common thing you will see is par 5's shorter than 450 yards. It will be interesting to see if they decide (or are forced) to change par or not?

>

> Because CH will be tied to par, attention will be needed for tournament scoring if par is different between sets of tees and players are competing against one another in a net event. You could have the situation where player A scores net 67 from par 72 tees and player B scores net 64 playing from par 68 tees. Player A score = -5. Player B = -4. But you might have player B saying he "won" by 3 strokes (64 vs 67).

 

----------------------

 

Interesting example. Not sure if I have it correct but I think you need to adjust the diff between the two tees. Example the diff between 72 and 68 is 4 strokes. I guess you would either add 4 strokes to the low score or subtract 4 strokes from the high score to equal them out.

 

player A scores net 67 from par 72 tees

player B scores net 64 from par 68 tees

 

Adjust scores down to 68

= Player A score is 67 – 4 = 63 vs Player B score 64. Player A wins by 1.

Or

Bring scores up to 72

= Player B score is 64 + 4 = 68 vs Player A 67 score. Player A wins by 1.

[mark m]

> @crazygolfnut said:

> > @"mark m" said:

> > We had an example here in MN: Keller Golf course hole #16 - prior to reconstruction - was a par 5 from the back/Blue tee at 550. There was a ravine and the next tee up (White) was a 440 par 4.

> > It was listed as 5/4 on the scorecard. And 36/35 for nine and 72/71 for 18.

> >

> > I read an article awhile back which basically stated a course of around 5600 yards is good for a very large segment of senior golfers. In short, based on my experience, I would tend to agree. (My home course's forward men's tees are around 5950 and are too long for many of the guys.) Often courses around 5600 yards or shorter will have at least 3 holes that do not meet the new WHS system standards. The most common thing you will see is par 5's shorter than 450 yards. It will be interesting to see if they decide (or are forced) to change par or not?

> >

> > Because CH will be tied to par, attention will be needed for tournament scoring if par is different between sets of tees and players are competing against one another in a net event. You could have the situation where player A scores net 67 from par 72 tees and player B scores net 64 playing from par 68 tees. Player A score = -5. Player B = -4. But you might have player B saying he "won" by 3 strokes (64 vs 67).

>

> ----------------------

>

> Interesting example. Not sure if I have it correct but I think you need to adjust the diff between the two tees. Example the diff between 72 and 68 is 4 strokes. I guess you would either add 4 strokes to the low score or subtract 4 strokes from the high score to equal them out.

>

> player A scores net 67 from par 72 tees

> player B scores net 64 from par 68 tees

>

> Adjust scores down to 68

> = Player A score is 67 – 4 = 63 vs Player B score 64. Player A wins by 1.

> Or

> Bring scores up to 72

> = Player B score is 64 + 4 = 68 vs Player A 67 score. Player A wins by 1.

 

Yes. Something will need to be done if par is different. We'll see what they recommend and/or build into the software.

[DaveLeeNC]

Hopefully I did this correctly. I created a SS for three scenarios regarding two sets of tees on a hypothetical course. The longer tees is CR/Par of 71/72 with a slope of 130. The shorter tees is CR/Par of 68/72 with a slope of 118. I further assumed that 'standard par' would reduce the par of the forward tees by 2 strokes to 70. I calculated the scores required for a 15 index golfer to shoot a differential of 15 for both sets of tees and built a kind of built a competition table where I did not do any rounding, including assuming that people could shoot scores like 84.23. The rounding just confuses things.

 

You can see that in a medal play/net event you can accommodate the 'changing pars' and mixed tees if scores are recorded 'against par' (like 2 over par) vs absolute net scores (like 74).

 

dave

 

ps. I didn't quickly see a way to inline this file. Headed out the door so no time to figure that out.

[Sawgrass]

I have had a recent exchange with my (US) Allied Golf Association, and they told me that their professionals are going through the existing course rating data, and will update apps and tied-in computer kiosks to hold an accurate par number for each tee/hole. So in using an app prior to a round the proper total par number will be applied for you to get your playing handicap, and when entering hole-by-hole scores after the round, the maximum NDB score for each hole will be automatically adjusted.

 

I'm not sure if this means one MUST enter hole-by-hole, but I hope so!

[Roadking2003]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Am I right then in thinking that the commercial interest rests on the vanity of golfers who want to kid themselves they are better than they really are by matching their scores against an unrealistic par figure, or is that too harsh?

 

I don't know where all of this "par is set in the USA for commercial reasons" is coming from.

 

I've played almost 400 courses in 16 countries around the world and my observation is that par is set using the same method in every country. Par for men is the same regardless of which tees we play. And that's exactly like it is in Scotland, Spain, Ireland, etc.

 

So, no. There is no vanity par for golfers who want to kid themselves.....

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > Just as an example, my own club has four sets of tees

> >

> >

> > **White. 6016 yards**

> > Men Par 70.

> > Women Par 75

> >

> > **Yellow. 5746 yards**

> > Men Par 69.

> > Women Par 74

> >

> > **Red. 5550 yards**

> > Men Par 68.

> > Women Par 74

> >

> > **Blue 5354 yards**

> > Men Par 66.

> > Women Par 73

> >

> > I had a chat with a fellow member who is an experienced course rater and who has played many courses around Scotland. He would expect a similar pattern at other courses.

> >

> >

>

> I have seen Course Ratings that follow that general pattern, or SSS when I've visited Scotland and Ireland, but I don't see the stated par change between tees that way anywhere near me.

 

I haven't played Colin's course, but I have played quite a few over there and all of them had one par for men, not one per set of tees.

[DaveLeeNC]

HOT STOCK TIP. Buy stock in https://www.benchcraftcompany.com/products/scorecards/ .

 

There is going to be a HUGE demand for new scorecards across the US soon :-)

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @"mark m" said:

> My home course's forward men's tees are around 5950 and are too long for many of the guys. Often courses around 5600 yards or shorter will have at least 3 holes that do not meet the new WHS system standards. The most common thing you will see is par 5's shorter than 450 yards. It will be interesting to see if they decide (or are forced) to change par or not?

 

I really don't think we will see much of par changing here in the states but I could be wrong. The local Association also has some leeway like in the Par 5 example they mention in the WHS Major Changes document that I have attached a screenshot of.