New World Handicap System

[HatsForBats]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @KevCarter said:

> > **My opinion**

> >

> > Having multiple sets of tees is supposed to keep the experience fun for all levels of player, and all ages. The goal is to enable the players to reach the green in regulation figures. The yardage/par chart makes complete sense, but the course designer needs to take that into consideration when building multiple tees. I see several instances of taking a 470 yard par 5 from the standard tees, and making it a 440 yard par 4 from the front (Senior) tees. To me this is totally counter productive. The goal shouldn't be to just decrease total yardage, but to make the course more playable. I would always take that 480 yard par 5, and keep it a par 5 with a yardage inside the guidelines, perhaps 460. I would attempt to never have a par 4 of over 400 yards from the front tees.

> >

> > It looks like I may be alone in my thinking?

>

> Kev, I kind of 'run the scoring stuff' for a bunch guys who play once a week (around 16 of them). My DOB is 1949 and I am one of the young guys. We used to play mixed tees and I was the last holdout for the 'longer' tees. We now all play at less than 6000 yards (even at par 72). I will be getting input from the group on this, but I suspect that even if the USGA changes to the new Par definitions by tee, we won't be changing our scorecards (and we play more team Stableford than anything else). None of us 'moved up' to start playing 430 yard par 4's.

>

> 2 of us, I guess :-)

>

> dave

>

>

 

My guess is a very large majority of players feel the same with present company maybe being the exceptions. In this regard I think the USGA **might** have been better off sticking with the CR - CR rather than CR - Par. The CR - Par being added to the Course Handicap calculation this year is relatively the same as if they simply used CR - CR for all Course Handicap calcs rather than only using slope if all players were playing the same tee. Resulting in a player maybe having a 14 Course Handicap from the front tees when playing against 1 other player off the same tee but a 10 Course Handicap when playing the front tees against someone from the next tee's back. That is what caused the confusion for mixed tee events but could have been easily remedied long ago simply by always using CR- CR as part of the Course Handicap calculation.

 

If, when they start to re-rate courses, we see courses suddenly have some tees drop in par then I think the courses will take matters into their own hands. My guess is many will place the tees for the rating process further back than they will play on a day to day basis so that they get the par rating the membership desires. Unfortunately that means that the courses rating will be off slightly. I have to wonder if keeping Par out of the Course Handicap calculation would allow for greater flexibility in designating Par for each individual hole from each tee. Personally I would love to see some drivable par 4's and more par 5's reachable in 2 for my older friends as they become 'distance challenged'.

 

Hopefully nothing changes regarding Par for most every course/tee but we will see.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Here as requested is a table of my club's yardages and hole Pars.. As you'll see, the 1 stroke difference between the pars of the white and yellow courses comes from the 16th which is a Par 5 off the white and Par 4 off the yellow. The 4 stroke difference between the pars of the white and blue course comes from the 1st which is Par 3 off the blue and Par 4 off the white, and from the 2nd, 15th and 16th which are Par 4s off the blue.

>

>

 

It is very strange to me but again if that is how the courses I began playing at designed their courses it would seem normal. Looking at the card it seems like it would be very easy to 'Amercanize' the course by adding a little distance to the holes where the shorter tee's have a lower par. I'm not even hinting that that should be done. I am just pointing out that if the course was in the USA it would likely be designed slightly different with the intent of most/all tee's having the sam Par rating per hole and overall.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > An interesting (to me, anyway) question is what problem is solved by this change here in the US. It does introduce a level of consistency, I suppose. But there is also a level of consistency in the current view that the back tees define the entire hole and shorter tees are just shorter versions of this same hole. Changing par is certainly going to tend to 'degrade' the 'quality of the NDB approach to max scores. A 475 yard par 5 is hardly going to rate the same 'difficulty against par' as a 440 yard par 4. But maybe in the end each set of tees will get its own hole handicap #.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > In terms of "problems solved" I have to say that incidental aspects of this change is that a tee's rating, which will certainly be associated with changes in par, will become a more vivid aspect of that setup. Another is that the virulent confusion caused by the old system of making an additional adjustment to handicap when competing from different tees will be extinguished.

> >

> > Like so many things the new par numbers will be a challenge to adjust to at first, but there is solid logic behind this and I therefore trust that it will all seem natural in a short time. But the transition, particularly for those who have to lay out the grids on scorecards for printing, will be noteworthy.

>

> SG, I do believe that the changing par thing (if it happens) will RE-introduce additional changes WRT mixed tee competitions and net stroke play competitions where there will need to be a 'Par -Par' adjustment.

>

> dave

 

You make a good point, but I still guess there is less likelihood of a change in par between two sets of tees than there is a current differential of .5 strokes or more in rating.

[rogolf]

When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

[KevCarter]

> @rogolf said:

> When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

 

Great question!

 

In my templates for 2020 I'm using Round((HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR),0) rounding the entire formula, but I'm watching closely for clarification so I can make any changes needed.

[Augster]

> @KevCarter said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

>

> Great question!

>

> In my templates for 2020 I'm using Round((HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR),0) rounding the entire formula, but I'm watching closely for clarification so I can make any changes needed.

 

“Now rounding is done only once as the very last step.”

 

 

 

[KevCarter]

> @Augster said:

> > @KevCarter said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

> >

> > Great question!

> >

> > In my templates for 2020 I'm using Round((HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR),0) rounding the entire formula, but I'm watching closely for clarification so I can make any changes needed.

>

> “Now rounding is done only once as the very last step.”

>

>

>

>

 

Nice, I guessed right. Thanks Augster!

[DaveLeeNC]

> @KevCarter said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @KevCarter said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

> > >

> > > Great question!

> > >

> > > In my templates for 2020 I'm using Round((HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR),0) rounding the entire formula, but I'm watching closely for clarification so I can make any changes needed.

> >

> > “Now rounding is done only once as the very last step.”

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Nice, I guessed right. Thanks Augster!

 

It is interesting to observe that back in the early 80's when the slope/rating system was first being developed and rolled out, round off at every step simplified the way math was done at a time when a calculator on every golfer was hardly the norm (math was done in your head or paper/pencil). Now a single round off is by far more natural and easier (on a calculator) - and it yields 'better' results.

 

dave

[rogolf]

> @Augster said:

> > @KevCarter said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > When using the formula for playing handicap: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR), when do you "round" to the nearest whole number? Do you round (HI x SR/113) then add (CR - PAR) and then round again, or complete the whole calculation before rounding the final result?

> >

> > Great question!

> >

> > In my templates for 2020 I'm using Round((HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR),0) rounding the entire formula, but I'm watching closely for clarification so I can make any changes needed.

>

> “Now rounding is done only once as the very last step.”

>

>

>

>

 

Also, thank you!

[Newby]

> @Augster said:

 

>

 

Where did you get that very good text from?

Have you got a link?

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> > @Augster said:

>

> >

>

> Where did you get that very good text from?

> Have you got a link?

 

It is from an excellent white paper by Golf Genius software suppliers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C2K4iVa4q-uXwLl7hz8FBmi9AUJuSHkp/view

[Colin L]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > Colin, here in the US you would typically see ratings for men and women on the Yellow, Green, and Red tees (but not always) for those distances.

> >

> > It would be interesting to know what a scorecard looks like and just exactly what does the starter typically hand out to a foursome on that course. And thanks for the details.

> >

> > dave

>

> I'm travelling today but will catch up with this later. In the meantime I can say that for a singles stroke competition the starter would hand out a scorecard to each player.

 

I can't find a clear scan of our scorecard but here is the card for another Scottish club which is typical of what you would find. You'll see there is a column for the marker to enter his own score for convenience. Also there is a column for each of two players which is for four ball where the Rules require that you can identify which player's score is the counting score: if Player A's score at a hole is to count, it is recorded in his column; if Player B's score count, it's put in his. The column next to Player B is for you to record wins and losses in match play or points in Stableford.

 

The main difference between this one and ours is that we have separate cards for men and women and so ours does not have the last 3 columns

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @KevCarter said:

> **My opinion**

>

> Having multiple sets of tees is supposed to keep the experience fun for all levels of player, and all ages. **The goal is to enable the players to reach the green in regulation figures.**The yardage/par chart makes complete sense, but the course designer needs to take that into consideration when building multiple tees. I see several instances of taking a 470 yard par 5 from the standard tees, and making it a 440 yard par 4 from the front (Senior) tees. To me this is totally counter productive. The goal shouldn't be to just decrease total yardage, but to make the course more playable. I would always take that 480 yard par 5, and keep it a par 5 with a yardage inside the guidelines, perhaps 460. I would attempt to never have a par 4 of over 400 yards from the front tees.

>

> It looks like I may be alone in my thinking?

 

You are spot on. If par is changed from 72 to 69 when I play forward tees, why would I play forward tees? I want to play tees where I can reach every hole in regulation.

[Newby]

> @antip said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Augster said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > Where did you get that very good text from?

> > Have you got a link?

>

> It is from an excellent white paper by Golf Genius software suppliers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C2K4iVa4q-uXwLl7hz8FBmi9AUJuSHkp/view

 

Many thanks. I thought it looked familiar and when I came to download it I found I had already downloaded the April version.

I haven't looked to see what has changed.

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> Because the CONGU and EGA measures for par overlap it is easier for a club to specify the par as the same for all tee colours.

> But the USGA has no overlap. So if one hole is 470 yards off one colour it is a par 4 and if it is 471 off another colour, that must be a par 5 according to the USGA.

>

> Under CONGU & EGA either colour could be par 4 or par 5.

 

I think the USGA chart is a GUIDELINE. If so, no overlap is needed.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Interesting card. Colin. In the US that kind of course (at least at the midrange to higher end courses) would have five sets of tees (800 yards is a big gap between blue and yellow in the 6000 yard range), places for four scores, two sets of pars (where ladies play would include at least up to the yellow tees and even the red tees would have a rating/slope for the men). I guess that hole pars would have to be specified separately for each set of tees with a 'strict' interpretation of par. It would be hard to know when a tee box change causes a par change. It could be when going from the TIPS to the next set forward or .....

 

I am not saying that this cannot be solved, but it would need to be addressed. And I don't know how stroke index is going to work now that NDB is an important consideration. A 401 yard par 4 on a 5400 yard course as the 18 handicap hole is MOST unusual and certainly would not happen (IMHO) if the Blue Tees were considered 'to be its own course'.

 

dave

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

 

> I think the USGA chart is a GUIDELINE. If so, no overlap is needed.

>

 

It is indeed

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Interesting card. Colin. In the US that kind of course (at least at the midrange to higher end courses) would have five sets of tees (800 yards is a big gap between blue and yellow in the 6000 yard range), places for four scores, two sets of pars (where ladies play would include at least up to the yellow tees and even the red tees would have a rating/slope for the men). I guess that hole pars would have to be specified separately for each set of tees with a 'strict' interpretation of par. It would be hard to know when a tee box change causes a par change. It could be when going from the TIPS to the next set forward or .....

>

> I am not saying that this cannot be solved, but it would need to be addressed. And I don't know how stroke index is going to work now that NDB is an important consideration. A 401 yard par 4 on a 5400 yard hole as the 18 handicap hole is MOST unusual and certainly would not happen (IMHO) if the Blue Tees were considered 'to be its own course'.

>

> dave

 

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Interesting card. Colin. In the US that kind of course (at least at the midrange to higher end courses) would have five sets of tees (800 yards is a big gap between blue and yellow in the 6000 yard range), places for four scores, two sets of pars (where ladies play would include at least up to the yellow tees and even the red tees would have a rating/slope for the men). I guess that hole pars would have to be specified separately for each set of tees with a 'strict' interpretation of par. It would be hard to know when a tee box change causes a par change. It could be when going from the TIPS to the next set forward or .....

>

> I am not saying that this cannot be solved, but it would need to be addressed. And I don't know how stroke index is going to work now that NDB is an important consideration. A 401 yard par 4 on a 5400 yard hole as the 18 handicap hole is MOST unusual and certainly would not happen (IMHO) if the Blue Tees were considered 'to be its own course'.

>

> dave

 

Back to my own club, we are moving to have all four of our courses rated for men and women which, although it's not the main aim, will usefully do away with the concept of men's tees and ladies' tees. I'm pretty certain we'll keep men's and ladies' scorecards separate but I haven't got as far as looking at their layout. It's a good time to make such changes as we will need new cards anyway with the change to having to have course and slope ratings on them. Pars and stroke indices won't change which is just as well considering how much we spent on tee signage not that long ago!

 

Good typo, by the way. A course with a 5400 yard hole sounds somewhat formidable.

[rogolf]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > Colin, here in the US you would typically see ratings for men and women on the Yellow, Green, and Red tees (but not always) for those distances.

> > >

> > > It would be interesting to know what a scorecard looks like and just exactly what does the starter typically hand out to a foursome on that course. And thanks for the details.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > I'm travelling today but will catch up with this later. In the meantime I can say that for a singles stroke competition the starter would hand out a scorecard to each player.

>

> I can't find a clear scan of our scorecard but here is the card for another Scottish club which is typical of what you would find. You'll see there is a column for the marker to enter his own score for convenience. Also there is a column for each of two players which is for four ball where the Rules require that you can identify which player's score is the counting score: if Player A's score at a hole is to count, it is recorded in his column; if Player B's score count, it's put in his. The column next to Player B is for you to record wins and losses in match play or points in Stableford.

>

> The main difference between this one and ours is that we have separate cards for men and women and so ours does not have the last 3 columns

>

>

>

 

Craighead, been there! Unusual stroke index arrangement on the men's side; more usual to see odds and evens on separate nines?

[Augster]

Those “stroke index” (hole handicaps here) numbers need to change when moving boxes. There is no way, from the blue on the 15th hole, moving it to a 428 yard par 4 it should stay as the 11 cap.

 

Because the distances are so different between tee boxes, each set of tees should have its own hole handicaps done.

 

As has been stated in this thread, when you move the tees up, but start changing par, it makes it hard for shorter hitters to hit GIRs. Yes, each set of tees should be looked at as it’s own course. I get that. And it should. But once you have players playing different tees, with changing pars it’s hard to have a match. Stableford is Stableford and works great.

 

Let’s use hole 8 as an example. I’m playing white, my friend Bill is a short hitting 17 and plays blue. I’m giving Bill 9 shots.

 

We get to 8 and I’m playing an easy par 5 that I’ll likely reach in 2, he’s playing a long par 4 he can’t reach in 2, and it’s the 18 handicap so he doesn’t get a shot. In this situation, and match play, you don’t look at par, I get that. If I make a par 5, and he makes a bogie 5, we push the hole. That’s just not right.

 

I had this situation at my course. Our 16th hole is a 480 yard par 5 from the white and a 374 yard “par 5” from the yellow. I was playing yellow, my friend playing white. Match play scoring. We get in and he had birdied the 16th. We are going through the cards and he says he made a 4 on 16. Which was a really good birdie for him as he rarely birdies as a 17. I say I also made a 4 and we pushed the hole. I felt pretty slimy as I only had 120 in after a decent drive.

 

If the par from different tees is going to change on a hole, for match play, I think it’d be more equitable to use the par reference for matches from different tees. That makes the most sense, and maybe that’s the way it is and I’m thinking wrongly. Someone correct me. But at my course, that 374 yard hole is still listed as a “par 5”, so I make “birdie” there nearly every time I play golds. Sometimes I make “eagle”.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > Interesting card. Colin. In the US that kind of course (at least at the midrange to higher end courses) would have five sets of tees (800 yards is a big gap between blue and yellow in the 6000 yard range), places for four scores, two sets of pars (where ladies play would include at least up to the yellow tees and even the red tees would have a rating/slope for the men). I guess that hole pars would have to be specified separately for each set of tees with a 'strict' interpretation of par. It would be hard to know when a tee box change causes a par change. It could be when going from the TIPS to the next set forward or .....

> >

> > I am not saying that this cannot be solved, but it would need to be addressed. And I don't know how stroke index is going to work now that NDB is an important consideration. A 401 yard par 4 on a 5400 yard hole as the 18 handicap hole is MOST unusual and certainly would not happen (IMHO) if the Blue Tees were considered 'to be its own course'.

> >

> > dave

>

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > Interesting card. Colin. In the US that kind of course (at least at the midrange to higher end courses) would have five sets of tees (800 yards is a big gap between blue and yellow in the 6000 yard range), places for four scores, two sets of pars (where ladies play would include at least up to the yellow tees and even the red tees would have a rating/slope for the men). I guess that hole pars would have to be specified separately for each set of tees with a 'strict' interpretation of par. It would be hard to know when a tee box change causes a par change. It could be when going from the TIPS to the next set forward or .....

> >

> > I am not saying that this cannot be solved, but it would need to be addressed. And I don't know how stroke index is going to work now that NDB is an important consideration. A 401 yard par 4 on a 5400 yard hole as the 18 handicap hole is MOST unusual and certainly would not happen (IMHO) if the Blue Tees were considered 'to be its own course'.

> >

> > dave

>

> SNIP

>

> Good typo, by the way. A course with a 5400 yard hole sounds somewhat formidable.

 

It plays downhill and typically downwind, so not as long as you might think :-)

 

dave

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Yesterday I attended an Allied Golf Association's webinar on the WHS. Two things of note were a chart on new handicap allowances suggested for various forms of play (Fourball stroke play will be 85% instead of the current 90% recommended by the USGA -- that particular slide went by too fast to see the many other changes) and the fact that "most likely" number of putts for conceded holes will have a slightly different character (all putts 5 feet or less get one stroke irrespective of how challenging they are, 5 feet to 20 yards get 2 or 3 depending on challenge and player's skill, more than 20 yards get 3 or 4).

 

I wish I had been able to capture the complete allowances slide, I haven't been able to find it online. I'm told additional printed materials will be coming out soon.

[Augster]

> @Sawgrass said:

> Yesterday I attended an Allied Golf Association's webinar on the WHS. Two things of note were a chart on new handicap allowances suggested for various forms of play (Fourball stroke play will be 85% instead of the current 90% recommended by the USGA -- that particular slide went by too fast to see the many other changes) and the fact that "most likely" number of putts for conceded holes will have a slightly different character (all putts 5 feet or less get one stroke irrespective of how challenging they are, 5 feet to 20 yards get 2 or 3 depending on challenge and player's skill, more than 20 yards get 3 or 4).

>

> I wish I had been able to capture the complete allowances slide, I haven't been able to find it online. I'm told additional printed materials will be coming out soon.

 

Good info. It’s how it should be.

 

I take it you weren’t able to ask if you’re allowed to putt out after the hole has been decided and see if you made it or not and kept that number of putts for score? As it is now. I never liked that because people wouldn’t try hard on a conceded 3 footer, putt it later, and miss it. Tied the hole with the concede par 4 but was able to write down a bogey 5.

[Newby]

Individual stroke play, stableford, par/bogey, max score - 95%

 

Four-ball stroke, stableford, - 85%

Four-ball par/bogey - 90%

 

Individual match - 100%

 

Four-ball match - 95%

Foursomes - 50% combined team

Greensomes, Pinehurst/Chapman - 60% low + 40% high

 

Best 1 of 4 stroke - 75%

Best 2 of 4 stroke - 85%

Best 3 of 4 stroke - 100%

All 4 of 4 stroke - 100%

 

4 man scramble - 25%/20%/15%/10% low to high

2 man scramble - 35% low / 15% high

Total score of 2 match - 100%

 

Best 1 of 4 par/bogey - 75%

Best 2 of 4 par/bogey - 80%

Best 3 of 4 par/bogey - 90%

All 4 of 4 par/bogey - 100%

 

 

Can't comment on the match play concessions as matchplay will not be an Authorised Form of Play in CONGUland

[Newby]

> @Augster said:

>

> I take it you weren’t able to ask if you’re allowed to putt out after the hole has been decided and see if you made it or not and kept that number of putts for score? As it is now. I never liked that because people wouldn’t try hard on a conceded 3 footer, putt it later, and miss it. Tied the hole with the concede par 4 but was able to write down a bogey 5.

 

I thought the Rules of Golf applied to the USGA handicap system ;-)

[Deceptively Short]

> @Newby said:

> Individual stroke play, stableford, par/bogey, max score - 95%

>

> Four-ball stroke, stableford, - 85%

> Four-ball par/bogey - 90%

>

> Individual match - 100%

>

> Four-ball match - 95%

> Foursomes - 50% combined team

> Greensomes, Pinehurst/Chapman - 60% low + 40% high

>

> Best 1 of 4 stroke - 75%

> Best 2 of 4 stroke - 85%

> Best 3 of 4 stroke - 100%

> All 4 of 4 stroke - 100%

>

> 4 man scramble - 25%/20%/15%/10% low to high

> 2 man scramble - 35% low / 15% high

> Total score of 2 match - 100%

>

> Best 1 of 4 par/bogey - 75%

> Best 2 of 4 par/bogey - 80%

> Best 3 of 4 par/bogey - 90%

> All 4 of 4 par/bogey - 100%

>

Well that’s going to be easy to calculate, explain and remember.

 

[Newby]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > etc ...

> >

> Well that’s going to be easy to calculate, explain and remember.

>

 

How many of those formats do you ever play?

[Augster]

The USGA site said 4-ball match play was going to play off 85%.

[Newby]

> @Augster said:

> The USGA site said 4-ball match play was going to play off 85%.

 

Interesting to know. They are in fact recommendations according to CONGU. Presumably each authority makes its own choices.

[Augster]

> @Newby said:

> > @Augster said:

> > The USGA site said 4-ball match play was going to play off 85%.

>

> Interesting to know. They are in fact recommendations according to CONGU. Presumably each authority makes its own choices.

 

I read it wrong. The video does say “four ball stroke play”. Who the hell ever plays that? Weird.

 

ALSO, as of 11/11/19 there are 10 new videos up on WHS.com explaining those former charts that I can’t find anymore.