New World Handicap System

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

 

> For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

 

Our ladies have been doing this since we had all the tees rated for 2*9 holes last winter. It has been very successful I'm reliably informed. Seniors trying it this winter.

[antip]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > >

> > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > >

> > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > >

> > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > >

> > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> >

> > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

>

> It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

 

Given the ageing of the golfing population, this is a logical direction that just hasn't taken here yet.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > >

> > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > >

> > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > >

> > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > >

> > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> >

> > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

>

> It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

 

Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

 

dave

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > > >

> > > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > > >

> > > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> > >

> > > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

> >

> > It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

>

> Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

>

> dave

 

Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @antip said:

> > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> > > >

> > > > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

> > >

> > > It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

> >

> > Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

> >

> > dave

>

> Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

 

Is there any case in the entire history of golf where par is not part of the fixed target score? I can't even think of a rational alternative (unless you just define arbitrary #'s by hole).

 

dave

[KevCarter]

> @rogolf said:

> Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

 

Interesting. I've not seen anything other than par used for the target score, but admittedly, Stableford isn't used often in my area...

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @antip said:

> > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> > > > >

> > > > > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

> > > >

> > > > It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

> > >

> > > Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

>

> Is there any case in the entire history of golf where par is not part of the fixed target score? I can't even think of a rational alternative (unless you just define arbitrary #'s by hole).

>

> dave

 

I was merely pointing out what it says in the Rule (although I did miss the word "par" in my first reading). I suppose the fixed target score could be bogey instead of par, and, as the Rule seems to suggest, could be different for different holes.

The Rule says, "Points are awarded to a player for each hole by comparing the player's score to the fixed target score for the hole, which is par, unless the Committee sets a different target score."

It's still a Committee decision, even if it's by default.

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @Augster said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > >

> > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > >

> > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > >

> > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > >

> > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > >

> >

> > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> >

> > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> >

> > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> >

> > That doesn’t seem right.

>

> What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

>

> Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the longer course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

 

Where Par has to do with individual holes for matchplay is in the hole handicap. A 374 yard hole as a par 5 it is a lot less likely a player gets a stroke on the hole. If it is a 374 Yard par 4 now they suddenly are much more likely to get a stroke and it is much more likely that it is almost impossible for the player from the longer tees to tie/win that particular hole. Either way is seemingly not ideal as I think the player from the longer tees is at a disadvantage but less of a disadvantage if the player on the front tees does not get a stroke.

 

Would it make more sense, if the back tees played as the par 5 and the front was a par 4, then the difference in Par would be taken into account for that hole for match play? With the front tees being a par 4 the player is more likely to get a stroke but then also gives up a stroke for the difference in par for that hole.

ie.

1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 2 strokes - 1 for difference in par

0 strokes = Front Tee player gets 1 stroke - 1 for difference in par

-1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 0 strokes - 1 for difference in par

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

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

> > > > > > @antip said:

> > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

> > > >

> > > > Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

> >

> > Is there any case in the entire history of golf where par is not part of the fixed target score? I can't even think of a rational alternative (unless you just define arbitrary #'s by hole).

> >

> > dave

>

> I was merely pointing out what it says in the Rule (although I did miss the word "par" in my first reading). I suppose the fixed target score could be bogey instead of par, and, as the Rule seems to suggest, could be different for different holes.

> The Rule says, "Points are awarded to a player for each hole by comparing the player's score to the fixed target score for the hole, which is par, unless the Committee sets a different target score."

> It's still a Committee decision, even if it's by default.

 

Bogey is still a par based concept, FWIW. You would really need to set up 'targets by hole' which would seem pretty weird and inconvenient, although my informal group would probably do that if a bunch of 425'ish yard holes suddenly become par 4's from our 5700'ish yard tees.

 

dave

[rogolf]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

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

> > > > > > > @antip said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the higher par course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay. I think I get it. The CR-par rating and then Par-par should take care of the difference for multi-tee match play. Unless, like my course, the par is wrong. Both the white, and the gold, are par 71. So the par-par add in doesn’t take that hole into consideration for the match. In other words, I’m just going to win that hole from the golds every time I play someone playing white. Unless I dump my wedge second shot into the bunker or 3-putt.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another easy solution is for the Committee to dictate which tees are to be used for all players in a match play event. As others have said, par in match play is irrelevant, just taking fewer strokes than your opponent usually wins the hole.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I've never played an event in which people of the same gender play off different tees (I've only been on the course since '67). Such events don't exist here. It remains to be seen if 2020 changes that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's something I've been trying to encourage at my club firstly in the context of our Senior men's stablefords in order to encourage members to keep joining in when they are finding the longer course a bit too much for them. In particular we have one hole with a longish carry from the tee over a gully which some cannot manage any more. By playing from the forward tee, they can continue to play in our competitions without starting a round knowing they are already two points down. For those who cannot manage 18 holes, we have started to include a 9 hole option on competition days which also has the social gain that by going out after the 18 hole groups, they can join in the social gathering after their game. It was new last season and hasn't taken off yet, but I'm hoping it will pick up next year. Our ladies do the same - successfully - and in fact led the way in this matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > Our Men's Golf Association has been playing 'mixed tees' for at least a decade. And that started kind of a trend among members such that playing the 'senior tees' is very common. And this is where using the 'strict par' definition shows its ugly head. To take the example of the scorecards that you posted where suddenly 400+ yard par 4's become the 18 handicap hole (in a Stableford game where par is fundamental to scoring), moving up (at least on those holes) suddenly made a good score much more difficult.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > Actually, par is not fundamental to scoring in Stableford other than when a decision by the Committee uses par as the "fixed target score" outlined in Rule 21.1b.

> > >

> > > Is there any case in the entire history of golf where par is not part of the fixed target score? I can't even think of a rational alternative (unless you just define arbitrary #'s by hole).

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > I was merely pointing out what it says in the Rule (although I did miss the word "par" in my first reading). I suppose the fixed target score could be bogey instead of par, and, as the Rule seems to suggest, could be different for different holes.

> > The Rule says, "Points are awarded to a player for each hole by comparing the player's score to the fixed target score for the hole, which is par, unless the Committee sets a different target score."

> > It's still a Committee decision, even if it's by default.

>

> Bogey is still a par based concept, FWIW. You would really need to set up 'targets by hole' which would seem pretty weird and inconvenient, although my informal group would probably do that if a bunch of 425'ish yard holes suddenly become par 4's from our 5700'ish yard tees.

>

> dave

 

Agree it would be weird, but each hole could have its own assigned number for its target score, each number need not be related to "par". Anyway, we're a long way off topic!

[Colin L]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > >

> > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > >

> > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > >

> > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > >

> > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > >

> > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > >

> > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > >

> > > That doesn’t seem right.

> >

> > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> >

> > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the longer course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

>

> Where Par has to do with individual holes for matchplay is in the hole handicap. A 374 yard hole as a par 5 it is a lot less likely a player gets a stroke on the hole. If it is a 374 Yard par 4 now they suddenly are much more likely to get a stroke and it is much more likely that it is almost impossible for the player from the longer tees to tie/win that particular hole. Either way is seemingly not ideal as I think the player from the longer tees is at a disadvantage but less of a disadvantage if the player on the front tees does not get a stroke.

>

> Would it make more sense, if the back tees played as the par 5 and the front was a par 4, then the difference in Par would be taken into account for that hole for match play? With the front tees being a par 4 the player is more likely to get a stroke but then also gives up a stroke for the difference in par for that hole.

> ie.

> 1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 2 strokes - 1 for difference in par

> 0 strokes = Front Tee player gets 1 stroke - 1 for difference in par

> -1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 0 strokes - 1 for difference in par

>

>

 

Again we just come up against the differences between the home of golf and its worldwide family!

 

You wouldn't, certainly shouldn't ever find a 374 yard hole here as a Par 5. The current CONGU minimum for a Par 5 is 440 yards; the WHS minimum will be 450.

 

The stroke index (handicap holes) of a course here is usually determined for match play which means that the distribution of strokes is the guiding principle. The difficulty of holes is only used in the context of an even distribution. I've attached the CONGU guidance in case you are interested. Match play is the norm for social play which accounts for a considerably greater proportion of rounds than medal or stableford at most clubs.

Determining the stroke index to suit match play has no effect on medal stroke play. It can be seen obviously as more important in stableford and you will find some clubs (I've no idea how many) which have different stroke indices for match play and stableford. In my view and for my own club, the effect on stableford of a match play based stroke Index is too slight to justify the effort and expense of another set of scorecards considering how small a proportion of our competitions are stablefords. It seems to be potentially confusing to members as well.

 

 

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @Augster said:

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

> > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > We really are well apart on these matters. The differences are fascinating.

> > > > >

> > > > > Shorter hitters are mostly likely to find it hard to hit greens in regulation since the par is based on the distances scratch players can hit a ball. A player getting a stroke a hole, for example, should generally be thinking of "regulation" being 3 shots to a par 4 and 4 shots to a par 5. I just don't know what is gained by thinking that you have holed out for a net par 5 if the hole is in reality a Par 4. I can no longer reach the greens of two of the par 3s on my course but that's ok as on a handicap of 17, my target on all but one hole is a bogey.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't see par having any significance at all in match play.

> > > > >

> > > > > Adjusting handicaps for mixed tee stroke play doesn't involve Par. In Stableford, the calculation does involve par but mixed tee stable ford is possible and equitable.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's been an interesting conversation (for me at least!) I suppose what really matters is that when we go out for a game wherever we are, it all comes down to that infuriating, wonderful struggle to knock a ball from tee to hole in as few strokes as possible.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mixed tee MATCH play.

> > > >

> > > > If I’m playing the up tees and I have a 374 yard par 5 that I make 4 or 3 on most days, and my opponent plays the same hole as a 480 yard par 5, that he can’t reach in 2, without making it relative to par, how is it equitable. Over time my opponent has almost no chance to beat me. He’s going to have to hit 3 good shots AND make a putt to make a birdie 4. I’m going to make a “birdie” 4 most of the time.

> > > >

> > > > I would think the par would have to change on that hole and your score in relation to that par is the determiner in the match for that hole. If 374 is a par 4, and I make 4, and my opponent playing a 480 yard par 5 makes 5, we should push the hole. We both made par. BUT, if par isn’t factored in, I win the hole because of my 100-yard head start.

> > > >

> > > > That doesn’t seem right.

> > >

> > > What has the par of individual holes to do with match play? If you score a net 4 on a hole and your opponent playing from other tees scores net 5, you win the hole because you holed out in fewer strokes - nothing to do with par. You could be hunched over a crucial putt for an 8 to win a hole but if that's 4 over par it doesn't matter - it's match play pure and simple and winning the hole is all that matters.

> > >

> > > Adjusting handicaps for match play from mixed tees does bring par into the picture, but only the total par for each course. As you are going to be calculating course handicaps using CR-Par, the person playing from the tees with the higher par will get an allowance equal to the difference between the par of his course and the par of his opponent's. That brings us back to allotting the same par to all the tees from longest to shortest course. Where that is the case, then the person playing the longer course will get no additional strokes which may be inequitable.

> >

> > Where Par has to do with individual holes for matchplay is in the hole handicap. A 374 yard hole as a par 5 it is a lot less likely a player gets a stroke on the hole. If it is a 374 Yard par 4 now they suddenly are much more likely to get a stroke and it is much more likely that it is almost impossible for the player from the longer tees to tie/win that particular hole. Either way is seemingly not ideal as I think the player from the longer tees is at a disadvantage but less of a disadvantage if the player on the front tees does not get a stroke.

> >

> > Would it make more sense, if the back tees played as the par 5 and the front was a par 4, then the difference in Par would be taken into account for that hole for match play? With the front tees being a par 4 the player is more likely to get a stroke but then also gives up a stroke for the difference in par for that hole.

> > ie.

> > 1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 2 strokes - 1 for difference in par

> > 0 strokes = Front Tee player gets 1 stroke - 1 for difference in par

> > -1 stroke = Front Tee player gets 0 strokes - 1 for difference in par

> >

> >

>

> Again we just come up against the differences between the home of golf and its worldwide family!

>

> You wouldn't, certainly shouldn't ever find a 374 yard hole here as a Par 5. The current CONGU minimum for a Par 5 is 440 yards; the WHS minimum will be 450.

>

> The stroke index (handicap holes) of a course here is usually determined for match play which means that the distribution of strokes is the guiding principle. The difficulty of holes is only used in the context of an even distribution. I've attached the CONGU guidance in case you are interested....

 

Very interesting. Looking at your home course it would look, on the surface, like I would be very likely to lose hole handicaps 1, 2 & 3 if playing from the back tee's against someone who was a course handicap 3 strokes higher than me when playing the forward tees. Not that this does not happen in the USGA system but I **think** it happens to a little lesser degree. Without having played your course or system it is an uniformed opinion at best.

 

Below is what I could find on how the USGA was recommending setting the hole handicaps. I am not sure if this will change with the move to the WHS. Interesting to note that the 2 courses where I participate in match play the most have the 18th hole as the #1 handicap and the one course the 9th hole is handicap 2 while the other course hole 9 is handicap 3. Seems like the guideline of 'Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes' is not strictly followed.

 

Edit: I see the new/current (not WHS) rules were different than the image I originally posted so I have remove that image. Here is a link though to the new/current (not WHS). https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14403

 

 

[Colin L]

Your opponent's Course Handicap on our blue course is 3 strokes higher than yours on our white course, but remember your Playing Handicap will be increased by 4 strokes - the difference between the pars of the two courses. You would in fact be receiving a stroke from him.

 

Anyway, even you were giving strokes to an opponent, all that is intended to do is make it equally possible for either of you to win the match. A weaker opponent gets the better chance of winning a hole at which he gets a stroke but is up against it when he doesn't. I think it's a pointless exercise setting expectations on any hole because of its par.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @Roadking2003 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?

>

> 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.

 

We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

[KevCarter]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @Roadking2003 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?

> >

> > 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.

>

> We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

 

There definitely seems to be some sort of disconnect between us and our friends across the pond.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @KevCarter said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

>

> There definitely seems to be some sort of disconnect between us and our friends across the pond.

 

I think the core difference (my impression) is thst most casual play in the UK is match play whereas most casual play here in the States is stroke/medal play. For stroke/medal play, par is an important aspect of play. In match play, par is largely irrelevant. Hence the differences we see discussing course/tee box par.

[KevCarter]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @KevCarter said:

> > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

> >

> > There definitely seems to be some sort of disconnect between us and our friends across the pond.

>

> I think the core difference (my impression) is thst most casual play in the UK is match play whereas most casual play here in the States is stroke/medal play. For stroke/medal play, par is an important aspect of play. In match play, par is largely irrelevant. Hence the differences we see discussing course/tee box par.

 

That makes complete sense. Thank you.

[Sawgrass]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @Roadking2003 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?

> >

> > 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.

>

> We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

 

I'm pretty sure those playing from the kids tees are already aware of the fact that many older people are able to hit longer and score lower than they. At least for the next 60 years or so -- at which time they (we) must either adjust to our limitations or play exclusively with fellow ancients, and pretend we're getting a par.

 

Really. Kids, elders, suck it up and get with the new program. It's technically equitable and that's good enough. Oh, and stop in and see your sports psychologist and get the necessary ego adjustment before it's too late.

[Colin L]

 

 

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @Roadking2003 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?

> >

> > 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.

>

> We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

 

It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

 

As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

 

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @"Colin L" said:

>

>

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

>

> It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

>

> As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

>

 

I believe you and agree. (Although I think a wee kid making a 4 from 220 yards out is an achievement worthy of 'par'. Once that's too easy we'll move him back) What you said up the line about the blues being the hardest tee at your course (as the sss is 69 on a par 68?) Is telling. The blues/golds in the us are invariably the easiest, as the CR is often 3-4 strokes below our inflate-o-par. Like many differences between the US and UK, you keep things more traditional, and we make them more fun! (I kid, I kid).

 

In my experience US golf courses assign a single par to the course. Forward tee placements are positioned so the intended user has a chance at GIR's. At least under the old HC system par was never considered and it didn't matter.

 

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

>

> I'm pretty sure those playing from the kids tees are already aware of the fact that many older people are able to hit longer and score lower than they. At least for the next 60 years or so -- at which time they (we) must either adjust to our limitations or play exclusively with fellow ancients, and pretend we're getting a par.

>

> Really. Kids, elders, suck it up and get with the new program. It's technically equitable and that's good enough. Oh, and stop in and see your sports psychologist and get the necessary ego adjustment before it's too late.

 

Hey kid, pars are for people who can hit it 220. And you there, Grandpa! Just play the par 65 gold tees and realize you only have 4 reasonable chances for a birdie in the round.

 

After all, those are the rules. And as I'm so often reminded, _this is a rules forum, isn't it?_

[Colin L]

A 4 from 220 yards out suits me fine too, but missed all too often - which has nothing to do with my length off the tee and everything to do with my short game. And I'd add that par is as much of an irrelevance to an adult beginner as to a kid. A realistic golfer sets realistic targets. For me it's bogey golf; for another it might be breaking 120; for the talented it will be par or under. I remember my very first competition as a kid. 5 holes with my mum as my marker. She use the old tally system of 4 strokes with a line through them to represent a group of 5. I think she marked up 4 such groups on the 1st hole. But I won a prize. I expect we all did.

 

I should mention that I didn't say our blue course was our most difficult one - it isn't. That was someone else's misunderstanding of the significance of the SSS/course rating being a stroke higher than its par. Of the four courses, it has the lowest par, the lowest SSS/course rating and, at 119, the lowest slope.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

>

>

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

>

> It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

>

> As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

>

 

This is complete hogwash. While I am certainly not going to claim that there is better (or even equivalent) rules adherence in the US vs. the UK, implying that this is some 'American thing' is wrong. It is extremely common across all of the golfing world. And it starts with the EUROPEAN TOUR which is not going to be hosting any 480 yard Par 5's but you will find plenty of 480 yard par 4's.

 

And to claim that kids don't care about par??? Really????????????????

 

dave

[KevCarter]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> >

> >

> > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

> >

> > It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

> >

> > As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

> >

>

> This is complete hogwash. While I am certainly not going to claim that there is better (or even equivalent) rules adherence in the US vs. the UK, implying that this is some 'American thing' is wrong. It is extremely common across all of the golfing world. And it starts with the EUROPEAN TOUR which is not going to be hosting any 480 yard Par 5's but you will find plenty of 480 yard par 4's.

>

> And to claim that kids don't care about par??? Really????????????????

>

> dave

 

My fault, probably a poor choice of words in a previous post.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @KevCarter said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > >

> > >

> > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

> > >

> > > It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

> > >

> > > As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

> > >

> >

> > This is complete hogwash. While I am certainly not going to claim that there is better (or even equivalent) rules adherence in the US vs. the UK, implying that this is some 'American thing' is wrong. It is extremely common across all of the golfing world. And it starts with the EUROPEAN TOUR which is not going to be hosting any 480 yard Par 5's but you will find plenty of 480 yard par 4's.

> >

> > And to claim that kids don't care about par??? Really????????????????

> >

> > dave

>

> My fault, probably a poor choice of words in a previous post.

 

Kev, not only is this your fault there is that four putt that you caused me last week. :D

 

dave

[KevCarter]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Kev, not only is this your fault there is that four putt that you caused me last week.

>

> dave

 

LOL You must have caught a bad case of my nerves! ???

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"Colin L" said:

> A 4 from 220 yards out suits me fine too, but missed all too often - which has nothing to do with my length off the tee and everything to do with my short game. And I'd add that par is as much of an irrelevance to an adult beginner as to a kid. A realistic golfer sets realistic targets. For me it's bogey golf; for another it might be breaking 120; for the talented it will be par or under. I remember my very first competition as a kid. 5 holes with my mum as my marker. She use the old tally system of 4 strokes with a line through them to represent a group of 5. I think she marked up 4 such groups on the 1st hole. But I won a prize. I expect we all did.

>

> I should mention that I didn't say our blue course was our most difficult one - it isn't. That was someone else's misunderstanding of the significance of the SSS/course rating being a stroke higher than its par. Of the four courses, it has the lowest par, the lowest SSS/course rating and, at 119, the lowest slope.

>

>

 

I think that was my assertion (2nd paragraph). It sounds like that you are determining difficulty of a course based on course rating (scratch player) and slope rating (bogey player) without regard for par. Is that correct? I don't think that most folks here in the US think about course difficulty without including par in the discussion.

[Sawgrass]

I'm reminded of the expression, "That's par for the course" and the fact that despite its intended meaning of "typical," I have NEVER shot "par for the course" I'm playing.

 

Pretty sure they should add one extra shot to par on each hole, I'll feel better . . . and I'll get that currently-elusive trophy-for-all so many people apparently want.

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:And it starts with the EUROPEAN TOUR which is not going to be hosting any 480 yard Par 5's but you will find plenty of 480 yard par 4's.

>

> dave

 

Although the ET (being professionals) does not operate under CONGU the length of par 4s is upto 500 yards and par 5s from 440 yards.

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> >

> >

> > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 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?

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > We have a kid's tee on our course. Longest hole is maybe 325. As far as I know they play the pars the same as the tips. What fun is it putting a kid who maxes out at 110 yards and telling him this 220 yard hole is a par 3 because a scratch golfer would probably be able to hit the green in 1. That kids course was installed by putting the tees about x number of 100 yard shots away from the green. I think there seems to be a difference in thought between English/British golf and US golf in the philosophy of this par vs cr thing

> >

> > It isn't a matter of a difference in "philosophy" but rather a difference in adherence to the rules. Par is defined. It is what it is. The disconnect seems to be between golf as described by the ruling bodies and the ways in which it is "adapted" in the USA. That's a view entirely based on the impression gained from reading this forum. Over here we do so seem to keep our golf much closer to what is intended.

> >

> > As far as your wee kids who are maybe taking 9 or 10 at a hole are concerned, par is a total irrelevance to them.

> >

>

> This is complete hogwash. While I am certainly not going to claim that there is better (or even equivalent) rules adherence in the US vs. the UK, implying that this is some 'American thing' is wrong. It is extremely common across all of the golfing world. And it starts with the EUROPEAN TOUR which is not going to be hosting any 480 yard Par 5's but you will find plenty of 480 yard par 4's.

>

> And to claim that kids don't care about par??? Really????????????????

>

> dave

 

I must be getting the wrong impression then from the narrow perspective of reading this forum - but I acknowledged that and it would be good to know that it is a distorted view because golf in the US is generally played to the Rules and to handicapping regs. I have to admit some of what I read here is both astonishing and dismaying.

 

But never mind, you made my day. I've had plenty of epithets applied to my ramblings, but never before have I had that splendid American expression _hogwash_ applied to them. It is quite an accolade, thanks!

 

I do however stick to that view that a measure of a hole mainly based on how far an adult scratch golfer can hit a golf ball is irrelevant to young kids whose maximum distance is a fraction of that. To bring thoughts of par into their learning is likely to be damagingly discouraging. In terms of encouraging our wee ones, I'm toying with the idea of a simple handicapping system for the ones who can't yet complete cards to get a CONGU handicap. The main thing needed, I think, is to establish a different base from par or course rating so that their handicaps aren't absurdly and discouragingly high. It would just be for one set of holes at the club and so slope doesn't come into it. Does anyone have knowledge of a scheme like this?

 

[DaveLeeNC]

OK, Colin. Then load of Codswallow it is :-) .

 

I am making no comment on rules adherence. Just saying that a hole rarely changing par between tees is not an American thing but is a common (but not ubiquitous) worldwide practice. And in my mind it is mostly about senior golfers. Secondarily it is going to make a hash (should work on both sides of the pond) of stroke index numbers on holes where par changes (unless the indexes change as well).

 

In the US there is already a second system in place for the ladies where the definition of a scratch golfer has a different standard.

 

dave

 

PS. BTW, I have never seen a senior tees par 5 under 400 yards. But it seems they exist (at least in one case).