New World Handicap System

[sui generis]

Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

 

https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

 

Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

 

BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

 

dave

[sui generis]

Dave, this seems to me to be the "large print" study guide vs the "small print" complete edition. I'm attending a CGA seminar on Wednesday, I'll see if your complaint is addressed.

[Sawgrass]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Dave, this seems to me to be the "large print" study guide vs the "small print" complete edition. I'm attending a CGA seminar on Wednesday, I'll see if your complaint is addressed.

 

Please ask them if the "hard cap" is expected to reduce injuries.

B)

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> 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.

 

It's built in to the USGA Course Rating system. The nominal driving length for a scratch lady is 210 and bogey is 150. The USGA par lengths (and every other system) are accordingly different for ladies

[KevCarter]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

 

Thank you Sui, I will get a lot of use out of this!!!

[Newby]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_**10**_28.pdf

 

Excellent document.

 

The link address suggests that this is document 10. Are there others?

[davep043]

> @Newby said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> >

> > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_**10**_28.pdf

>

> Excellent document.

>

> The link address suggests that this is document 10. Are there others?

 

It might be that it was issued on October 28 (using US-style dates with the month before the day). I too appreciate seeing this, its a good summary. It seems that my neighbors to the south are doing a better job than my Virginia association is in communicating the upcoming changes.

[Augster]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

 

Thanks very much. Excellent document. Everything in it is how I understand the new system so that was nice.

 

Good explanation of hard cap and soft cap. I was struggling to get my head around it.

 

It was nice to see it in print that the new course handicap is going to include CR-par and playing from different tees will include par-par at the end.

 

[bortass]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

 

Thanks for sharing that. It was an interesting read and I liked what I saw.

[sui generis]

An interesting bit of "fine print" is in the box on page 1 under Acceptable Scores. Bullet #4 says, "When a player follows a Model Local even if the Committee has not adopted it."

 

So when Mr Bean goes out to play accompanied only by his wife, a non-golfer, he may suddenly decide that E-5 is for him, he may post the score, despite the lack of a Committee published Local Rule.

 

Our learned colleague, Sawgrass, has been telling us for years that a Committee may be more than the old boys in the cardroom who think they run the show.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> >

> > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

>

> Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

>

> BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

>

> dave

 

BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

 

There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

 

This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

 

I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

 

dave

 

ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

[Sawgrass]

> @"sui generis" said:

> An interesting bit of "fine print" is in the box on page 1 under Acceptable Scores. Bullet #4 says, "When a player follows a Model Local even if the Committee has not adopted it."

>

> So when Mr Bean goes out to play accompanied only by his wife, a non-golfer, he may suddenly decide that E-5 is for him, he may post the score, despite the lack of a Committee published Local Rule.

>

> Our learned colleague, Sawgrass, has been telling us for years that a Committee may be more than the old boys in the cardroom who think they run the show.

 

HaHa! If I may expand upon this, Mr. Bean should not be satisfied with a low (otherwise legitimate) score made under the Local Rules he selects based on his improperly usurping the Committee's authority, but he will be required to post it. Worst of both worlds! (At least, if that aspect of the handicap rule for casual rounds is adopted in Finland, which I sincerely doubt.)

[Sawgrass]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > >

> > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> >

> > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> >

> > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> >

> > dave

>

> BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

>

> There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

>

> This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

>

> I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

>

> dave

>

> ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

 

One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

 

I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

 

(Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

[ThinkingPlus]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > >

> > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> >

> > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> >

> > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> >

> > dave

>

> BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

>

> There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

>

> This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

>

> I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

>

> dave

>

> ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

 

If the USGA forces strict adherence to the par vs yardage "recommendations" it will certainly torpedo their play it forward initiative. Nobody is going to play a shorter set of tees where the CR > par if a longer set of tes exists where CR < par. It will also make a mess of recommendations to play a set of tees where you have reasonable chances to hit all greens in regulation with mid-iron or less (at least as it applied to shorter tees). Lots of new to get used to. Fortunately this par vs yardage stuff won't impact my club from any teebox unless the guys play the forward tees (I haven't seen any flying pigs lately and he|| hasn't frozen over so I think we are safe there as well).

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> >

> > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

>

> Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

>

> BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

>

> dave

 

I'm not quite following this. Are you suggesting that when your Low Handicap Index is over 12 months old and a new one takes its place there could be change to your Handicap Index as a result without your putting in another score? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but if that is what you are saying, I can't see that In the draft Rules and haven't heard anything of it. It doesn't make sense that it would be retrospective: it has to be that a new Low Handicap Index is applied only to subsequent scores.

 

Am I picking you up wrongly?

 

[dwboston]

I guess I should have paid closer attention to the course handicap calculation change. It just occurred to me that my course handicap is going up by 2 strokes, assuming I didn't miss something. Home course from the blue (back) tees is 73.9/138, par is 72, handicap index is 6.8 (will drop to 6.7 once it's based on best 8 of 20 instead of best 10 of 20 with no 0.96 adjustment).

 

2019 CH: (HI x SR/113) = (6.8 x 138/113) = (6.8 x 1.22) = 8.3 rounded down to 8

2020 CH: (HI x SR/113) + (CR - PAR) = (6.7 x 138/113) + (73.9 - 72) = 8.18 + 1.9 = 10.1 rounded down to 10

 

Is that correct or did I misinterpret something?

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > >

> > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> >

> > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> >

> > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> >

> > dave

>

> I'm not quite following this. Are you suggesting that when your Low Handicap Index is over 12 months old and a new one takes its place there could be change to your Handicap Index as a result without your putting in another score? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but if that is what you are saying, I can't see that In the draft Rules and haven't heard anything of it. It doesn't make sense that it would be retrospective: it has to be that a new Low Handicap Index is applied only to subsequent scores.

>

> Am I picking you up wrongly?

>

 

I believe Dave is right . . . at least I believe he's being logical.

 

If your current index has been capped based on a previous low index, and that low index expires, shouldn't that cap expire as well (and be potentially replaced by a new, different cap depending on the data)?

 

(Forgive me, Dave, if I'm "agreeing" with you if in fact I'm misinterpreting you.)

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > >

> > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> >

> > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> >

> > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> >

> > dave

>

> I'm not quite following this. Are you suggesting that when your Low Handicap Index is over 12 months old and a new one takes its place there could be change to your Handicap Index as a result without your putting in another score? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but if that is what you are saying, I can't see that In the draft Rules and haven't heard anything of it. It doesn't make sense that it would be retrospective: it has to be that a new Low Handicap Index is applied only to subsequent scores.

>

> Am I picking you up wrongly?

>

 

SG's explanation in post 498 is a good explanation of my understanding. dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > >

> > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > >

> > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > >

> > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

> >

> > There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

> >

> > This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

> >

> > I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

> >

> > dave

> >

> > ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

>

> One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

>

> I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

>

> (Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

 

The following is a quote from the USGA at https://www.usga.org/course-care/forethegolfer/how-to-implement-forward-tees-at-your-course.html . It would seem that at the time this was written, preserving the 'par-ability' of holes for shorter hitting players was important.

 

"Golf is a game for a lifetime. Imagine the enjoyment of a boy or girl learning the game on a much shorter course and being able to reach par-4 holes in two shots; or the thrill of an older player making pars and birdies after being on the brink of giving up the game because the course was too long. Installing forward tees to create a proportional challenge is not difficult and may be a great way to not only retain golfers but also recruit new ones."

 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > >

> > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > >

> > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > >

> > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > I'm not quite following this. Are you suggesting that when your Low Handicap Index is over 12 months old and a new one takes its place there could be change to your Handicap Index as a result without your putting in another score? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but if that is what you are saying, I can't see that In the draft Rules and haven't heard anything of it. It doesn't make sense that it would be retrospective: it has to be that a new Low Handicap Index is applied only to subsequent scores.

> >

> > Am I picking you up wrongly?

> >

>

> SG's explanation in post 498 is a good explanation of my understanding. dave

 

One thing that I would add is that under the old USGA system where there was a Handicap Reduction for Exceptional Tournament Performance, when that 'expired' your index could definitely change even if you posted no scores.

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > > >

> > > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > > >

> > > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

> > >

> > > There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

> > >

> > > This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

> > >

> > > I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

> > >

> > > dave

> > >

> > > ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

> >

> > One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

> >

> > I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

> >

> > (Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

>

> The following is a quote from the USGA at https://www.usga.org/course-care/forethegolfer/how-to-implement-forward-tees-at-your-course.html . It would seem that at the time this was written, preserving the 'par-ability' of holes for shorter hitting players was important.

>

> "Golf is a game for a lifetime. Imagine the enjoyment of a boy or girl learning the game on a much shorter course and being able to reach par-4 holes in two shots; or the thrill of an older player making pars and birdies after being on the brink of giving up the game because the course was too long. Installing forward tees to create a proportional challenge is not difficult and may be a great way to not only retain golfers but also recruit new ones."

>

>

> dave

 

Bob Dylan helps us with this: ". . . then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'."

 

It all comes down to this: would we rather have a higher par number for seniors to enjoy, or a unified system where Stableford and Match vs. Par competitors can compete equitably from all tees.

 

We are, I am, used to consistent par numbers between tees. But that's not all there is to consider.

[Newby]

I don't know if this helps -

_A Low Handicap Index is established once a player has at least 20 acceptable scores in their scoring record. It is re-evaluated every time a new acceptable score is submitted._

_A newly determined LHI is considered in the processing of the player's next acceptable score whenever the next round is submitted_

[Colin L]

Thanks for that. A quick check of Rule 5.7 seems to bring up the answer:

 

_A newly-determined Low Handicap Index is considered in the processing of the player's next acceptable score whenever the next round is submitted._

 

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks for that. A quick check of Rule 5.7 seems to bring up the answer:

>

Exactly.

 

Incidentally, did you know CONGU will not be using 'Most Likely Scores'

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > > > >

> > > > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

> > > >

> > > > There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

> > > >

> > > > This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

> > > >

> > > > I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

> > >

> > > One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

> > >

> > > I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

> > >

> > > (Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

> >

> > The following is a quote from the USGA at https://www.usga.org/course-care/forethegolfer/how-to-implement-forward-tees-at-your-course.html . It would seem that at the time this was written, preserving the 'par-ability' of holes for shorter hitting players was important.

> >

> > "Golf is a game for a lifetime. Imagine the enjoyment of a boy or girl learning the game on a much shorter course and being able to reach par-4 holes in two shots; or the thrill of an older player making pars and birdies after being on the brink of giving up the game because the course was too long. Installing forward tees to create a proportional challenge is not difficult and may be a great way to not only retain golfers but also recruit new ones."

> >

> >

> > dave

>

> Bob Dylan helps us with this: ". . . then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'."

>

> It all comes down to this: would we rather have a higher par number for seniors to enjoy, or a unified system where Stableford and Match vs. Par competitors can compete equitably from all tees.

>

> We are, I am, used to consistent par numbers between tees. But that's not all there is to consider.

 

SG, I can see how changing par makes mixed competitions harder to manage. How does it help?

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks for that. A quick check of Rule 5.7 seems to bring up the answer:

>

> _A newly-determined Low Handicap Index is considered in the processing of the player's next acceptable score whenever the next round is submitted._

>

 

Interesting - thanks Newby and Colin. Yet another change (that is not really a big deal one way or the other, IMHO).

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

> > > > >

> > > > > This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

> > > > >

> > > > > I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

> > > >

> > > > One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

> > > >

> > > > I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

> > > >

> > > > (Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

> > >

> > > The following is a quote from the USGA at https://www.usga.org/course-care/forethegolfer/how-to-implement-forward-tees-at-your-course.html . It would seem that at the time this was written, preserving the 'par-ability' of holes for shorter hitting players was important.

> > >

> > > "Golf is a game for a lifetime. Imagine the enjoyment of a boy or girl learning the game on a much shorter course and being able to reach par-4 holes in two shots; or the thrill of an older player making pars and birdies after being on the brink of giving up the game because the course was too long. Installing forward tees to create a proportional challenge is not difficult and may be a great way to not only retain golfers but also recruit new ones."

> > >

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Bob Dylan helps us with this: ". . . then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'."

> >

> > It all comes down to this: would we rather have a higher par number for seniors to enjoy, or a unified system where Stableford and Match vs. Par competitors can compete equitably from all tees.

> >

> > We are, I am, used to consistent par numbers between tees. But that's not all there is to consider.

>

> SG, I can see how changing par makes mixed competitions harder to manage. How does it help?

>

> dave

 

On the occasions when I play Stableford, I play a modified form in which scores below net par get an exponential increase in points. Net birdie is viable a goal. If I get to play a 430 yard par 5, I've got an unreasonably high chance to get a net bird or eagle. When competing with another player who is playing from a legitimate par 5 distance, say 530, all other things being equal I think I have an unfair advantage.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm the last to see this, but this link arrived in this morning's email.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks. I saw it earlier but didn't think to post a link.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > BTW, I believe that the 'Updating a Handicap Index' is wrong. It says that if you don't post a score then there is no need for an update, so none will be done. But there is the chance that your hard or soft cap timeframe will expire, so your index can change without a new round being posted. Not a big deal, but kind of careless.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > BTW. when I made the observation above - the way I did it implies that I feel this is a low quality document. That is not the case.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is something interesting that I just saw. There is the statement "It will be important that par values are accurate. And this will be emphasized to clubs by the Allied Golf Associations" (where in the US the Allied Golf Associations are the bodies doing the course rating work).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This could be a move get each set of tees to have independent par's (which they do not have in most cases in the US). To me this would also require that they have independent Stroke Indexes (which they also do not have).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I found the wording interesting. And the rating process has all the data required to generate a rational Stroke Index for each hole for each tee (for each gender). FWIW, to me where 'it is important that par values are accurate' is in determining NDB and scoring Stableford (at least in every case that I have ever seen).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ps. One (of several) common responses to the question "when should I move up a set of tees" is something like "when you are hitting too many long clubs into par 4's". Maybe if all those 430 yard par 5's turn into par 4's, the short hitters playing those tees will have incentive to move back -:)

> > > > >

> > > > > One should move up when one needs to be closer to the hole, not when one one doesn't like the stated par! (Or, perhaps more precisely, when one wants a lower score.)

> > > > >

> > > > > I find the emotions around this fascinating. I believe I'm beginning to take great pride in accepting my limitations!

> > > > >

> > > > > (Though it does occur to me that everyone over 60 who runs a 100-yard dash should only be timed for the first 80 yards. I want to keep that low number from my youth. After all, some of us are OLD!)

> > > >

> > > > The following is a quote from the USGA at https://www.usga.org/course-care/forethegolfer/how-to-implement-forward-tees-at-your-course.html . It would seem that at the time this was written, preserving the 'par-ability' of holes for shorter hitting players was important.

> > > >

> > > > "Golf is a game for a lifetime. Imagine the enjoyment of a boy or girl learning the game on a much shorter course and being able to reach par-4 holes in two shots; or the thrill of an older player making pars and birdies after being on the brink of giving up the game because the course was too long. Installing forward tees to create a proportional challenge is not difficult and may be a great way to not only retain golfers but also recruit new ones."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > Bob Dylan helps us with this: ". . . then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'."

> > >

> > > It all comes down to this: would we rather have a higher par number for seniors to enjoy, or a unified system where Stableford and Match vs. Par competitors can compete equitably from all tees.

> > >

> > > We are, I am, used to consistent par numbers between tees. But that's not all there is to consider.

> >

> > SG, I can see how changing par makes mixed competitions harder to manage. How does it help?

> >

> > dave

>

> On the occasions when I play Stableford, I play a modified form in which scores below net par get an exponential increase in points. Net birdie is viable a goal. If I get to play a 430 yard par 5, I've got an unreasonably high chance to get a net bird or eagle. When competing with another player who is playing from a legitimate par 5 distance, say 530, all other things being equal I think I have an unfair advantage.

 

SG, I understand your perspective. I would say that 100 yards on a hole is going to be really tough to overcome. And when you face that kind of thing on one hole (where the entire delta between tees is probably only around 500), you are pretty much screwed on that hole unless you get lucky an cross a par boundary (as opposed to something like 435/340 yards on a par 4). And one of those tees is invariably going to be misallocated for that hole in the stroke table unless there is a unique one for each tee.

 

And keep in mind that your shorter tee opponent, because of the par change, is going to get a stroke on another hole that he would not have stroked on without the change. Hard to know in advance what exactly that means.

 

But I was thinking in terms of more traditional Stableford competitions and I can see how this could be helpful in what you described. I have often played in accelerated kind of things and on one occasion it was 1 for net bogey, 2 par, 4 birdie, 8 eagle, and we didn't even specify net double eagle. I holed out a 4i on a par 4 stroke hole. They gave me 16 points for that which I think doubled my points for the back 9.

 

dave

[sui generis]

I'd sell all of my stock in companies that make their living selling paper scorecards. The 2019 Rules set us up for phone-based scoring. WHS 2020 suggests more of the same. (However, when I spoke with our Head Professional last week about WHS 2020 and suggested he hold off buying scorecards, he said that he'd just ordered 10,000.)