New World Handicap System

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"sui generis" said:

> 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.)

 

Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

[sui generis]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > 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.)

>

> Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

 

Someone else will have one. It's the future . . . all of my club's events are live-scored on Golf Genius.

[rogolf]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > 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.)

>

> Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

 

I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

[ThinkingPlus]

> @rogolf said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > 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.)

> >

> > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

>

> I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

 

Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

[Sawgrass]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > 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.)

> >

> > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

>

> Someone else will have one. It's the future . . . all of my club's events are live-scored on Golf Genius.

 

We’ll be using GG in all events next year.

 

I expect it will be a dagger to the heart of a ‘bagger.

[Augster]

> @dwboston said:

> 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?

>

>

 

You got it right. Tough course.

 

The reason for the change, I believe, is simply so people know when they “shot their handicap”. Last year if you shot 82, as an “8”, that’s a net 74 and you’d think you didn’t shoot your cap. This year, when you shoot 82, as a 10, your net will be 72 and you will have shot your cap.

 

As explained in the literature Sui posted, you should only “shoot your cap” one in five rounds according to the USGA. If guys you are playing with are shooting net pads or better every day, they are likely sandbaggers.

 

On the flip side, on an easy course like mine where the CR-par will be a -2 and I’ll go from a 7 to a 5 (par 71), I’ll “shoot my cap” when I shoot a 76. Last year if I shot 76, as a “7”, my net would be a 69 and nearly everyone that doesn’t understand the handicap system will call you a sandbagger if you shoot net par or better. With the CR-par addition, there should be less bellyaching.

 

My take at least.

 

 

[dwboston]

> @Augster said:

> > @dwboston said:

> > 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?

> >

> >

>

> You got it right. Tough course.

>

> The reason for the change, I believe, is simply so people know when they “shot their handicap”. Last year if you shot 82, as an “8”, that’s a net 74 and you’d think you didn’t shoot your cap. This year, when you shoot 82, as a 10, your net will be 72 and you will have shot your cap.

>

> As explained in the literature Sui posted, you should only “shoot your cap” one in five rounds according to the USGA. If guys you are playing with are shooting net pads or better every day, they are likely sandbaggers.

>

> On the flip side, on an easy course like mine where the CR-par will be a -2 and I’ll go from a 7 to a 5 (par 71), I’ll “shoot my cap” when I shoot a 76. Last year if I shot 76, as a “7”, my net would be a 69 and nearly everyone that doesn’t understand the handicap system will call you a sandbagger if you shoot net par or better. With the CR-par addition, there should be less bellyaching.

>

> My take at least.

>

>

 

Got it - thanks!

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"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

 

You're welcome. I posted just after Newby without knowing he had done so. My "thanks for that" was to you and Sawgrass for your take on the situation and for raising a matter I'd not come across that needed thinking about.

 

 

[dwboston]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > 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.)

> > >

> > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> >

> > Someone else will have one. It's the future . . . all of my club's events are live-scored on Golf Genius.

>

> We’ll be using GG in all events next year.

>

> I expect it will be a dagger to the heart of a ‘bagger.

 

Speaking of GG, our course is using the accumulated GG data from tournaments to re-do the handicap values assigned to each hole. Our pro mentioned that the USGA recommends that the lowest handicap holes be those where the spread of scores between scratch golfers and bogey golfers are the highest. It's going to have an interesting effect, as a hole that at first glance doesn't seem overly difficult (a 500 yard slightly uphill par-5 with no penalty areas and OB that require really poor shots way right off the tee or way long over the green) becomes the number one handicap hole based on the scoring spread - apparently it's close to 1.5 shots between the scratch and bogey golfers for that hole.

 

There's a few other similar examples that he mentioned where it seems odd at first glance (the absolute hardest hole on the course, a 435 yard uphill par-4 which is the number 2 handicap hole today, will likely get a higher hole handicap value, since it's hard for everyone) but makes sense when you think about it - the relative difficulty of the hole (between golfers of different abilities) is what drives the handicap value for the hole. We'll see what effect it has on matches next year.

[sui generis]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > 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.)

> > >

> > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> >

> > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

>

> Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

 

It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

[Sawgrass]

> @dwboston said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > 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.)

> > > >

> > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > >

> > > Someone else will have one. It's the future . . . all of my club's events are live-scored on Golf Genius.

> >

> > We’ll be using GG in all events next year.

> >

> > I expect it will be a dagger to the heart of a ‘bagger.

>

> Speaking of GG, our course is using the accumulated GG data from tournaments to re-do the handicap values assigned to each hole. Our pro mentioned that the USGA recommends that the lowest handicap holes be those where the spread of scores between scratch golfers and bogey golfers are the highest. It's going to have an interesting effect, as a hole that at first glance doesn't seem overly difficult (a 500 yard slightly uphill par-5 with no penalty areas and OB that require really poor shots way right off the tee or way long over the green) becomes the number one handicap hole based on the scoring spread - apparently it's close to 1.5 shots between the scratch and bogey golfers for that hole.

>

> There's a few other similar examples that he mentioned where it seems odd at first glance (the absolute hardest hole on the course, a 435 yard uphill par-4 which is the number 2 handicap hole today, will likely get a higher hole handicap value, since it's hard for everyone) but makes sense when you think about it - the relative difficulty of the hole (between golfers of different abilities) is what drives the handicap value for the hole. We'll see what effect it has on matches next year.

 

If you're in the US, you might want to be aware that I've been told by my Allied Golf Association that they are capable of using the course's rating data to establish handicap allocation holes for you. It's a different system than was used in the scratch vs. bogey method. I hope to get to look into that this year.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @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

 

SG, I have had second thoughts on this. In the specific situation that you mentioned, this par change is helpful regarding equity. But this is a quite unusual case in my experience. More typical will be the 475 to 500 yard par 5 which will be come a 420 to 445 yard par 4. On one of the courses that I play regularly this will happen to all 3 of the par 5's.

 

To me for the general case of Stableford scoring the 'best stroke allocation' is one that makes a net par a good, but not exception score given normal play. This par change will do 2 things.

 

1) It will create par 4's that are totally out of character for the course/tees being played. I have never heard of anyone saying that they changed tees because the par 5's were too long. I am sure there is someone/somewhere but I have never encountered that vs. complaints about par 4's.

 

2) Unless there are stroke index per tee changes, these holes which should be stroke index 1/2/3 in most cases (for Stableford purposes - not match play), will be misallocated.

 

I think that over-all this will make the equity issue worse. A per tee stroke allocation change (they have all the data already) changes this picture, but will make Stableford scoring less popular among the older crowd, IMHO. It will suddenly make less sense than it does now.

 

Today's thinking (such as it is).

 

dave

 

ps. I have moved up mostly because that is where everybody that I play with has gone. Where I play the middle tees are still playable to me, but if there is a change some of the former par 5's will no longer reachable in regulation by me from the forward tees. And I still wonder what problem is being solved here. Surely it isn't the case of 'accelerated Stablefords on holes where there are HUGE yardage delta's between forward and middle tees'.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @dwboston said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > 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.)

> > > >

> > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > >

> > > Someone else will have one. It's the future . . . all of my club's events are live-scored on Golf Genius.

> >

> > We’ll be using GG in all events next year.

> >

> > I expect it will be a dagger to the heart of a ‘bagger.

>

> Speaking of GG, our course is using the accumulated GG data from tournaments to re-do the handicap values assigned to each hole. Our pro mentioned that the USGA recommends that the lowest handicap holes be those where the spread of scores between scratch golfers and bogey golfers are the highest. It's going to have an interesting effect, as a hole that at first glance doesn't seem overly difficult (a 500 yard slightly uphill par-5 with no penalty areas and OB that require really poor shots way right off the tee or way long over the green) becomes the number one handicap hole based on the scoring spread - apparently it's close to 1.5 shots between the scratch and bogey golfers for that hole.

>

> There's a few other similar examples that he mentioned where it seems odd at first glance (the absolute hardest hole on the course, a 435 yard uphill par-4 which is the number 2 handicap hole today, will likely get a higher hole handicap value, since it's hard for everyone) but makes sense when you think about it - the relative difficulty of the hole (between golfers of different abilities) is what drives the handicap value for the hole. We'll see what effect it has on matches next year.

 

In the old system there were 2 ways to do hole handicaps (relative difficulty and difficulty against par). Both were valid (and generated different results). With NDB being now part of the handicap system, you could argue that the relative difficulty method is less useful across the board (where your example is a perfect demonstration of that).

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > 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.)

> > > >

> > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > >

> > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> >

> > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

>

> It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

 

Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

 

I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

 

As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> > @"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'

 

This is an interesting comment, Newby. Could you elaborate how this would work for cases like

 

1) Concessions in match play (maybe match play scores are not posted - I can understand that position)

 

2) Stableford where your Playing Handicap is lower than your Course Handicap and you pick up a 7 footer that cannot affect your Stableford score but NDB vs Net Bogey is still in play (miss vs. make the 7 footer).

 

Thanks.

 

dave

[sui generis]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > 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.)

> > > > >

> > > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > > >

> > > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> > >

> > > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

> >

> > It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

>

> Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

>

> I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

>

> As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

 

I'd suggest that the question isn't "will it happen" but how soon will it happen. These days scorecards cost about 6 cents apiece. A course that buys 20,000 a year will weigh their cost against some subscription fee to Golf Genius. (Golf Genius is quite easy. Even the old men at my club have taken it upon themselves to figure it out.)

[HatsForBats]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @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

>

> More typical will be the 475 to 500 yard par 5 which will be come a 420 to 445 yard par 4. On one of the courses that I play regularly this will happen to all 3 of the par 5's.

 

If they are the most forward tees then it could be that some of them would still be par 5's. Also, I think a course has some leeway to change the distance if the association deems it a par 4 rather than a par 5?

 

 

 

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > 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.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > > > >

> > > > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> > > >

> > > > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

> > >

> > > It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

> >

> > Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

> >

> > I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

> >

> > As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

>

> I'd suggest that the question isn't "will it happen" but how soon will it happen. These days scorecards cost about 6 cents apiece. A course that buys 20,000 a year will weigh their cost against some subscription fee to Golf Genius. (Golf Genius is quite easy. Even the old men at my club have taken it upon themselves to figure it out.)

 

My understanding is that Golf Genius is free for the courses but I don't own a course so...

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"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'

>

> This is an interesting comment, Newby. Could you elaborate how this would work for cases like

>

> 1) Concessions in match play (maybe match play scores are not posted - I can understand that position)

>

> 2) Stableford where your Playing Handicap is lower than your Course Handicap and you pick up a 7 footer that cannot affect your Stableford score but NDB vs Net Bogey is still in play (miss vs. make the 7 footer).

>

> Thanks.

>

> dave

 

Of the CONGU countries England, Scotland and Wales will not be accepting scores from match play - at least for the moment and not for a long time I hope. Ireland will. (Which means incidentally if any of the rest of us compete in a match play competition in Ireland we will have to return a score, but that's a different story).

 

The answer to both a) and b) is that whenever you do not hole out a hole which you have started, your score for handicapping purposes is a Net Double Bogey. NDB is Par + 2 + any handicap strokes you get at the hole in question. You will get the number of strokes determined by your Playing Handicap distributed according to the Stroke Index/Handicap Hole. Your Course Handicap will not come into the equation whether it is greater or less than your Playing Handicap.

 

That's how I understand the WHS rules.

 

(Wasn't this conversation held earlier in the thread?)

[sui generis]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > > 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.)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> > > > >

> > > > > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

> > > >

> > > > It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

> > >

> > > Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

> > >

> > > I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

> > >

> > > As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

> >

> > I'd suggest that the question isn't "will it happen" but how soon will it happen. These days scorecards cost about 6 cents apiece. A course that buys 20,000 a year will weigh their cost against some subscription fee to Golf Genius. (Golf Genius is quite easy. Even the old men at my club have taken it upon themselves to figure it out.)

>

> My understanding is that Golf Genius is free for the courses but I don't own a course so...

 

Could be, Hats. However, down the road they might offer some level of service beyond live scoring.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @"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'

> >

> > This is an interesting comment, Newby. Could you elaborate how this would work for cases like

> >

> > 1) Concessions in match play (maybe match play scores are not posted - I can understand that position)

> >

> > 2) Stableford where your Playing Handicap is lower than your Course Handicap and you pick up a 7 footer that cannot affect your Stableford score but NDB vs Net Bogey is still in play (miss vs. make the 7 footer).

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > dave

>

> Of the CONGU countries England, Scotland and Wales will not be accepting scores from match play - at least for the moment and not for a long time I hope. Ireland will. (Which means incidentally if any of the rest of us compete in a match play competition in Ireland we will have to return a score, but that's a different story).

>

> The answer to both a) and b) is that whenever you do not hole out a hole which you have started, your score for handicapping purposes is a Net Double Bogey. NDB is Par + 2 + any handicap strokes you get at the hole in question. You will get the number of strokes determined by your Playing Handicap distributed according to the Stroke Index/Handicap Hole. Your Course Handicap will not come into the equation whether it is greater or less than your Playing Handicap.

>

> That's how I understand the WHS rules.

>

> (Wasn't this conversation held earlier in the thread?)

 

Colin, maybe it is the way you described it where the 'strokes received in the competition' drives what NDB is. . Today if you have a CH of 5 and are playing in a competition where, for whatever reason, you receive 4 strokes, your max score on the stroke index =5 hole uses your CH, not what is now being called your Playing Handicap. But the referenced illustration seems to imply your interpretation of things.

 

I wonder how this works if you are playing in a scratch competition? You get no strokes so is your max score always par + 2?

 

FWIW, all this seems 'wrong' to me but maybe the convenience and simplicity over-rides the 'wrongness' (as I perceive it).

 

dave

 

ps. "Have we discussed this before in this thread"? Maybe we have but I don't think that we were thinking in the same way. You always said 'one definition for NDB' and I just did not understand how that could be the case given the CH=5 example that I just posed. At the time it never occurred to me that your max score on some holes would change just because you were playing some team event where handicap allocations were 50% (or scratch where it was zero).

[ThinkingPlus]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > @"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'

> > >

> > > This is an interesting comment, Newby. Could you elaborate how this would work for cases like

> > >

> > > 1) Concessions in match play (maybe match play scores are not posted - I can understand that position)

> > >

> > > 2) Stableford where your Playing Handicap is lower than your Course Handicap and you pick up a 7 footer that cannot affect your Stableford score but NDB vs Net Bogey is still in play (miss vs. make the 7 footer).

> > >

> > > Thanks.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Of the CONGU countries England, Scotland and Wales will not be accepting scores from match play - at least for the moment and not for a long time I hope. Ireland will. (Which means incidentally if any of the rest of us compete in a match play competition in Ireland we will have to return a score, but that's a different story).

> >

> > The answer to both a) and b) is that whenever you do not hole out a hole which you have started, your score for handicapping purposes is a Net Double Bogey. NDB is Par + 2 + any handicap strokes you get at the hole in question. You will get the number of strokes determined by your Playing Handicap distributed according to the Stroke Index/Handicap Hole. Your Course Handicap will not come into the equation whether it is greater or less than your Playing Handicap.

> >

> > That's how I understand the WHS rules.

> >

> > (Wasn't this conversation held earlier in the thread?)

>

> Colin, maybe it is the way you described it where the 'strokes received in the competition' drives what NDB is. That is different than in today's USGA system (where a CH of less than 10 also has a NDB rule, although that is not what they call it). Today if you have a CH of 5 and are playing in a competition where, for whatever reason, you receive 4 strokes, your max score on the stroke index =5 hole uses your CH, not what is now being called your Playing Handicap. But the referenced illustration seems to imply your interpretation of things.

>

> I wonder how this works if you are playing in a scratch competition? You get no strokes so is your max score always par + 2?

>

> FWIW, all this seems 'wrong' to me but maybe the convenience and simplicity over-rides the 'wrongness' (as I perceive it).

>

> dave

>

> ps. "Have we discussed this before in this thread"? Maybe we have but I don't think that we were thinking in the same way. You always said 'one definition for NDB' and I just did not understand how that could be the case given the CH=5 example that I just posed. At the time it never occurred to me that your max score on some holes would change just because you were playing some team event where handicap allocations were 50% (or scratch where it was zero).

 

ESC limits single digit course handicap players to gross double bogey not net double bogey, correct?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > @"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'

> > > >

> > > > This is an interesting comment, Newby. Could you elaborate how this would work for cases like

> > > >

> > > > 1) Concessions in match play (maybe match play scores are not posted - I can understand that position)

> > > >

> > > > 2) Stableford where your Playing Handicap is lower than your Course Handicap and you pick up a 7 footer that cannot affect your Stableford score but NDB vs Net Bogey is still in play (miss vs. make the 7 footer).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > Of the CONGU countries England, Scotland and Wales will not be accepting scores from match play - at least for the moment and not for a long time I hope. Ireland will. (Which means incidentally if any of the rest of us compete in a match play competition in Ireland we will have to return a score, but that's a different story).

> > >

> > > The answer to both a) and b) is that whenever you do not hole out a hole which you have started, your score for handicapping purposes is a Net Double Bogey. NDB is Par + 2 + any handicap strokes you get at the hole in question. You will get the number of strokes determined by your Playing Handicap distributed according to the Stroke Index/Handicap Hole. Your Course Handicap will not come into the equation whether it is greater or less than your Playing Handicap.

> > >

> > > That's how I understand the WHS rules.

> > >

> > > (Wasn't this conversation held earlier in the thread?)

> >

> > Colin, maybe it is the way you described it where the 'strokes received in the competition' drives what NDB is. That is different than in today's USGA system (where a CH of less than 10 also has a NDB rule, although that is not what they call it). Today if you have a CH of 5 and are playing in a competition where, for whatever reason, you receive 4 strokes, your max score on the stroke index =5 hole uses your CH, not what is now being called your Playing Handicap. But the referenced illustration seems to imply your interpretation of things.

> >

> > I wonder how this works if you are playing in a scratch competition? You get no strokes so is your max score always par + 2?

> >

> > FWIW, all this seems 'wrong' to me but maybe the convenience and simplicity over-rides the 'wrongness' (as I perceive it).

> >

> > dave

> >

> > ps. "Have we discussed this before in this thread"? Maybe we have but I don't think that we were thinking in the same way. You always said 'one definition for NDB' and I just did not understand how that could be the case given the CH=5 example that I just posed. At the time it never occurred to me that your max score on some holes would change just because you were playing some team event where handicap allocations were 50% (or scratch where it was zero).

>

> ESC limits single digit course handicap players to gross double bogey not net double bogey, correct?

 

Yes - my error. And it wasn't that long ago that this actually mattered when I posted :-)

 

THANKS

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > > > 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.)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

> > > >

> > > > I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

> > > >

> > > > As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

> > >

> > > I'd suggest that the question isn't "will it happen" but how soon will it happen. These days scorecards cost about 6 cents apiece. A course that buys 20,000 a year will weigh their cost against some subscription fee to Golf Genius. (Golf Genius is quite easy. Even the old men at my club have taken it upon themselves to figure it out.)

> >

> > My understanding is that Golf Genius is free for the courses but I don't own a course so...

>

> Could be, Hats. However, down the road they might offer some level of service beyond live scoring.

 

I get the sense you are already aware they do have services beyond live scoring but in case you dont -

[Newby]

Very impressive

[davep043]

> @"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

 

Following up on this, I see that there's now an advance copy of the Rules of Handicapping is available to read.

 

https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Rules%20of%20Handicapping_Preview.pdf

 

Judging by the list of authorized formats, this appears to be a USGA publication, but I can't see where that is specified.

[sui generis]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > 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.)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hard pass for me. I don't carry a cell phone on the course.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I carry mine, but don't have a data plan - it's a phone only. I wonder if golf courses will stop putting scorecards on their power carts, replacing them with phones? or maybe scoring can be done by the GPS systems in the carts that have them? or will members still want paper scorecards for their groups and league play? I don't see paper scorecards disappearing for some time, thankfully (as I was employed by a pulp and paper company).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cart GPS systems I have seen will keep score, but not really connected to any kind of database to transfer the scores. The software is generally pretty lame. Same for most mobile apps. It will be cost prohibitive for many places to go all electronic so paper will continue as standard for awhile longer I suspect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's foreseeable that within a few years we will have so much data to crunch that it won't fit on a small bit of folded cardboard. Many courses already have four or five or more tee locations, each may eventually have its own course rating and par. Then add two handicap indices, one for match play and another for stroke play, for each hole for each course, then double or triple that to accommodate women, men and children. Golf Genius will readily do all of this with one arm tied behind its back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, all of what you say above can happen. The real question is will it happen. Which courses are going to foot the bill for scoring tablets for each cart? Which courses will require a player to bring their cell phone to the course in order to keep score? Walkers would have to bring their own device since I doubt any course would hand out electronic scoring devices for daily use. A course is either investing in capital improvements with little chance for return or they risk loss of revenue because some folks won't come back and play again. No upside for the courses financially.

> > > > >

> > > > > I also don't expect courses to go through with rating and stroking every tee box for men and women. It has almost never been done for any course I have played over the years. In fact I soon learned that if I expected to play somewhere more than once then I should start keeping my own database of course rating/slope. In that way I would only have to do the math gymnastics once to get a rating/slope for the tees I played in order to post.

> > > > >

> > > > > As it has pretty much always been, all tees will be rated for the men and the 1 or 2 shortest tees will be rated for women. Men will have stroke holes set the same for all tee boxes (most likely the same for each tee box). They will likely choose stroke play emphasis to be most compliant with handicapping stroke play events. If the men's association plays a bunch of match play events they will probably get stroke holes with match play emphasis as well. The women will get stroke holes for "their" tees only with either match play or stroke play emphasis, but never both. I have serious doubts things are going to change much no matter what the RBs do. Just my 2 cents.

> > > >

> > > > I'd suggest that the question isn't "will it happen" but how soon will it happen. These days scorecards cost about 6 cents apiece. A course that buys 20,000 a year will weigh their cost against some subscription fee to Golf Genius. (Golf Genius is quite easy. Even the old men at my club have taken it upon themselves to figure it out.)

> > >

> > > My understanding is that Golf Genius is free for the courses but I don't own a course so...

> >

> > Could be, Hats. However, down the road they might offer some level of service beyond live scoring.

>

> I get the sense you are already aware they do have services beyond live scoring but in case you dont -

 

Thanks, Hats. Seems I'm only a year behind on this.

[Newby]

> @davep043 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

>

> Following up on this, I see that there's now an advance copy of the Rules of Handicapping is available to read.

>

> https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Rules%20of%20Handicapping_Preview.pdf

>

> Judging by the list of authorized formats, this appears to be a USGA publication, but I can't see where that is specified.

 

Very interesting. Almost but not quite the same as the CONGU draft but significantly more comprehensive with the inclusion of Interpretations and graphics.

 

Edit: I am going to be away for a few days but Colin might be able to highlight some of the variations.

[Roadking2003]

> @DaveLeeNC said:>

> 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.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, people reading this forum get a very bad (and incorrect) impression of American golfers.

[Newby]

Error