New World Handicap System

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Having read through the previous 8 pages of this thread, I've tried to indicate below how I think the new handicap calculations make it easier to compete from different tees:

(I apologize in advance for the length, but I've tried to be very clear)

 

**USGA example prior to 2020**

 

CR_x = Course Rating from tee_x = 68.8

SL_x = Slope Rating from tee_x = 129

CR_y = Course Rating from tee_y = 71.3

SL_y = Slope Rating from tee_y = 135

 

A_HI = Handicap Index for player_A = 8.7

A_CH_x = Course Handicap for player_A from tee_x = A_HI * (SL_x/113) = 8.7 * (129/113) = round(9.9) = 10

 

B_HI = Handicap Index for player_B = 4.5

B_CH_y = Course Handicap for player_B from tee_y = B_HI * (SL_y/113) = 4.5 * (135/113) = round(5.4) = 5

 

so, (A_CH_x) - (B_CH_y) = 5

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

 

**now assume player_A and player_B play a match,

with player_A playing from tee_x,

and player_B playing from tee_y**

 

now, because CR_x < CR_y , B_CH_y has to be adjusted (i.e., it's not simply (A_CH_x) - (B_CH_y) = 5):

 

B_CH_y = 5 + [(CR_y) - (CR_x)] = 5 + [71.3 - 68.8] = 5 + round(2.5) = 8

 

now (A_CH_x) - (B_CH_y) = 2 ,

that is, B_CH_y increases by 3 strokes (i.e., from 5 to 8) due to the increased difficulty of playing a match from tee_y against a competitor from tee_x.

 

Nothing new here, just trying to all be on the same page!

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

**now, let's see how things change in USGA 2020**

 

PR = 18-hole par rating = 72

 

A_CH = Course Handicap for player_A = A_HI * (SL_x/113) + (CR_x - PR) = 8.7 * (129/113) + (68.8 - 72) = round(6.7) = 7

B_CH = Course Handicap for player_B = B_HI * (SL_y/113) + (CR_y - PR) = 4.5 * (135/113) + (71.3 - 72) = round(4.7) = 5

 

note that (A_CH) - (C_CH) = 2 , so there is still a difference of 2 strokes between the competitor's handicaps from the different tees

 

**So, to summarize, the "advantage" of the 2020 USGA calculations seems to be that the adjustment for tee_x vs. tee_y is "baked into" the Playing Handicap number. Furthermore, the Course Handicap sets a player's "Target Score" as (Par + CH) rather than (CR + CH)**

 

 

[antip]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

 

>

>

> **So, to summarize, the "advantage" of the 2020 USGA calculations seems to be that the adjustment for tee_x vs. tee_y is "baked into" the Playing Handicap number.**

>

>

 

I think the reduction in the number of rounding excercises in 2020 is also an advantage.

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > > >

> > > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > > >

> > > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> > >

> > > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

> >

> > The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

> >

> > I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Regarding the thought that the referenced research means that the differing max score calculations between Congu and most of the rest of the world is unimportant.

>

> We have no idea what exactly the conclusion means. What data did they look at? What are the results at a more detailed level? In my experience high handicappers take ESC a couple times every round. And they are the ones likely to be playing holes where CR-Par is larger. What does this mean for them vs. the low handicapper? And what does "effect on handicapping is minimal " mean. What are the characteristics of golfers for whom this difference is not minimal.

>

> Just a statement that 'you said that they said it is minimal' is not going to make this issue go away.

>

> dave

>

>

 

I've passed on the information I have to hand (from a member of the technical committee of CONGU) that the WHS Research Group has found that the difference to Handicap Indices through using or not using the CR-Par adjustment is minimal, amounting to one or two decimal points.

 

I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > > > >

> > > > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > > > >

> > > > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> > > >

> > > > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

> > >

> > > The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

> > >

> > > I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Regarding the thought that the referenced research means that the differing max score calculations between Congu and most of the rest of the world is unimportant.

> >

> > We have no idea what exactly the conclusion means. What data did they look at? What are the results at a more detailed level? In my experience high handicappers take ESC a couple times every round. And they are the ones likely to be playing holes where CR-Par is larger. What does this mean for them vs. the low handicapper? And what does "effect on handicapping is minimal " mean. What are the characteristics of golfers for whom this difference is not minimal.

> >

> > Just a statement that 'you said that they said it is minimal' is not going to make this issue go away.

> >

> > dave

> >

> >

>

> I've passed on the information I have to hand (from a member of the technical committee of CONGU) that the WHS Research Group has found that the difference to Handicap Indices through using or not using the CR-Par adjustment is minimal, amounting to one or two decimal points.

>

> I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

 

Colin - there are two issues here and you have them confused.

 

1) The new CR-Par adjust WILL change CH by 3-5 strokes for those playing on courses where CR-Par is in the range of 3-5. This is an indisputable and proveable fact. And it will be the same for all golfers playing on such courses.

 

2) Handicap Indexes will be affectd by the CR-Par issue when calculating posted differentials. THIS IS DIFFERENT and almost certainly less than 3-5 strokes.

 

dave

[Halebopp]

> @"Colin L" said:

>

> I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

 

I was under the assumption that comment was about losing strokes from your playing/course handicap due to the CR-Par adjustment. Even so 4-5 strokes is a bit extreme though. From regular tees the CR is quite often 1-2 strokes less than par.

[Sawgrass]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> >

> > I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

>

> I was under the assumption that comment was about losing strokes from your playing/course handicap due to the CR-Par adjustment. Even so 4-5 strokes is a bit extreme though. From regular tees the CR is quite often 1-2 strokes less than par.

 

At my (typical, I think) muni, the difference between the gold (old man's) tee and the black (way back) tee is 4.7 rating strokes.

[Halebopp]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Halebopp said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > >

> > > I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

> >

> > I was under the assumption that comment was about losing strokes from your playing/course handicap due to the CR-Par adjustment. Even so 4-5 strokes is a bit extreme though. From regular tees the CR is quite often 1-2 strokes less than par.

>

> At my (typical, I think) muni, the difference between the gold (old man's) tee and the black (way back) tee is 4.7 rating strokes.

 

Certainly but that's a whole different issue. :) ( Comparing CR to Par vs. comparing different CRs)

[Newby]

Are you talking CR v Par or CR v CR?

What are the actual CRs and Pars.

[DaveLeeNC]

Regarding my buddies who won't like losing 3-5 strokes in CH, here are the releveant CR-Par #'s for the courses at our club. I play with a very old crowd where my DOB of 1949 makes me the youngest guy in the group (several are well into their 80's). We play the tees that are next in line behind the 'red tees'. The CR-Par #'s for these courses (on those tees) are

 

4.5, 4, 3.3, 3.7, 4.6, 3.5, 3.2, 4, 4.5

 

We tend to play four person team games, and nobody likes to score a net bogey or worse. There will be more of them soon -:)

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

> @Newby said:

> Are you talking CR v Par or CR v CR?

> What are the actual CRs and Pars.

 

Par is 72.

 

Black CR 72.0

 

Gold CR 67.3

 

So, as Dave suggests, at my course Gold players will lose 5 strokes in 2020 compared to today, perhaps impacting posted score adjustments on five holes.

[Deceptively Short]

Not just a US issue, my (UK CONGU) course par 70 white tees CR 71.6, blue tees 67.8 that’s a 3.8 shot differential.

[KevCarter]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Are you talking CR v Par or CR v CR?

> > What are the actual CRs and Pars.

>

> Par is 72.

>

> Black CR 72.0

>

> Gold CR 67.3

>

> So, as Dave suggests, at my course Gold players will lose 5 strokes in 2020 compared to today, perhaps impacting posted score adjustments on five holes.

 

Quick sampling of my club and 2 others in my area. Using index of 12.5 as a random number.

 

Hopefully using the correct formula: ROUND(( INDEX * SLOPE) / 113 + (RATING - PAR) ,0)

 

 

 

[Newby]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> Not just a US issue, my (UK CONGU) course par 70 white tees CR 71.6, blue tees 67.8 that’s a 3.8 shot differential.

 

Am I confused even more? I thought CONGU were not using the (CR-Par) formula.

[DaveLeeNC]

Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

 

dave

[KevCarter]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

>

> dave

 

That's all I was trying to show, the discussion I was interested in was how much the Course Handicap will change from tee to tee...

[KevCarter]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Turtlelkc, your chart demonstrates how CH will vary with the WHS as you change tees. It does not address the question of how much does CH change between the current USGA Handicap System and the WHS (in the US).

>

> dave

 

 

Here is a comparison using the same data. Using index of 12.5 as a random number

 

 

 

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > Not just a US issue, my (UK CONGU) course par 70 white tees CR 71.6, blue tees 67.8 that’s a 3.8 shot differential.

>

> Am I confused even more? I thought CONGU were not using the (CR-Par) formula.

 

It is just showing that the different way of calculating course handicap between CONGU and the other jurisdictions will have a great impact.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

By including the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment in the Course Handicap calculation, a player's "Target Score" in 2020 will simply be

(Par + Course Handicap) instead of (Course Rating + Course Handicap) prior to 2020.

 

After a round (at our par 72 course), most of my golfing buddies will say "cool, I shot my handicap today",

when their Score = (72 + Course Handicap). Prior to 2020, they're actually 3 strokes worse because their

Target Score = (Course Rating [68.8 from our Gold tees] + Course Handicap) . In 2020, their

Target Score = (72 + Course Handicap) will actually be correct.

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> > > > >

> > > > > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

> > > >

> > > > The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

> > > >

> > > > I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Regarding the thought that the referenced research means that the differing max score calculations between Congu and most of the rest of the world is unimportant.

> > >

> > > We have no idea what exactly the conclusion means. What data did they look at? What are the results at a more detailed level? In my experience high handicappers take ESC a couple times every round. And they are the ones likely to be playing holes where CR-Par is larger. What does this mean for them vs. the low handicapper? And what does "effect on handicapping is minimal " mean. What are the characteristics of golfers for whom this difference is not minimal.

> > >

> > > Just a statement that 'you said that they said it is minimal' is not going to make this issue go away.

> > >

> > > dave

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I've passed on the information I have to hand (from a member of the technical committee of CONGU) that the WHS Research Group has found that the difference to Handicap Indices through using or not using the CR-Par adjustment is minimal, amounting to one or two decimal points.

> >

> > I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

>

> Colin - there are two issues here and you have them confused.

>

> 1) The new CR-Par adjust WILL change CH by 3-5 strokes for those playing on courses where CR-Par is in the range of 3-5. This is an indisputable and proveable fact. And it will be the same for all golfers playing on such courses.

>

> 2) Handicap Indexes will be affectd by the CR-Par issue when calculating posted differentials. THIS IS DIFFERENT and almost certainly less than 3-5 strokes.

>

> dave

 

 

I don't have anything confused. I have been referring to the effect on Handicap Indices being minimal between areas using CR-Par and areas not using it. That is what matters for equity in handicapping worldwide. The effects in particular competitions are of no consequence since the same calculations will apply to all players.

 

I wonder if the concerns are to do with transitioning rather than long term?

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

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

> > > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > > @Sawgrass said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > dave

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

> > > > >

> > > > > The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regarding the thought that the referenced research means that the differing max score calculations between Congu and most of the rest of the world is unimportant.

> > > >

> > > > We have no idea what exactly the conclusion means. What data did they look at? What are the results at a more detailed level? In my experience high handicappers take ESC a couple times every round. And they are the ones likely to be playing holes where CR-Par is larger. What does this mean for them vs. the low handicapper? And what does "effect on handicapping is minimal " mean. What are the characteristics of golfers for whom this difference is not minimal.

> > > >

> > > > Just a statement that 'you said that they said it is minimal' is not going to make this issue go away.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I've passed on the information I have to hand (from a member of the technical committee of CONGU) that the WHS Research Group has found that the difference to Handicap Indices through using or not using the CR-Par adjustment is minimal, amounting to one or two decimal points.

> > >

> > > I leave members of the forum to decide which might be more dependable - the research arm of a joint R&A and USGA development or one golfer's experience and the dismayed belief of 4 of his mates who think (goodness knows why) that they are going to lose 4 or 5 strokes off their handicap.

> >

> > Colin - there are two issues here and you have them confused.

> >

> > 1) The new CR-Par adjust WILL change CH by 3-5 strokes for those playing on courses where CR-Par is in the range of 3-5. This is an indisputable and proveable fact. And it will be the same for all golfers playing on such courses.

> >

> > 2) Handicap Indexes will be affectd by the CR-Par issue when calculating posted differentials. THIS IS DIFFERENT and almost certainly less than 3-5 strokes.

> >

> > dave

>

>

> I don't have anything confused. I have been referring to the effect on Handicap Indices being minimal between areas using CR-Par and areas not using it. That is what matters for equity in handicapping worldwide. The effects in particular competitions are of no consequence since the same calculations will apply to all players.

>

> I wonder if the concerns are to do with transitioning rather than long term?

>

>

 

Handicap Equity may be the only thing that matters to you (and I can understand that position). It isn't the only thing that matters to my golf buddies (IMHO - maybe I am am wrong about their reaction). I was simply correcting your statement that my friends will not be experiencing a 3-5 stroke change in strokes received. They will. I never commented on possible changes to their handicap index.

 

For me I prefer the CR-Par adjustment, but it has nothing to do with equity.

 

dave

[KevCarter]

 

> @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> For me I prefer the CR-Par adjustment, but it has nothing to do with equity.

>

> dave

 

I agree Dave. I believe it will be much easier to administer events using multiple tees, and the handicap changes from tee to tee will be much easier for the participants to understand.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @turtlekc said:

>

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> >

> > For me I prefer the CR-Par adjustment, but it has nothing to do with equity.

> >

> > dave

>

> I agree Dave. I believe it will be much easier to administer events using multiple tees, and the handicap changes from tee to tee will be much easier for the participants to understand.

 

Not only that - now when someone says that Joe Sandbagger shot a net 7 under par, this will actually be a meaningful statement without further data or explanation!

 

dave

[HiTrajLoSpin]

To expand on my post #258, my buddies will probably be PO'd and/or have their egos bruised when they don't "shoot their handicap" as often with their revised 2020 Course Handicap.

 

Of course, in reality they'll be "shooting their handicap" at the same frequency as pre-2020, because they wrongly assumed then that their Target Score was based on Par instead of Course Rating.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> By including the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment in the Course Handicap calculation, a player's "Target Score" in 2020 will simply be

> (Par + Course Handicap) instead of (Course Rating + Course Handicap) prior to 2020.

>

> After a round (at our par 72 course), most of my golfing buddies will say "cool, I shot my handicap today",

> when their Score = (72 + Course Handicap). Prior to 2020, they're actually 3 strokes worse because their

> Target Score = (Course Rating [68.8 from our Gold tees] + Course Handicap) . In 2020, their

> Target Score = (72 + Course Handicap) will actually be correct.

 

To expand on this, my buddies will probably be PO'd and/or have their egos bruised when they don't "shoot their handicap" with their revised 2020 Course Handicap.

 

Of course, in reality they'll be "shooting their handicap" at the same frequency as pre-2020, because they wrongly assumed then that their Target Score was based on Par instead of Course Rating (see above).

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> By including the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment in the Course Handicap calculation, a player's "Target Score" in 2020 will simply be

> (Par + Course Handicap) instead of (Course Rating + Course Handicap) prior to 2020.

>

> After a round (at our par 72 course), most of my golfing buddies will say "cool, I shot my handicap today",

> when their Score = (72 + Course Handicap). Prior to 2020, they're actually 3 strokes worse because their

> Target Score = (Course Rating [68.8 from our Gold tees] + Course Handicap) . In 2020, their

> Target Score = (72 + Course Handicap) will actually be correct.

 

To expand on this, my buddies will probably be PO'd and/or have their egos bruised when they don't "shoot their handicap" with their revised 2020 Course Handicap.

 

Of course, in reality they'll be "shooting their handicap" at the same frequency as pre-2020, because they wrongly assumed then that their Target Score was based on Par instead of Course Rating (see above).

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Sorry about the multiple posts ... cockpit error :s

[Halebopp]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> Regarding my buddies who won't like losing 3-5 strokes in CH, here are the releveant CR-Par #'s for the courses at our club. I play with a very old crowd where my DOB of 1949 makes me the youngest guy in the group (several are well into their 80's). **We play the tees that are next in line behind the 'red tees'**. The CR-Par #'s for these courses (on those tees) are

>

> 4.5, 4, 3.3, 3.7, 4.6, 3.5, 3.2, 4, 4.5

>

> We tend to play four person team games, and nobody likes to score a net bogey or worse. There will be more of them soon -:)

>

> dave

 

That explains it. In that case the changes do get bigger.

[DaveLeeNC]

One other interesting aspect to this new system is that the Playing Conditions Adjustment would seem to be a way that a (possibly) mis-rated/sloped course will kind of naturally be adjusted by the data. If a give course/tee is rated too low, it will naturally get more frequent (upward) Playing Condition Adjustments than a course that is 'properly' rated. Or at least that is what I would expect.

 

dave

[KevCarter]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> One other interesting aspect to this new system is that the Playing Conditions Adjustment would seem to be a way that a (possibly) mis-rated/sloped course will kind of naturally be adjusted by the data. If a give course/tee is rated too low, it will naturally get more frequent (upward) Playing Condition Adjustments than a course that is 'properly' rated. Or at least that is what I would expect.

>

> dave

 

That's an interesting takeaway. It will be fun to see how it pans out. I will also be interesting to see if it's easy to find that data as we go...

[Halebopp]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> One other interesting aspect to this new system is that the Playing Conditions Adjustment would seem to be a way that a (possibly) mis-rated/sloped course will kind of naturally be adjusted by the data. If a give course/tee is rated too low, it will naturally get more frequent (upward) Playing Condition Adjustments than a course that is 'properly' rated. Or at least that is what I would expect.

>

> dave

 

Yes, the EGA uses the CBA system for tournaments, which serves the same purpose. As our handicaps are based on Stableford and our Course Handicaps already include the (CR-Par) adjustment, 36 points means playing to your handicap. The CBA can be +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 or -2RO, which means Reduction Only, no one's handicap will go up due to the competition. With a +2 you'd need to get 38 points to play to your handicap and at -2 34 points is enough because the conditions were supposedly difficult.

 

The more difficult course (where the ratings fail to quantify its actual difficulty) at our club is pretty much split with 33% of competitions being 0, 34% -1 and another 33% are -2 or -2RO. The average and median Stableford scores in competitions on that course are about 2 points less than on our other course and even 3-4 points behind some other courses I've had a look at. On our other course it's closer to 75% at 0 and 25% at -1.