"Net Double Bogey" How stupid is this?

[davep043]

The only reason, in my opinion, for including the (CR-Par) term in in the course handicap is to influence both Stableford scoring and the Net Double hole score limit.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, but how much does that tiny adder really affect net double in practice? Most people aren’t playing 74+ rated tees?

Or for that matter it shouldn’t affect Stableford scores? Everyone gets affected the same provided the tees are all moved up or back equally?

[davep043]

I'd say its reasonably common in my area to play par-72 courses with a Course Rating of 70 or 71, lower when playing from "senior" tees. The effect on posted scores would likely be small, I agree, but its "more correct" to think of your Course Handicap as getting your "good" score to about net par.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

True, it’s not that hard to track either.

Truthfully, I’ve always depended upon my club to track everything and the GHIN app to track my handicap.

Learned a lot about the handicap system in these discussions.

 

Thanks Dave!

[HatsForBats]

I am preparing my 'You were, likely inadvertently, getting unwarranted extra strokes on your opponents for years. At this course it was likely 2 strokes for 9 holes and 4 strokes for 18 which is a big advantage. Just be thankful they can't go back and properly apply the correct strokes for all these past years. At least now everyone will, relatively, be getting the proper amount of strokes in every competition' speech.

[Newby]

'net par' is a useless measure.

As I've posted before with extreme figure to make the point.

18 x 300 yard par 4s = Par 72 CR 66ish

18 x 425 yard par 4s = Par 72 CR 76ish

[DaveLeeNC]

Net Par used to be useless. Now (in the US) it means that you shot your handicap (which actually is a useful measure of something).

dave

[davep043]

I understand, and I agree to a large extent. Yet even after all this time, I know lots of players who think their handicap should get them to par on their good days, they have no idea that Course Rating is the more appropriate goal. This will be easier to understand, in addition to being more appropriate for the Net Double Bogey calculation.

[Newby]

No it doesn't. Why do you think the Score Differential calculation (used to calculate your Handicap Index) makes no mention of Par.

You shoot your handicap when your net score is equal to the CR.

Taking my two courses above, does a scratch player shoot his handicap if he goes round in 72 on both?

[Shilgy]

That's exactly what everyone is saying. Yes, under the 2019 US system (and perhaps yours) you "shot your handicap"when you played to the course rating with your strokes. Part of three problem is that so many thought they played to their handicap when they played to par with their strokes. So now, in 2020, we adust the days course handicap with CR-par. The same score as in 2019 will produce a "shot my handicap" round but it will be easier for many to understand.

 

[Newby]

But their scoring record in the 8/20 stakes will ignore the CR-Par.

[DaveLeeNC]

You shoot your index when Score = CR + CH is how it worked before 2020 (in the US).

Now your CH is not the same as it was before, so (obviously) this will no longer work (except for the case where CR = Par). The CR - Par adjustment to your CH moves your target score from CR TO par (after STROKES are subtracted). And to answer your question "Taking my two courses above, does a scratch player shoot his handicap if he goes round in 72 on both?" - definitely NO (assuming a rational slope for both courses).

Regarding your question of "But their scoring record in the 8/20 stakes will ignore the CR-Par", I don't know what 8/20 stakes are, but the calculations regarding differentials are unaffected by Par, just like in 2019. And as I understand things, in the US during the cutover the USGA will be back-calculating 2019 differentials (and indexes) to the new 8 best of 20 standards as historical indexes matter when "Limits of Upward Movement" are applied.

dave

 

[Shilgy]

If I am reading your post correctly the low index portion is incorrect. It will NOT track prior to Jan1 2020. Everyone starts with a clean slate and your starting 2020 index is the lowest it is tracking.

[DaveLeeNC]

Someone on this forum reported a response from the USGA in a training session saying they were going to back calculate for 2019. But that is all I know. I would be curious as to where you got your information. In many way starting from scratch would seem to be the better option, as you can't really properly back calculate for 2019 as you don't have 2018, etc.

dave

[Shilgy]

My assertion is based on what I was told at the WHS seminar I attended that was put on by the Arizona Golf Association. They stated the low index for upward movement would not be taken from prior to Jan 1 2020.

 

ps and yes, I passed the quiz.

[DaveLeeNC]

@Shilgy - thanks for the updated (and apparently sound) info. dave

[davep043]

I was told the same thing. Your 2019 scores will be used to determine your January 6 handicap index, but the low index baseline for upward movement would start with that Jan 6 index. And my memory on that might be wrong, it might not start until you have posted 20 scores under the new rules. Either way, your 2019 index history won't be used.

[nsxguy]

"EG have not made any formal statement but as I have said in this or another thread, I understand that in England, the evidence from all of our courses being rated in the last two years is that par and CR are the same virtually all the time, so there will be no noticeable difference in handicap indices. You may have noticed the current system only makes adjustments for competition result purposes not for determining the differential. The manual is only concerned with handicapping calculations not competition results.When multiple tees are in use, those playing from tees with higher CR must receive additional strokes equal to the difference in CRs."

I'm probably missing something here but CR and Par are SELDOM the same. Maybe close enough from a certain single set of tees but certainly not very close from other sets of tees on that same hole.

Yes, adding strokes from different sets of tees DOES makes adjustments for competitive purposes and NOT H.I., BUT the addition of (CR-PAR) automatically adjusts for different tees sets - you don't have to "add additional strokes equal to the difference in CRs".

"I can't see why, if CR is the objective measure of difficulty, Par which tells us nothing about difficulty, has to be introduced. The object of the exercise is to get a handicap index which is measured against Rating and Slope - no mention of Par."

CH has nothing to do with calculating your handicap differential for that round.

 

 

However, your response has triggered something else to be thought about if some associations ADD (CR-PAR) and others do not.

Player 1 is playing from the senior tees, PAR is 71, CR=67, Player 2 is playing from the men's tees, PAR is 71, CR=71

Player 1 is 12 (after HI*slope/113).

Player 2 is 5. (also "after" of course)

Player 1 gets 7 shots from Player 2 BEFORE adjusting for different tees. The adjustment is 4 shots (71 CR - 67 CR). So 4 shots are deducted from the difference and Player 1 correctly gets 3 shots instead of 7.

Now, do you take 4 shots (71-67) away from Player 1 or add 4 shots to Player 2 ? Result is the same 3 shots, no ?

If the former, Player 1 now has a CH of 8 & Player 2 is 5, difference of 3, and NDB comes into play on 8 holes for Player 1 and 5 holes for Player 2.

BUT if the latter, Player 1 now has a CH of 12 & Player 2 is 9, same difference of 3, and NDB comes into play on 9 holes for Player 2 and 12 holes for Player 1.

So how can the same round have a different number of holes where the player gets handicap strokes to calculate NDB ? THIS would seem to be a problem.

If however, you USE the (CR-PAR) you have no such arbitrary determination. In 2019, in the U.S., it didn't matter whether we added to the player playing from the longer tees or subtracted from the player playing the shorter tees because ESC didn't care. But NOW, using NDB, it becomes an "issue".

So using (CR-PAR) with the CH formula returns

Player 1 is 12. (CR-PAR is -4), CH is 8 - NDB on 8 holes

Player 2 is 5. (CR-PAR is 0), CH is 5 - NDB on 5 holes.

[nsxguy]

I totally respect the diligence you put into math matters but it seems you are indicating that, in the past years, Bladehunter was giving LESS shots than he should have. You may recall that in the past Blade has complained about 'baggers and said he never beats a 10 'capper.

Blade gave all the numbers earlier in this thread and I made the calcs and determined that Blade was giving not too few but TOO MANY shots in the past. Instead of giving this one particular guy 9 shots, the difference in their course handicaps BEFORE adjustment for different tee sets, he should've only given him 4. i.e. he was giving the guy 5 extra shots.

Here's my post. If I've made a mistake please let me know where I went wrong.

TIA https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/19275668#Comment_19275668

[DaveLeeNC]

The biggest difference that I see in including (or not) the CR-Par adjustment is in max hole scores. Take a course of Par 72, rated at 69, slope of 122. Here in the US a 10 index golfer will get 11 - 3 = 8 strokes. So there will be 8 holes where his max posting score is par +3 and 10 holes where his max is par + 2.

Take the identical course (same rating, slope, SI's) in England and let another 10 index golfer play it, his CH will be 11. So there are 11 holes where he can post par + 3 and 7 holes where he can post only par +2.

Not a huge deal, but very surprising to me given that this is a 'single system'.

dave

[Colin L]

What does it matter that on a course in the USA your CH includes CR-Par while on a course in A CONGU country it doesn't? If it is included, it is for competition purposes only and applies equally to all players in that competition. In terms of calculating your Handicap Index, its only impact is on the net double bogey on certain holes. Any resulting difference between Handicap Indexes calculated with and without CR_Par is minimal, amounting to the odd decimal point. It's not a big deal.

[DaveLeeNC]

@Colin L I didn't say that I cared. I said that I was surprised. And just like unplayable lies, I am the sole judge of whether or not I am surprised
dave

[Colin L]

I don't think I said anything about your caring about it, but I am surprised that you are surprised.

[nsxguy]

The problem is, the course handicap is NOT "for competition purposes only" as it can affect the score posted because of NDB.

A player playing the senior tees, CR 66, Par 71

A UK player who gets 10 strokes, since he's NOT using the CR-PAR formula, gets 10 holes in which to post a TRIPLE bogey.

A USA player who gets 10 strokes BEFORE any CR-PAR gets 5 holes in which to post a TRIPLE bogey.

Do you believe that is insignificant ?

[Colin L]

I understand from the WHS technical side that the effect on handicap indexes is minimal. But any effect is bound to be exaggerated by the practice of having one par for different sets of tees resulting in an increasing discrepancy between Course Rating and Par as the course shortens. Even if we were moving over to using CR-Par here, the difference at my own club between the Standard Scratch Score (which is the future Course Rating rounded up or down) and Par for the men's three courses is 0, 1 and 1. That is because we have assessed the par for each set of tees individually. Each is a discrete course, after all. To me, it's just so obvious to do this and I've had a job getting my head round what I've learned about other parts of the world where a one size fits all Par is used for courses differing considerably in length. And, if I've got this right, no separate Par for women?

The WHS Rules recommend there be a separate Par for each set of tees/course and for men and women. Where that is done, the differences in CR and Par will be small and consistent. To me it is arguably unreasonable to find fault with a system if not all the components of the system are put into place.

[Deceptively Short]

We have (a golf club in England) 3 sets of tees that are rated for men. They are 6400 cr 72, 6000 cr 70 and 5700 cr 68 - the par is 70 on all three and the measurements hole by hole are correct for all 3 tees to be par 70. We are by no means unusual.

If we used cr-par in the calculation there would be 4 holes where I would get a shot playing from the longest tees where I wouldn’t get one playing off the shortest. Is this what CONGU considered insignificant in ndb calculation?

[Newby]

"I'm probably missing something here but CR and Par are SELDOM the same. Maybe close enough from a certain single set of tees but certainly not very close from other sets of tees on that same hole."

As Colin says "The WHS Rules recommend there be a separate Par for each set of tees/course and for men and women." This is already the norm over here.

 

The statement I included When multiple tees are in use, those playing from tees with higher CR must receive additional strokes equal to the difference in CRs." related to stroke play. There is a similar one for stableford. But they are recommendations for competition results only.

[Colin L]

Where the matching holes on each course are within the recommended parameters, it's perfectly ok to have the same pars. Some of the US examples quoted previously resulted, for example, in par 5s which are well below the recommended minimum length and large differences between Par and CR. To clarify, what I hope I said was minimal were the differences in the outcomes of adopting CR-Par or not, that is in the effect on handicap indexes. That being said, if we were adopting CR-Par and had the same set-up, I think I would be looking at the possibility of lowering the par of the shortest course. Then I'd be shouted down because of all the money we invested in smart tee signs and how there's no way we're changing them now and we'd just get on with our golf.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I'm not buying that pitch and neither is Knuth.

[DaveLeeNC]

Colin, your comment is based on the incorrect assumption that 'proper par' addresses this. It will reduce this effect in some cases, but there are plenty of courses in the US where the rated par is 'proper' from the middle tees and the CR from the TIPS is 4-5 strokes higher.

dave