The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Please supply "the words of someone in charge of this stuff today." Who is this someone? What refutation did they give? Where can we see that refutation?

I already supplied the words. And it's someone at a high enough level within the golf organizations, someone who has been working on the WHS for years.

Nearly all of Dean's entire issue seems to resolve around the idea that "par" being included completely screws things up, but the number could be 100 or 50 and it wouldn't matter - the math remains the same and is just a way of "baking in" the issue of playing from separate tees. Using par is common sense here.

Garland, you've offered nothing but bad math in this discussion and blind backing of Dean Knuth to this discussion. The folks at the USGA and R&A and other organizations around the world are doing their best and what they think is good for the game of golf. The WHS makes small changes the U.S. handicapping system:

• Replace ESC with net double bogey.
• Take 8/20 instead of 10/20 * 0.96
• Add the daily correction for scoring conditions with daily updates to your index
• "Bake in" the play from different tees.

None of those are what I see as a big deal, and the last one of them makes sense.

If you're a 14 index, and you're playing from tees that have a rating of 66.2/119 but a par of 72, you should shoot "around" 80 (66+14) on your good days, not 86 (72+14). And you should give up about four shots to someone who is also a 14 index playing the 70.3/124 tees.

[Niall C]

I have to say that reading all that maths (and I'm good at maths) just reinforces my initial view that adopting this system world wide is madness.  How can anything this complicated be good?

The formula junk doesn't make any difference because its the same everywhere.  Where the difference lies in how scores are reported.  I don't see any material difference to what was happening last year.  In the US it is extremely easy to cheat or be very lax for any non-competitive scores which are used for handicapping purposes. In the UK, this is far harder to do.  Why ther authorities feel it is important to attempt combining several very different cultures where golf is concerned is beyond me.  There will still be carping about X, Y & Z handicaps because that is what golfers do. The system will never be totally trusted because it is not totally trust-worthy. 

The one aspect of the new system I really like is it will be more dynamic, reflecting more accurately how one is playing recently.  In the UK, it simply takes far too long for handicaps to reflect current play, especially poor play.  Often times, there are good reasons why scores are going up and why they are unlikely come down in the short run.

Ciao

Sean


Re the time it takes for handicaps to move significantly in the UK, I actually tend to see this as a plus rather than a minus. Players can go through a spell of what is good or bad golf for them and their handicap will only move marginally ie. 0.2 or perhaps 1 or 2 shots depending on what there handicap is in the first place. That reflects there form as well as there ability. It is only when they play that way over a prolonged period that there handicap changes materially and this can be done by review. That reflects a change in ability (ie. old age, injuries etc). At least that is the way I see it. To change handicaps more radically because someone has had a couple of good or bad rounds more often than not won't reflect the players ability.


Niall

[Niall C]

All very interesting, I applaud the idea of a universal system, frankly I would stand little chance competing fairly in the UK under the old system. I’ll be eager to see how this shakes out. In the current system I have been getting 13 shots at my local course as a 12.2. I suspect my index will drop by 2 when we only count your 8 best scores and my course index will drop by another 2 when we us 72-70.2. I suspect I’ll be playing off 9 come 1-6!

Pete


I think you are right that you wouldn't be competing fairly in the UK based on your US handicap. Based on the 4 or 5 BUDA's I've attended you would have a distinct advantage.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

Are there a lot of people involved in gambling games where participants are playing from different tees?

[Sean_A]

I have to say that reading all that maths (and I'm good at maths) just reinforces my initial view that adopting this system world wide is madness.  How can anything this complicated be good?

The formula junk doesn't make any difference because its the same everywhere.  Where the difference lies in how scores are reported.  I don't see any material difference to what was happening last year.  In the US it is extremely easy to cheat or be very lax for any non-competitive scores which are used for handicapping purposes. In the UK, this is far harder to do.  Why ther authorities feel it is important to attempt combining several very different cultures where golf is concerned is beyond me.  There will still be carping about X, Y & Z handicaps because that is what golfers do. The system will never be totally trusted because it is not totally trust-worthy. 

The one aspect of the new system I really like is it will be more dynamic, reflecting more accurately how one is playing recently.  In the UK, it simply takes far too long for handicaps to reflect current play, especially poor play.  Often times, there are good reasons why scores are going up and why they are unlikely come down in the short run.

Ciao

Sean


Re the time it takes for handicaps to move significantly in the UK, I actually tend to see this as a plus rather than a minus. Players can go through a spell of what is good or bad golf for them and their handicap will only move marginally ie. 0.2 or perhaps 1 or 2 shots depending on what there handicap is in the first place. That reflects there form as well as there ability. It is only when they play that way over a prolonged period that there handicap changes materially and this can be done by review. That reflects a change in ability (ie. old age, injuries etc). At least that is the way I see it. To change handicaps more radically because someone has had a couple of good or bad rounds more often than not won't reflect the players ability.

Niall

We will have to agree to disagree. I would prefer handicaps to lean more toward recent weeks/months rather than scores from the previous year etc. Of course, for the system to be dynamic lots of scores need to be posted. For those guys who basically post enough scores just to maintain a cap it usually won't make much difference either way in the short term. However, if it takes 3 or 4 years to cycle through 20 scores it can make a huge difference.

Ciao

[Rob Marshall]

Please supply "the words of someone in charge of this stuff today." Who is this someone? What refutation did they give? Where can we see that refutation?

I already supplied the words. And it's someone at a high enough level within the golf organizations, someone who has been working on the WHS for years.

Nearly all of Dean's entire issue seems to resolve around the idea that "par" being included completely screws things up, but the number could be 100 or 50 and it wouldn't matter - the math remains the same and is just a way of "baking in" the issue of playing from separate tees. Using par is common sense here.

Garland, you've offered nothing but bad math in this discussion and blind backing of Dean Knuth to this discussion. The folks at the USGA and R&A and other organizations around the world are doing their best and what they think is good for the game of golf. The WHS makes small changes the U.S. handicapping system:

• Replace ESC with net double bogey.
• Take 8/20 instead of 10/20 * 0.96
• Add the daily correction for scoring conditions with daily updates to your index
• "Bake in" the play from different tees.

None of those are what I see as a big deal, and the last one of them makes sense.

If you're a 14 index, and you're playing from tees that have a rating of 66.2/119 but a par of 72, you should shoot "around" 80 (66+14) on your good days, not 86 (72+14). And you should give up about four shots to someone who is also a 14 index playing the 70.3/124 tees.

Who is the person and what organization are they part of? Are we talking about the organization that said you could no longer post a score you played alone but they allow you to sit at your computer and post anything you want. You're not trusted to play alone but you don't need any verification to post a score. Very logical. Do you have a handicap?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who is the person and what organization are they part of? Are we talking about the organization that said you could no longer post a score you played alone but they allow you to sit at your computer and post anything you want. You're not trusted to play alone but you don't need any verification to post a score. Very logical. Do you have a handicap?

A US golf association. If I was going to share her or his name I would have by now.

And just making up scores from a computer is a bullshit argument because you could just as easily post solo rounds. Both are in violation of the rules. It’s not about trust, either.


If you’re still salty about not counting solo rounds, move on. That was 2016.

[Rob Marshall]

Who is the person and what organization are they part of? Are we talking about the organization that said you could no longer post a score you played alone but they allow you to sit at your computer and post anything you want. You're not trusted to play alone but you don't need any verification to post a score. Very logical. Do you have a handicap?

A US golf association.

And just making up scores from a computer is a bullshit argument because you could just as easily post solo rounds. Both are in violation of the rules. It’s not about trust, either.

A US golf association? So is it the USGA, RDGA, EDGA, AJGA.....or is it just you? Is the secret association going to post a rebuttal to Dean?


Please explain to me the USGA's  logic that I can't post a round I play by myself but I can sit at a computer an post anything I want? Isn't the basic fundamental of golf honor and integrity?


Do you have a handicap?

[Michael Whitaker]

Please explain to me the USGA's  logic that I can't post a round I play by myself but I can sit at a computer an post anything I want? Isn't the basic fundamental of golf honor and integrity?

Rob - I think the idea is if you post a score from a round you played by yourself there is no one to “verify” your score. If you can only post scores that have been observed by others then there is opportunity for “peer review”... in other words, there is the possibility of someone checking behind you that the posted score was accurate. If you post a fake score at the computer there is no one to verify the score, therefore it is obviously bogus.


But, as several have already said... if someone wants to cheat there is no way to stop them, within any system.

[Rob Marshall]

Please explain to me the USGA's  logic that I can't post a round I play by myself but I can sit at a computer an post anything I want? Isn't the basic fundamental of golf honor and integrity?

Rob - I think the idea is if you post a score from a round you played by yourself there is no one to “verify” your score. If you can only post scores that have been observed by others then there is opportunity for “peer review”... in other words, there is the possibility of someone checking behind you that the posted score was accurate. If you post a fake score at the computer there is no one to verify the score, therefore it is obviously bogus.


But, as several have already said... if someone wants to cheat there is no way to stop them, within any system.

I understand Mike, But the point is there is no verification process. What that says to me is the USGA doesn't trust me to post a score when I played alone but they trust me to post a score when I played with 3 random players I've never met before who have no idea what I even shot. It makes to sense.


The only club I've ever seen that had a verification process was Champions in Texas. I had a buddy who was a member many years ago when we used to write our score in a book and then the club sent it out to calculate the handicaps. At Champions you turned in a signed scorecard and the club took it from there. Jackie Burke was pretty old school.

[Daryl David]

Are there a lot of people involved in gambling games where participants are playing from different tees?

For me, it is every money game. The 3 gambling games I play in have guys playing from at least 3 different tees. That’s what happens when you play with golfers that range in age from 27 to 81. If they passed a rule that everyone was required to play the same set of tees, the games would disappear.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No it’s not me. It was a quote and I’m not going to share the person’s name because it wasn’t shared in that manner. Trust it or don’t - I don’t really care. But you haven’t actually said anything to defend the Knuth article, and you’re offering nothing here except to bitch about the change from 2016. Posting made up scores from a computer is not legal either, and clubs are required to have review process. If you want to be dishonest you still can. The club should have a committee to catch that, though many are lax there.

I’m happy to discuss the 2020 changes. I’ll not further discuss four year old changes. Get in your time machine if you want to do that, right after you give thanks it’s not just competitive scores or rounds played with fellow players.

[Garland Bayley]

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

In the words of someone in charge of this stuff today: "That article has many flaws. He’s wrong."

Please supply "the words of someone in charge of this stuff today." Who is this someone? What refutation did they give? Where can we see that refutation?

I already supplied the words. And it's someone at a high enough level within the golf organizations, someone who has been working on the WHS for years.

I have to assume that the quoted statement you supplied in the first quote from your postings are the "already supplied word" of the second quote from you postings.

In which case, your blind allegiance to such an indefensible statement is very telling. Especially since you also are hiding the source of the statement.

I still challenge you to provide one statement from Dr. Knuth's article and demonstrate what is wrong with it. I have seen you post lots of data that supports what he wrote, and then make questionable claims that it refutes what he wrote.

As far as the new handicap system is concerned, I see a positive. in the past when players shot net par, they would say they shot their handicap, and I would explain to them that the had to shoot net course rating to have shot their handicap. The new system makes the handicap do what most people thought it was doing before, so it now conforms to what they think it should do.

[Rob Marshall]

No it’s not me. It was a quote and I’m not going to share the person’s name because it wasn’t shared in that manner. Trust it or don’t - I don’t really care. But you haven’t actually said anything to defend the Knuth article, and you’re offering nothing here except to bitch about the change from 2016. Posting made up scores from a computer is not legal either, and clubs are required to have review process. If you want to be dishonest you still can. The club should have a committee to catch that, though many are lax there.

I’m happy to discuss the 2020 changes. I’ll not further discuss four year old changes. Get in your time machine if you want to do that, right after you give thanks it’s not just competitive scores or rounds played with fellow players.

I find it ironic that as an expert of all things golf you don't even have a handicap. [size=78%] [/size]

[Sean_A]

Please explain to me the USGA's  logic that I can't post a round I play by myself but I can sit at a computer an post anything I want? Isn't the basic fundamental of golf honor and integrity?

Rob - I think the idea is if you post a score from a round you played by yourself there is no one to “verify” your score. If you can only post scores that have been observed by others then there is opportunity for “peer review”... in other words, there is the possibility of someone checking behind you that the posted score was accurate. If you post a fake score at the computer there is no one to verify the score, therefore it is obviously bogus.


But, as several have already said... if someone wants to cheat there is no way to stop them, within any system.

I understand Mike, But the point is there is no verification process. What that says to me is the USGA doesn't trust me to post a score when I played alone but they trust me to post a score when I played with 3 random players I've never met before who have no idea what I even shot. It makes to sense.


The only club I've ever seen that had a verification process was Champions in Texas. I had a buddy who was a member many years ago when we used to write our score in a book and then the club sent it out to calculate the handicaps. At Champions you turned in a signed scorecard and the club took it from there. Jackie Burke was pretty old school.

Well sure. So far as I an concerned, attesting a score means someone else keeping your score and signing the scorecard as correct. It is based on this premise that solo rounds should not be counted for handicapping purposes. To date, nobody has come close to explaining why this isn't or shouldn't be the proper procedure. Attesting a score is a basic tenet of competitive golf, which is of course what rounds used for handicapping are.

So far as I am concerned, there is little point to a world system in which there are different ways to record scores and different scores used depending on one where one lives.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don’t enter net events. I’m a PGA pro. Most of us don’t have handicaps.

I am the chair of my eClub and I’m on my association’s handicap committee.

I’ll respond more later if you actually have anything to respond to. Garland, the article has been refuted. Par simply bakes in the different tees stuff. The differentials are still the same.

Sean, this is a step closer. The systems are all much closer than they were last year (when they adopt the WHS as some are delayed a bit).

[Sean_A]

Eric

I suspect you are right in that the new system is a process which actually started wih banning solo rounds a few years ago.  That said, I am struggling to figure out how the disparate golf cultures are gonna come together with a true single system without losing the integrity built in by proper attesting which relies heavily on competitive golf.  The USGA carries a ton of weight and I don't trust them to do the right thing. They are very much against bifurcation, but at the same time don't seem to have an issue with bifurcated systems of posting scores.  I gotta believe the USGA will in the main campaign for what US golfers want, rather than what is good for the game.

Ciao 

[Rob Marshall]

I don’t enter net events. I’m a PGA pro. Most of us don’t have handicaps.

I am the chair of my eClub and I’m on my association’s handicap committee.

I’ll respond more later if you actually have anything to respond to. Garland, the article has been refuted. Par simply bakes in the different tees stuff. The differentials are still the same.

Sean, this is a step closer. The systems are all much closer than they were last year (when they adopt the WHS as some are delayed a bit).

I have been very fortunate to work with some great PGA pros. The pros at my club all have handicaps. I asked you the question 3 times and got no answer.


You don't seem to play in scratch events either. At least in your section. I did fine 1 score.

I've asked you multiple times for your sources organization. Don't want to say his name? fine. What's the organization? Can't see any harm in that.

[Rob Marshall]

This may have been discussed earlier in this thread but you need to post your scores hole by hole? My cities association is telling us we need to post every hole.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I suspect you are right in that the new system is a process which actually started wih banning solo rounds a few years ago.

That's why they banned solo rounds. In preparation for the WHS.

That said, I am struggling to figure out how the disparate golf cultures are gonna come together with a true single system without losing the integrity built in by proper attesting which relies heavily on competitive golf. The USGA carries a ton of weight and I don't trust them to do the right thing. They are very much against bifurcation, but at the same time don't seem to have an issue with bifurcated systems of posting scores.  I gotta believe the USGA will in the main campaign for what US golfers want, rather than what is good for the game.

I think the way I view it is again that it's a step in the right direction. We're significantly closer now (or when all regions adopt the WHS) than we were before, with TRULY and VERY disparate systems. This was a step, and not the final step. And since the other systems often had "competitive rounds only" rules, the USGA may be the one that has to move to at least "attested scorecards by fellow players." Right now, technically, if you play nine holes with your two-year-old child it can be posted as it wasn't a solo round.

I have been very fortunate to work with some great PGA pros. The pros at my club all have handicaps. I asked you the question 3 times and got no answer.

I ignored your question because it was irrelevant. Good for them. Most PGA pros don't keep a handicap. I'll have one in 2020 as I'm the chair of my eClub. It'll be just under (over?) a +1.

I've asked you multiple times for your sources organization. Don't want to say his name? fine. What's the organization? Can't see any harm in that.

The name of the actual person continues to be irrelevant. I shared what someone else in a position to administer this stuff had to say about the Dean Knuth article. Take it for what it's worth. If you value the worth at zilch, I don't really care. It's the opinion of someone with skin in the game.

This may have been discussed earlier in this thread but you need to post your scores hole by hole? My cities association is telling us we need to post every hole.

They would prefer that you do (they always have), because that'll take care of Net Double Bogey for you, but no, you can still post a total score. I'm hoping the new GHIN app will make that a bit tougher and lead people to posting HBH (the data from that will be helpful to clubs in determining Stroke Indexes for the holes), but I will find out on the 6th with others.



And, if someone has something serious they think Dean Knuth has said, I'm happy to refute it. His main beef seems to be with the addition of par, which I've shown is irrelevant, as your actual differentials will still be calculated the same as they have been, and the only reason they use par (which could have been any number, but par is a common sense number for reasons I've already given about the 14 shooting about 80 and not 86) is to "bake in" the course handicap from different tees… because they have different course ratings in addition to slightly different slopes.

[Carl Johnson]

Are there a lot of people involved in gambling games where participants are playing from different tees?

For me, it is every money game. The 3 gambling games I play in have guys playing from at least 3 different tees. That’s what happens when you play with golfers that range in age from 27 to 81. If they passed a rule that everyone was required to play the same set of tees, the games would disappear.

Very similar situation for me.  Various ages and abilities.  But where max you can win or lose averages about five bucks, I'm not sure if that's "gambling" or simply the price of admission to the game.


I like the new rule (HCs geared to nominal par) because most guys I play with (believe it or not) cannot understand the former ratings differential adjustment you had to make when different tees were played.  Now they can just play their handicap and be happy about it.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik, and an anonymous source have labeled Dr. Knuth's article in Golf Digest as wrong and having errors. So I think it would be instructive to examine the article in detail. Why do it on this website? Because Dr. Knuth supports his reasoning with reasoning of Tom Doak. Why do it on this thread? Because this thread asks if the new system is "Good", and Dr. Knuth suggests it falls short of optimal.

In his first paragraph, he points out that par is unnecessary for a handicap system. I hope there are no USGA members that would take issue with that.

In the next bit, he gives the two different course handicap formulas, and points out that the one using par has some usefulness for countries posting Stableford points instead of medal scores for handicap purposes, as Stableford points are derived from hole pars.

The crux of the matter comes down to the next paragraph where he points out that course rating is a far more accurate measure of course difficulty, and notes that others, including Tom Doak, have adopted an "Abandon Par" ideology. Then comes the crux, "calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system."

In the next paragraph he correctly points out that the new formula produces a wide range of course handicaps for a player as he moves from the set of tees at one end of the spectrum to the set of tees at the other end of the spectrum. He calls this an "imperfect “over-spreading” of the course handicaps." My interpretation of this is that you are now adjusting to an imperfect measurement of the difficulty of the hole, par. Other interpretations are possible. He concludes the paragraph by accurately noting that from longer tees you will get more strokes, probably pleasing you, and that from shorter tees you will get less strokes, probably displeasing you.

The next paragraph gives the results of calculations he has done based on a large sample of courses in Southern California. I am confident that he would get those calculations correct. And, no one can challenge them unless they can show a large sample across a large variation is golf course difficulty that calculates to a different result.

In the next paragraph, he points out that when the course rating differs by .5 from from the par, half of the players will get their course handicap changed while the other half will not. Can anyone challenge that? I think not.

In the next paragraph, he points out that the USGA says the new system is "more intuitive". As I posted earlier, I find this to be a benefit, because unknowing players think the old handicap adjusts to par, not course rating, and I have to correct them. But, is this justification for changing?

In the next paragraph he writes, "Golfers competing from more forward tees will be receiving fewer strokes than is truly equitable." This is what I will have to study more to satisfy myself either way.

The next USGA argument given in the next paragraph is the old system required a handicap adjustment for players playing from different tees. IMO Dr. Knuth adequately counters this argument. However, I think the USGA's argument is now specious. The USGA now requires you go to the computer every time you play to get your handicap. All they needed to do is have the software to tell you the adjustment for competing from different tees if you need it when you are there on the computer.

I will post this much now and get back to the rest of his article when I have my next block of time.

[Scott Warren]

I have a question, Erik.


In Australia, we have been using the average of the best 8/20 x 0.93 to determine handicap index.


From all I have read on here and elsewhere, I expected this would just become the average of 8/20 when WHS began and that turning that index into a course handicap would be a case of index x (slope/113) + (rating-par).


However, the Golf Australia website says that the 0.93 multiplier simply moves from within the index calculation to within the course handicap calculation.


Is this inconsistent with what is being implemented in the US, or am I missing something?


https://www.golf.org.au/whs/
(See parts 12 & 13, partially reproduced below)


[size=0.75rem][/size][/color]The 0.93 Multiplier will be transferred out of the GA Handicap calculation and into the Daily Handicap calculation. Note: Our statisticians confirm this change will have no overall impact on the handicaps players actually play off (ie Daily Handicaps). This is because the slight increase it will cause to GA Handicaps (by being removed from that formula), will be exactly the same as the decrease it will cause to Daily Handicaps (by being transferred into this formula). As a result there will be no overall impact. [See Item 13 for the full new Daily Handicap formula and for an example of the calculation.][/size][/color][/size][size=inherit][/size][size=1.25rem]So what is the actual change?[/size][size=1rem][/color]The Daily Handicap formula will include an adjustment when the Scratch Rating is different to the Par. For example: Scratch Rating 73, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will increase by 3* (ie 73 - 70 = +3); Scratch Rating 68, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will decrease by 2* (ie 68 - 70 = -2). Note: *the Daily Handicap calculation usually produces a number with multiple decimal places, which is then rounded to a whole number; in some cases the rounding will soften the impact of the adjustment by 1.[/size][size=1.25rem]Do you need to remember how all of this is done?[/size][size=1rem][/color]No! Because it will all be done for you by the computers and the Daily Handicap Look-up Charts.[/size][size=1.25rem][/size][size=1rem][/color]New Daily Handicap formula = (GA Handicap x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Scratch Rating minus Par)) x 0.93.[/size][size=1rem]

[Pete_Pittock]

If you insist on posting rounds  where you played as a single go right ahead.  Just hire a caddie.

[Rob Marshall]

You don't need a caddie, you can just have your kid or wife walk with you. Dumbest thing ever. Game of honor and integrity right?