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

[Pete Lavallee]

SL Solow,


Was any consideration given to lumping all tournament scores into one bucket and issuing a tournament handicap as well as a casual one? It seems so easy and senseable; Clubs would have the choice of which to use; I know which one my Clubs would pick as it would end their own calculations of tournament handicaps!

[SL_Solow]

Pete,  I am pretty sure it was considered, after all, the old U.S. system permitted denoting tournament scores with a "T".  I will talk to the individual I know well to see if I can obtain further intelligence.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The timeline isn't that complicated: when I posted at 10:02am, I hadn't read the article. The link was posted at 10:22am, and by the time of my next post (3:29pm), I had read it and discussed it with several others, too.

So even though he did not read the article before his mistaken calculation in his first post this year, by the time he began to make any responses to me on the matter he “had read it and discussed it with several others, too.”

I had five hours. Do you think it was impossible or even unlikely for me to read an article and discuss it with several others in five hours?

And my mistaken calculation was an error in forgetting that I'd changed the par on one of the tees to 71 in my example, it wasn't an error in understanding either the old or the new systems.

Note that my calculations above have shown that in the old system you get a handicap range from 20 to 22. But, in WHS the handicap varies from 17 to 26. Knuth clearly is correct in stating WHS gives vastly varying course handicaps. Having read and discussed Knuth’s article, Erik should clearly understand this.

I do understand it, and I think that's a GOOD thing about the WHS, not a problem. As I've said, for two reasons:

• It "bakes in" the difference in course rating the majority of the time players are competing from different tees.
• It affects NDB (replacing ESC) in a way I feel is better than the old way.

Someone playing a 66.3-rated set of tees, IMO, SHOULD have a much lower course handicap than someone playing the 73.4-rated tees, and in the old system, you'd often see one guy playing any set of tees with only a 1-2 shot difference from back to front. Now, he's likely guaranteed to be at ~7 shots difference.

“Less reliable” is what Erik should be concentrating on.

You've done nothing to show it's "less reliable," and I don't even think that word is being used properly, as the math we're using here is always reliable. Every time I plug the same numbers into the same formula, I get the same result. Very reliable.

If by saying "reliable" Dean meant "the same as in 2019," then duh, of course stuff has changed. That doesn't make it "bad," though. Dean should have chosen a better word than "reliable," IMO.

2019:
An 11.0 playing a par-72, 66.8/132 has a 13 CH. If he shoots a "net 72" (85), that's a differential of 15.6.

WHS:
An 11.0 playing the same course has an 8 CH. If he shoots a "net 72" (80), that's a differential of 11.3.

The latter makes a lot more sense to me. You may not like "par" but that's how "net" scores work, so the addition of par (as a means of further^ accounting for the course difficulty by adding the slope into the course handicap formula) makes the new formula more representative of what a golfer needs to do to achieve his handicap index as a differential.

^ I say "further accounting" because the old system of course used the slope, which is one measure of a golf course's difficulty, but slope is more about relative difficulty. A 74.3/133 course/tees is almost surely more difficult than a 71.8/134 course/tees, even though the latter has a higher slope value.

...
The "par" thing is just used to "bake in" playing from different tees, an adjustment you had to make before, too. (72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4

Could you explain this bit of random number generation you done here?

That just shows that the addition of par just "bakes in" the adjustment you previously had to do (but which was often forgotten) when competitors were playing from different tees.

NEITHER I, NOR DR. KNUTH ARE SAYING THE MATCH IS PLAYED FROM DIFFERENT TEES. THE MATCH IS BEING PLAYED FROM THE SAME TEES, AND 50% OF SUCH MATCHES WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT HANDICAP FOR THE PLAYERS THAN WHEN PAR WAS NOT USED IN THE CALCULATION.

You're going back to that again? It's a bogus argument, and I posted charts to show you why. 50% of the matches will have the same handicap, and 50% will be different. But of that 50%, the player will gain half of that time, and lose half of that time. It all depends on where, somewhat randomly, the two fall on the chart.

This is an example of a CHANGE that isn't necessarily "good" or "bad" but which you (and Dean) are sitting on as some of proof. Again, in reality, it's simply a "change" - and a change that balances out completely, because other folks will LOSE or GAIN if rather than adding 0.5 or 0.2, we SUBTRACT 0.5 or 0.2 because the course rating is LESS than the par

He has been asked twice to point out what is wrong with the Knuth article. But, instead of pointing out that his claims of “less reliable” are at fault, he continually harps on adjusting handicaps when playing different tees. It takes a lot of patience to try to get to the crux of the matter with Erik!

I've pointed out what's wrong with the Knuth article on a few occasions.

I felt like procrastinating, and I type rather quickly, so here you go.

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

First, let me just say, the title of the article is "The flaw in the new World Handicap System." The word "flaw" does not appear to have ever been used again. This muddies things from the outset. I think we can agree that Dean sees "the addition of par" as "the flaw," but he could have made this clearer. Instead, and especially toward the end, he talks about many little things.

But anyway…

Dean says "I believe the WHS is a downgrade from the old USGA system." I disagree with his opinion, but okay, it's just his opinion. He says "What was a straightforward and careful system has become something more complicated and less precise." So "more complicated" and "less precise." He refines that by saying "my biggest concern has to do with the introduction of what I'll call 'par handicap.' What is par handicap? Simply put, it's when par is used in the calculation that creates a golfer's playing/course handicap."

I disagree on both fronts: that this playing handicap is either more complicated OR less precise. I think it's less complicated and more precise.

Complicated:
How do golfers find out their course handicap? Most look on a piece of paper hanging in a pro shop or locker room or something. This procedure hasn't changed, so for those golfers, this new process is no more complicated than before. They go in, they look at their sheet of paper, and they say "oh, I'm a 13 from the whites."

Alternatively, golfers could visit a page like this one, type in the numbers, and get their course handicap. Yes, they have to enter in two more numbers: the course rating and par. This is mildly more complicated, but it's still just typing numbers in on your phone.

Is the math itself more complicated? Again, mildly so, sure. Rather than HI * Slope/113, it's now HI * Slope/113 + (CR-Par). Virtually nobody did this manually, so I'm not going to give a win to anyone here on the "more complicated" front. It's still just third-grade math.

And, again, the WHS simplifies things when players play from different tees. It simplifies things for golfers, for tournament directors, etc. by "baking in" the difference in playing from different tees. The math was still just third-grade math, but people often didn't know they even had to do it.

So, more complicated? I disagree, with details to follow. The math is ever so slightly more involved, but nobody ever really did the math manually anyway, and it greatly simplifies things for tournament directors, people wanting to play matches from different tees, and others. The average golfer will see almost no change: they'll see what their handicap is from the sets of tees they play and will go play golf, same as before. That the number will be different in 2020 does not make it more "complex."

Less Precise: I've said a few times in this topic that the WHS method is MORE precise because you round fewer times. It's also more precise because they've added the course rating to the calculation, which helps to match up the golfer's understanding of what it takes to shoot a "good" round (or a "bad" round) per his course handicap.

But that's getting ahead of myself a little bit, I suppose. I'm not even sure we'd agree on a definition for "precise" given that we're talking about what is ultimately a somewhat arbitrary measure of a player's ability level. Anyway, we'll get to this shortly.

Getting back to Dean… "Prior to the WHS, par was not a factor in the USGA system of course handicap calculation — nor need it have been." Well, the latter part is just an opinion, and while I liked the old way, I think the WHS is an upgrade here.

Dean then posts the old formula and then the new. Yeah, again, mildly more "complicated" because there's more third-grade math, but no more math if you're playing from different tees, and no more math for people (most everyone) who never manually did the math anyway.

"This par-based adjustment has been part of handicap systems in a handful of countries but for specific reasons." He goes on to mention Stableford, etc. and says "It made sense then that their formulas would include a step to add par to the equation." The thing is, again, I don't view the WHS method as "adding par" to the equation, but rather, about "adding the course rating" to the equation.

Consider in the old system, an 11.0 index would play to a 13 from tees rated 73.4/138… and to a 13 from tees rated 66.6/129. Despite playing a course with over 7 shots difference in the course rating, the 11.0 index gets the same course handicap and gets to post a maximum of 7 on ANY hole on the golf course, regardless of the hole he's playing or the tees from which he played that hole.

Under the WHS, assuming a par of 72, that 11.0 would have course handicaps of 15 or 7. The latter makes a HECK of a lot more sense to me. Why? Because of the addition of the course rating to the course handicap calculation.

Now, I don't think there was anything "wrong" with the previous system. This stuff is somewhat arbitrary in that we're creating a system to try to measure the ability of golfers. There's no inherent "truth" or "fact" that makes something right or wrong. It's all "devised." It's not a universal constant or a universal truth, or scientific law. It's something humans made up.

The course handicap change really has little to do with playing against someone else, but does affect the score you can post to your handicap. NDB replaces ESC, and while ESC allowed you to post a double, 7, 8… on any hole on the course, NDB limits you to net double bogey.

Also, under the old system, a 9 CH could make a max of a 5 on a par three, while a 10 CH could post a 7. Now, they likely both have to post a 5, and their max score will differ by only one stroke on one specific hole on the course, which is much more representative of the fact that they're only a stroke apart in their course handicap.

So, while Dean says the (paraphrasing) "par-based adjustment was used for specific reasons that made sense" in other countries, I think replacing ESC with NDB (and using the course rating in the calculation of the course handicap) "makes sense" within the WHS.

Dean, again: "What does not make sense, though, is applying the par adjustment throughout the rest of the world, in particular to the U.S., where it creates an assortment of issues. Let's start with the fact that par is hardly the most reliable measure of course difficulty (that would be course rating). Almost any golfer can list two courses that are both par 72s but vary greatly in how tough they play."

I feel like Dean falters here. Let's stick with whole numbers here for course rating just for simplicity. Dean is right that a 74.0/par-71 course is "more difficult" than a 69.0/par-72 course. But, under the 2019 system, if both had a slope of 130, then the course handicap for both players would be the same: an 11.0 index would get 13 strokes on both courses. Under the WHS, the 11.0 index gets 16 on the 74.0/71 and 10 on the 69.0/72. The 11.0 would get 15 if the 74.0/71 course was a par 72 - five more instead of six.

Why? Because the WHS adds par… and along with it, the course rating, which Dean says is "the most reliable measure of course difficulty."

So, what's Dean's beef here? Under the WHS, the same player gets more strokes on the course he says is "more difficult." Under the 2019 system, the player would get the same number of strokes on both courses. The former makes more sense to me and, having read his words, seemingly should make more sense to Dean as well.

Dean then talks about how Tom Doak has "advocated an 'Abandon Par' ideology, saying that it has become meaningless to tour pros and other golfers," but that's neither here nor there. First, we're not talking about average golfers, NOT tour pros, and second, this addition to the WHS is not really about par, but more about the course rating. This is the common theme throughout, if you want to stop reading now. Dean sees the WHS as "adding par," and I see it as "adding the course rating."

Besides, even the 2019 handicapping system used "par:" you had to know the hole's par to figure out the ESC for a 0-9 course handicap player as they could only take a maximum of "double bogey."

Dean goes on to say "calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system." Again, Dean's almost arguing against himself here. Par is used mainly to introduce the course rating while still producing "course handicaps" that "make sense."

A course's "difficulty" is ultimately comprised of two things: the slope and the rating. The old system used only one of those, the new system uses both.

I suspect that in trying to add the course rating to the WHS, the folks at the USGA recognized that they couldn't just throw a number like "73.4" in without producing some weird results (go ahead and try to figure out how to add 73.4 to "11.0 * 135/113" in a way that makes sense). Using the difference between the course rating and par keeps everything sane. This, again, makes more sense to me than two courses, with ratings of 74.0 and 69.0, giving an 11.0 the same 13 shots.

Dean again: "Where this issue becomes noticeable is how the new formula changes course handicap values from tee to tee as you compare the WHS to the USGA system at any course. Fore example, where once a course handicap was a 12 from the back and middle tees, and an 11 from the front, under the new WHS calculations there will be much larger variations — as many as 18 shots in some instances — between tees."

Uhmmm, yeah, as there should be. Dean's issue with this is… what? He doesn't say. That he doesn't like change? I don't know.

18 shots is sensationalistic. Let's take the 11 handicap guy again, and devise three tees where he is a 12 from the back and middle and 11 from the front (on a par-72 course):

Back: 73.4/127 = 12 CH
Middle: 72.0/119 = 12 CH
Front: 69.8/110 = 11 CH

Yep. Checks out. Under the WHS:

Back: 73.4/127 = 14 CH
Middle: 72.0/119 = 12 CH
Front: 69.8/110 = 9 CH

What's the problem here?

Instead of a change of one stroke from the back to the front tees, we see a five-shot difference. One stroke comes from the change in slope, because that part is unchanged from the 2019 method, and the other four come from the course rating. This makes sense… because the course rating is 3.6 strokes different. And no, this isn't one player playing against another, it's the same player getting more or less strokes when he plays a course that's 3.6 (and 17 slope) easier or harder than the other.

That example is a lot more like what we'll see in the world. How ridiculous would things have to get for an 11.0 index golfer to play a course with tees rated 18 shots different? Well, it'd look something like this, off the top of my head:

Back: 76.0/150
Front: 62.0/100

Let's see how close I got:
11.0 * 150/113 + 76 - 72 = 19 CH
11.0 * 100/113 + 62 - 72 = 0 CH

Okay, pretty close. 18 shots different? While I'm sure Dean may have found such a course, and while I'm sure they exist, an 11.0 index golfer would have to play tees rated nearly 14 shots different and/or nearly 50 points different on the slope to find a situation where they would get 18 shots different from one set of tees compared to the other.

Note: under the old system, this 11.0 would have gotten 15 and 10 strokes on each of these courses. If someone can tell me why an 11.0 should get 10 shots to play a par-72, 62.0-rated 100-slope course, I'll buy you a beer, because that doesn't make a lick of sense to me. The WHS math makes a helluva lot more sense IMO.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Dean continues with the sensationalistic: "… found a male golfer with a 14.1 Handicap Index … that has a range of course handicaps from 12 to 18 with an average course handicap of 15. Under the WHS, due to the par adjustment (emphasis mine), his range now varies from -1 to 22 with an average course handicap of 11.6, effectively giving him more than three shots less in the process."

Dean's being a bit misleading here in addition to continuing to be sensationalist by playing off the fear that this golfer "lost" something. To "lose" strokes it has to be "against" something, and it's not going to be against the way round differentials are calculated, because that equation remains unchanged.

So what has this golfer "lost" shots to? Compared to what (or whom)? Compared to the old system? So what? Again, if your argument is that something "changed," duh. That doesn't mean one or the other is "bad" or "good."

Second, again, I disagree with his use of the phrase "par adjustment," as the "par adjustment" brings with it the "course rating adjustment." Par from all of the tees is likely the same: probably 72. Par isn't what leads to a range of -1 to 22. The course rating is. And Dean's already on record in this article as saying the course rating is a good way to measure a course's difficulty.

Also, how goofy would a course have to be for a course handicap to vary from -1 to 22? For a 14.1, here's a scenario that gets it done (both par 72):

22: 14.1 * 148/113 + 75.6 - 72 = 22 CH
-1: 14.1 × 109/113 + 57.2 - 72 = -1 CH

That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense? This: under the 2019 system, that 14.1 would "get" 18 shots from the 75.6/148 tees… and still get 14 shots from the 57.2/109 tees. Tell me again how adding "the par adjustment" mucks things up and makes them less good?

Dean again: "As an aside: Scratch golfers are no longer 0 handicaps everywhere. They could be playing anywhere from a plus 12 to a 6 handicap." Uhmm, the only way a 0.0 index is going to have to give up 12 shots to the course is if they're playing a par-72 rated right around 60.0. Again, this makes sense to me, and it feels like Dean is relying on sensationalism to try to make a point.

Dean: "Players who play from the same set of tees at their club will see another inconsistency. Say your Course Rating is 70.5 and par is 71. The calculation of Course Rating minus Par comes out to -0.5. Based on the way Course handicaps are calculated, half the players will have their playing handicap drop one shot lower in the WHS but the other half will not; it all depends on how that -.5 impacts your course handicap number and whether you will get to round up or round down your final number. As we all know, one stroke often determines handicap-event outcomes."

This, as I've said a bunch of times, is simply how rounding works. Some players will lose, some will gain. I posted a chart, which I'll post again, to show why this is a silly point:




This chart shows how ANY adjustment — not just the 0.5 that Dean chose — will result in a shift to some number of people, but that the gains and losses balance out.

The numbers on the sides of the chart are basically golfer A (side) versus golfer B (top). You can replace the 12s with any number, because all we really care about here are the decimal values.

Along the side is the course handicap before rounding of Golfer A using the (HI * slope/113) portion of the course handicap calculation. In 2019, this was the whole calculation. The top is Golfer B, done the same way. The chart itself shows the relative change of A against B adding in the second part: the (CR - Par) part.

For example, in the 0.2 adjustment chart:
2019: A 12.3 (side, A) would be a 12 CH, and playing against a 12.2 (12 CH) would give up 0 shots.
WHS: A 12.3 (side, A) would be a 13 CH because the 0.2 adjustment makes them a 12.5, while the 12.2 bumps up only to a 12.4 and stays a 12 CH.

So, the 12.3 (A) vs. 12.2 (B) square gets a green +1, as player A gains a shot to player B from 2019 to 2020. In 2019, they played straight up, and in 2020, A gets a shot as a 13 against the 12 B.

If you look at 12.3 (A) vs. 12.8 (B) in the same chart, another green +1. Why? Because in 2019, A was a 12 and B was a 13. A had to give B a shot. In 2020 under the WHS, A is a 12.5 which becomes a 13, and B's 12.8 goes to 13.0, so they play straight up. A gained a shot on B again.

The chart works if we subtract 0.1 to 0.9 too:



Again:

Let's look at 12.3 (A) versus 12.8 (B) in the -0.8 chart:

A: 12.3 (12) -> 11.5 (12)
B: 12.8 (13) -> 12.0 (12)

A used to have to give B a stroke and now plays him straight up, so, a green "+1" in that square.

This is simply how rounding works. Since the distribution of handicap index decimal values is pretty much random, this stuff all balances itself out. It's sensationalistic to say "oh no you're all going to lose a shot to someone". The truth is: unless you have the same handicap index as your opponent, these rounding boundaries existed before, too.

Here's an example of a rounding boundary that existed before: A 12.3 played to a 12 course handicap with a slope from 106 to 114, and a 12.0 was a 12 CH from 109 to 117. So if a course had a slope of 109, they'd play straight up, but if the course was 108, the 12.3 would be getting a stroke from the 12.0… all because of just under a 0.9% difference in the slope.

In fact, let's take that a step farther and assume we have a +0.2 adjustment due to the par/course rating:

2019: 12.3 * 108/113 = 12 CH, 12.0 * 108/113 = 11 CH. B has to give A a stroke.
WHS: 12.3 * 108/113 + 0.2 = 12 CH, 12.0 * 108/113 + 0.2 12 CH. B and A play straight up.

So, there's a situation where the addition of the CR-Par has the player we care about gaining a stroke because of where the threshold happens to fall, whereas in 2019, that player didn't gain that stroke.

And again, these charts use 12, but they work for any sort of index, because the chart shows the net gain or loss of strokes from 2019 to 2020:



Those charts will match the same adjustment charts as above. The 4.2 (4 CH) playing the 12.5 (13 CH) becomes a 3.8 (4 CH) playing a 12.1 (12 CH) and, so, gains a stroke under the WHS.

Anyway, and again, this is just how rounding works, and because the distribution of both course ratings and handicap indexes are pretty much randomized - there exist roughly as many x.2s as every other decimal value, in both indexes and ratings), it balances out. A 12.3 playing against a 12.0 will lose a shot in some situations and gain it back in others. It all balances out, and neither system is inherently "right" or "wrong" - they just are. They're just the results of some simple math, and rounding.

Dean: "So why add the par adjustment?" Again, I think of it more as a "course rating adjustment." Dean calling it a "par adjustment" ignores HALF of the adjustment math, and the varying half at that. The one he has already said is a good measure of a course's difficulty.

Dean: "USGA officials argue that basing course handicaps around par is a more intuitive approach for players who don’t have an understanding of what Course Rating means. “Golfers have indeed found it difficult to disconnect par from the equation,” says John Bodenhamer, the USGA’s Senior Manager of Championships and the association’s senior representative on the World Handicap Committee. But to what end will it serve? Golfers competing from more forward tees will be receiving fewer strokes than is truly equitable."

Who is to say what is "equitable"? Equitable means treating like situations alike. What's "alike" about a 14.1 golfer getting 15 shots from tees rated 72.7/124 and getting the same 15 shots from tees rated 68.3/117? Yes, they're both getting 15 shots, but the courses aren't "alike," so that doesn't make sense. So long as all 14.1 golfers get the same number of shots when they play the same tees as each other, it's equitable. In 2020, the 14.1 would get 16 shots from the 72.7/124 tees and 11 shots from the tees rated 4.4 shots and 7 slope points "easier." That makes more sense and seems more "equitable" to me.

Dean mentioned how golfers were confused in the old system, and how the USGA is saying the new system is more intuitive. I agree with the USGA. Why?

That same golfer, getting 15 shots regardless of the tees, considers those shots to be "against par" (because they are). If he gets a bogey on a hole where he gets a stroke, he makes a "net par." Simple. So, let's have our 14.1 golfer shoot two rounds of net 72.

2019:
- 72.7/124 tees, Par 72, 15 CH: Golfer shoots 87, round differential is 13.0.
- 68.3/117 tees, Par 72, 15 CH: Golfer shoots 87, round differential is 19.7!

The golfer shot "net par" in both, and because the course rating - which Dean says is a "more accurate" measure of a course's difficulty (I agree) - he gets wildly different differentials. Compare that to 2020:

WHS:
- 72.7/124 tees, Par 72, 16 CH: Golfer shoots "net 72" which is 88, round differential is 13.6.
- 68.3/117 tees, Par 72, 11 CH: Golfer shoots "net 72" which is 83, round differential is 14.2.

BOTH of the WHS differentials (in which they are very close to the golfer's handicap index) make a lot more sense than the golfer shooting "net par" in 2019 and getting differentials that range from 13.0 to 19.7. If golfers "play to their course handicap," that's a simpler means of letting the golfer know whether they under-performed or out-performed their current handicap index. The inclusion of the course rating into the course handicap system allows this. It simplifies things, and makes more sense than the 2019 method.

To determine whether you shot better, worse, or about the same as your current index:
- In 2019, you had to know not only your course handicap, but the rating and the slope, as well as the formula.
- In 2020, you need to know only your course handicap and the par. MUCH simpler. MUCH more intuitive.

Chalk that one up as a win for the USGA.

Dean: "The other argument USGA officials make supporting the par handicap is that the switch eliminates the need in the old USGA system for an additional adjustment when two players are competing from different tees, something many tournaments and leagues neglected to apply. Replacing the misunderstood section is a good idea, so long as it can be done reliably. But that's not the case because in the WHS, when the pars of the two tees are different, the same correction must be applied to account for par difference."

This reeks of more sensationalism, because while Dean acknowledges that "many tournaments and leagues neglected to apply this," he then says that this is not a good solution because people still won't apply it when par is different. Yet, par will rarely be different, but the course rating - which required a manual adjustment in 2019 that "many neglected to apply" is ALWAYS different from different tees. The WHS method of "baking in" the adjustment is more likely to be applied correctly than the 2019 method.

Dean: "There are other changes with the WHS that cause me concerns. Providing daily handicap updates will create logistical nightmares for handicap committees at courses." I get what he's saying, but don't think it's worth much weight. We had the same issues in 2019: golfers playing in a competition on the 15th of the month expected all the scores to be counted because their handicap was "updated" as of that day, while the committee may have wanted to print cards on the 14th or 13th. The simple solution to the daily updates is basically the same as it has always been: committees simply set a date when the handicap is considered official to be used for a tournament, and that's that. Maybe it'll be two days before the tournament, maybe the day of for a smaller afternoon event, it's up to them. Your handicap index, as of that date, is what's used in the competition. Same as always.

Dean: "Also, the new Playing Conditions Calculation that aims to account for unusual weather on daily scores sounds good, but what happens in instances when the weather is great in the morning but bad in the afternoon?" Uhm, Dean, what happened in 2019? Nothing at all, regardless of how bad the weather was! The 2020 system is objectively better and more accurate.

Dean: "Tournament score monitoring is disappointingly weakened in this new process. And the use of net double bogey as a maximum hole score is better than what that it replaces but also has faults. For golfers to apply it manually is complex—you have to know where you’re getting shots and that will vary from each set of tees—and will lead to players guessing or not applying it at all."

In order: tournament score monitoring was changed a little. Okay. Small victory there. Then, Dean agrees NDB is "better" (but doesn't say why), then turns around and says it's "complex" to assign it. Really? How does he figure? Most scorecards have the stroke index written on them, and 0-9 course handicap golfers have been applying ESC - with a max of double bogey - for decades. Same as the WHS way. I disagree this is "complex." I also disagree that "where" you get shots will vary between tees - it would have been clearer to state that the number of shots you get is different from each set of tees, which is as it should be.

Dean: "Indeed, all these “improvements” will contribute to a less precise system because of the introduction of par."

Again, I disagree, and feel the new system is MORE accurate because of the introduction of the course rating. Dean hasn't supported this "less accurate" thought at all. And how could he, because again, the entire system is somewhat arbitrary. We're not talking about universal truths here. Things changed, but that doesn't mean they got "worse" or "less precise."

Dean wraps up by suggesting we drop the course rating minus par bit. Shocker… Dean wants us to go back to the system he created.

Dean: "The way I see it, however, by implementing all of the new WHS elements, we have adopted a World system that is not as accurate as what we have enjoyed. The WHS alters a 40-year-old course-rating-based handicap system in favor of a “net par.”"

Well, at least Dean dance with the misunderstanding that brought him: what he sees as the addition of "net par" I see as the addition of the course rating.

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

Remember, Garland, when I asked you if "change" was what you didn't like about the WHS? This is why. There's nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about either system: one is simply different than the other.

I think the WHS system is better. I think it makes more sense that a 14 might get only 8 shots when playing a course that's rated 66.2 and gets maybe 16 shots when playing a course that's 73.7. I think baking in the course rating makes things easier for tournament directors and players playing from different tees. I think adding the course rating also makes the NDB application more sensible, as 10 index golfers playing 64.7-rated courses don't get to take 7s everywhere, regardless of the course's par. And while Dean wants to decry rounding as an invention of the WHS, he fails to acknowledge that rounding has always shifted the course handicap of players because that's how numbers work when we convert decimals or fractions to whole numbers.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The short version of the above:

- Dean doesn't like the addition of "par" in the WHS.
- I think he's missing the point or doesn't like change, because it's not about the addition of par to the system, but about the addition of the course rating to the handicap system.

Where par is used (for example, net double bogey, or net par [for the round] as a means of knowing quickly whether you've played poorly or well), it's simple and makes sense, and is better than it was in 2019.

It also makes sense that the course rating affects your course handicap, and never really made sense how an 11.0 index might be a 13 from two sets of tees and a 12 from another when the tees might be six shots different in the course rating.

Additionally, including the course rating makes things easier for tournament directors and players playing different tees. The PCC will do more than the "nothing" that was done pre-2020 to account for weather or exceptional scoring conditions. Etc.

[Pete_Pittock]

      My best golf friends average about 30 yards longer off the tee and have handicaps 4-9 strokes lower than me. I play one set of tees up from them, and adjust my handicap according to the course rating difference. Once I got my game together, even with a lowered handicap I "win" about 70% of the time.  I am thinking that my winning will probably even out under the new system because my 'par' will equal their 'par'.
       I just have to be aware that the par from my tees might be reduced because some of the holes now shortish par 5s are becoming par 4s. I think that was baked into the old sytem to my advantage and will be gone this year.

[Jon Wiggett]

Well it is good to see (or not  ) that after 15 pages and 355 replies that the new handicapping system seems to be as simple and opaque as I feared.


Lou,


I haven't talked to anybody here amongst the GB golfing community who has or ever intends to post non-competitive rounds. Indeed, having talked to a couple of club secretaries I am not sure some clubs have even switched


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon

Maybe some years down the line we may see younger golfers posting friendly scores. This new system is a process which will take time to get everybody on board. For now, the idea of marking a score in a friendly 4ball after not finishing a hole doesn't make sense. It is hard to argue with that conclusion when a culture is so heavily ingrained with stableford pickup equals nil points. As I have said all along, the USGA has had far too much influence with the new system. I think any new system would have been better using stableford as the way forward. Sadly, I think over time stableford will be dropped from golf.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Jon

Maybe some years down the line we may see younger golfers posting friendly scores. This new system is a process which will take time to get everybody on board. For now, the idea of marking a score in a friendly 4ball after not finishing a hole doesn't make sense. It is hard to argue with that conclusion when a culture is so heavily ingrained with stableford pickup equals nil points. As I have said all along, the USGA has had far too much influence with the new system. I think any new system would have been better using stableford as the way forward. Sadly, I think over time stableford will be dropped from golf.

Ciao

Sean,


From the golf australia website.  I am not sure this is bad for stableford.

For handicapping, all stroke scores must be converted to (and processed as) Stableford scores. (Where the competition is Stroke, the Stroke score is the Competition Score; the Stableford Score is the Handicapping Score).[size=inherit][/size][size=1rem]Players and clubs do not need to record Stableford scores in Par competitions. Any round played under the Par scoring system is automatically converted by GOLF Link into a Stableford score by adding 36 points to the player’s final result. For example, GOLF Link will convert a score of 4 down into 32 points; the score of 32 points is the player’s Handicapping Score.[/size][size=inherit][/size][size=1rem]If a player is competing in a Stroke, Par, or Maximum Score competition, their Stableford score is disregarded when assessing Competition placings.[/size][size=1.25rem]What is the purpose of the Stableford Handicap Adjustment regulation? [/size][size=0.75rem][/color][/size][size=inherit][/size][size=1rem][/color]To reduce the impact of high hole scores in order to make handicaps more representative of a player’s potential ability.To make all handicaps as equitable as possible by using a uniform score type for handicapping. (Note: 78% of handicapping scores across Australia are Stableford or Par. This regulation enables us to use the small proportion of handicapping scores that are stroke scores in a way that is consistent with the dominant score type of Stableford and Par). The SHA regulation ensures that there is uniform score type used for handicapping and that all Australian handicaps are ‘Stableford handicaps'.

[/color][/font]
[/size]

[SL_Solow]

Pete,  As promised I checked with my source.  Apparently, there was little or no consideration given to a separate tournament handicap.  Moreover, I am informed that the plan is to phase out the ability for clubs and/or associations to "opt out" of including non-tournament rounds over the next few years so as to increase the uniformity of handicaps.  Whether that part of the plan comes to fruition remains to be seen but it is a logical consequence if the objective is to create a single world system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Pete,  As promised I checked with my source.  Apparently, there was little or no consideration given to a separate tournament handicap.  Moreover, I am informed that the plan is to phase out the ability for clubs and/or associations to "opt out" of including non-tournament rounds over the next few years so as to increase the uniformity of handicaps.  Whether that part of the plan comes to fruition remains to be seen but it is a logical consequence if the objective is to create a single world system.

That mirrors what I've heard.

I wish the USGA had gone all the way to "attested" rounds only, not just "witnessed" arounds (non-solo rounds), but people complained enough about the no-solo-rounds thing that I can understand why they were a bit gunshy there, too, after making that change at the start of 2016.

[Rob Marshall]

It's been said before. The only way it should be done is using competition scores. If you want true handicaps that's what needs to be done. Any other system is wide open to manipulation.

[SL_Solow]

Rob,


I get it. You would like a system where only tournament scores count. The problem is that the system has been adopted and it is not as you wished.  Therefore, rather than wish for what might have been, it is time better spent trying to understand the system.  Overtime there is likely to be some "tweaking" and a better understanding will likely lead to better "tweaks".  A last point; while any system, including one limited to tournament scores, can be gamed, our experience in administering the system is that the incidence of sandbagging is quite small.  The number of "vanity" handicaps far exceeds the sandbaggers.  There, the real victim is the person who has a vanity handicapper as a partner.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,


I get it. You would like a system where only tournament scores count. The problem is that the system has been adopted and it is not as you wished.  Therefore, rather than wish for what might have been, it is time better spent trying to understand the system.  Overtime there is likely to be some "tweaking" and a better understanding will likely lead to better "tweaks".  A last point; while any system, including one limited to tournament scores, can be gamed, our experience in administering the system is that the incidence of sandbagging is quite small.  The number of "vanity" handicaps far exceeds the sandbaggers.  There, the real victim is the person who has a vanity handicapper as a partner.

The only time I play in handicap events is when the course is closed unless you play in the tournament. I resign myself that I'm paying a greens free that day and enjoy the company of my partner and the food.........

[Garland Bayley]

With his recent multi (key)stroke bogey on Knuth's article, I believe the discerning reader will see that after being a few holes down from my significant figures debacle i pulled this one out on the 19th hole with Erik's multi (key)stroke bogey at the end.

[Bryan Izatt]

A question for those who know the new WHS. If I played a BUDA round on a tough weather day (of which there have been a few over the years) and I posted the score back in Canada after a week or two, would the difficult conditions adjustment be made on the Canadian system.  In other words, will there be a link between the different international systems?  What about now, when I'm playing in Florida but posting back to Canada.


Re BUDA and handicapping negotiations, the end results of the 3 days of matches have generally been fairly close.  That would suggest that the handicapping systems work reasonably well even when they are different like between the US and the UK.

[Bryan Izatt]

RE the ongoing commentary on whether or not the new WHS system is as accurate or precise as the old system here are definitions of those two terms to inform the discussion.

Accurate  -  conforming exactly to truth or to a standard

Precise  -  strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention

Can anybody tell be what the "truth" or "standard" handicap measure is?  There is nothing like the atomic clock standard for checking the accuracy of your watch.  In fact, it seems to me that most everybody thinks that the handicapping system, new or old, or USA vs UK favours somebody else, precisely because there is no standard against which to measure any handicapping system.

To debate which one is more accurate is a waste of time.  The old system produces a result we've been using for a couple of decades.  The new system produces slightly different results.  CONGU delivers it's own results.  Which one is the accurate standard?  Who knows.

Is the USGA system more accurate because they carry course rating to one decimal point while CONGU has no decimal points for the SSS?

The USGA rating system is predicated on two hypothetical data points - the scratch and bogey golfer - and they are defined solely by how far they hit the ball.  No mention of iron play or short irons or chipping or putting and accuracy.  That's a pretty simple and not very definitive model  And, all other golfers are linearly related to those two hypothetical golfers.  How unlikely is that?

Course ratings in the old USGA system (and the new WHS for that matter) are 90% related to effective playing length.  The longer a course, the more difficult.  The other 10% is made up of 10 obstacles.  The obstacles are rated on a scale of 1 to 10 and each is weighted by a fraction to 2 decimal points and the final number is arrived at by multiplying by factors that go to 3 decimal points.  And after that you get a rating that is accurate (?) to 1 decimal point.  Why not to 2 decimal points (wouldn't that be more accurate)  Or maybe to no decimal points - that's the way CONGU is.  Knuth devised the system and presumably picked the weightings and the mathematical constants and calculations.  Did he get it "right" or are there biases in the model?  Does it really matter, as long as everybody is playing competitions under the same system?

Debating which system is more "accurate" down to one decimal point is silly.


For the record, my index went down 0.1 under the new system. 

My home course now has a course handicap for men for all tees, including the most forward (used to be the Ladies tee) one.  the yardage ranges from 7477 yards to 5248 yards.  the back tees rate 76.8 and slope 146.  it can be a tough course.  My course handicaps under the new WHS are 21, 17, 15, 11 and 7.  The handicap is 3 less from the tees I usually play, resulting from the course rating/par calculation.  The range and the absolute  number is certainly different - but does it really matter because everybody else is going to have the same kind of range in any handicapped event I would play. 

[Mark Pearce]

Good God!


This is extraordinarily boring. Get a grip...on a golf club ..... and play golf!


Cheers Col

BUDA just wouldn't be the same without the annual attempt by Messrs Duran and Whitaker to negotiate extra strokes they don't need!


Right on!  I bet that there is an inverse relationship between # of rounds played and interest in the WHS.


And if what I've heard from friends overseas is true, if casual rounds aren't posted, we will still be comparing apples and oranges.  I retain my right to bargain strokes in all future Budas.

[Thomas Dai]

My home course now has a course handicap for men for all tees, including the most forward (used to be the Ladies tee) one.  the yardage ranges from 7477 yards to 5248 yards.  the back tees rate 76.8 and slope 146.  it can be a tough course.  My course handicaps under the new WHS are 21, 17, 15, 11 and 7. 

Well posted Bryan. Highlights nicely what can be expected.
Opens up a link to another can of worms too ... the good 'ol distance, ball/equipment, fun, expense, resources debate.
atb

[Brock Lynch]

  ... A last point; while any system, including one limited to tournament scores, can be gamed, our experience in administering the system is that the incidence of sandbagging is quite small.  The number of "vanity" handicaps far exceeds the sandbaggers.  There, the real victim is the person who has a vanity handicapper as a partner.

Mr. Solow,

What does "the incidence of sandbagging is quite small" mean? Are you are familiar with Team Play in the Southern California Golf Association? Here, sandbagging is quite prevalent and could be considered an epidemic. It is practiced by many and very little is done about it. The system is, without a doubt, gamed.

Cheers

[David_Elvins]

  ... A last point; while any system, including one limited to tournament scores, can be gamed, our experience in administering the system is that the incidence of sandbagging is quite small.  The number of "vanity" handicaps far exceeds the sandbaggers.  There, the real victim is the person who has a vanity handicapper as a partner.

Mr. Solow,

What does "the incidence of sandbagging is quite small" mean? Are you are familiar with Team Play in the Southern California Golf Association? Here, sandbagging is quite prevalent and could be considered an epidemic. It is practiced by many and very little is done about it. The system is, without a doubt, gamed.

Cheers

Surely sandbagging cannot be significant in golf.  Any event that requires a handicap cannot be a serious event and there for handicaps are never worth manipulating because they can only be used to win Mickey mouse events.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A question for those who know the new WHS. If I played a BUDA round on a tough weather day (of which there have been a few over the years) and I posted the score back in Canada after a week or two, would the difficult conditions adjustment be made on the Canadian system.  In other words, will there be a link between the different international systems?  What about now, when I'm playing in Florida but posting back to Canada.

No. As handicap indexes update daily, rounds have to be posted that day to play a role in the PCC.

So, if you're playing your home courses this year in an area where the WHS and PCC will be applied, post that day. It's easy to do from your phone, so please do so.

Edit to add: BTW, associations will be able to use PCC data to see if courses are being set up day-to-day differently than how they were rated, if the course has a prevailing weather condition that wasn't properly considered, etc. For example if a course is pretty regularly having a PCC of -1, raters might be able to determine that the tees are always moved up from where they were rated, and open a dialogue with the course about that.

Accurate  -  conforming exactly to truth or to a standardPrecise  -  strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention

Exactly like I said: there's no universal scientific law or truth here. This isn't 2+2=4, nor is it gravity, or any other scientific law.

The USGA rating system is predicated on two hypothetical data points - the scratch and bogey golfer - and they are defined solely by how far they hit the ball.  No mention of iron play or short irons or chipping or putting and accuracy.  That's a pretty simple and not very definitive model  And, all other golfers are linearly related to those two hypothetical golfers.  How unlikely is that?

To clarify the smallest bit, the entire hole is considered. A thick clump of trees 140 yards off the tee is weighed into the "tree" value for the hole even though the definitions don't have a male bogey golfer hitting his tee shot 140 yards.

And, after the ratings are determined, the system tends to work pretty well. A "bad chipper" at one course is unlikely to become a "good chipper" at another, and if one course has more difficult green targets with more mounds, faster greens, more tilt, etc. then those are offset at least partially the fact that the chipping IS tougher on the one course than the other. There are always going to be exceptions, but I continue to stand in my appreciation for the system Dean founded, because IMO it works shockingly well for a system that has only two numbers (CR, Slope) and has to handle and deal with such a wide range of golfers AND golf courses. It's incredible.

The range and the absolute  number is certainly different - but does it really matter because everybody else is going to have the same kind of range in any handicapped event I would play.

Yep. The WHS changed things, and for many, made it simpler or easier to apply correctly. For many, the WHS makes more sense. One thing that makes more sense is that you'll know by your score relative to net par how you fared relative to your handicap index.

In 2019, a "14" handicapper could go out, shoot a net +2 and BEAT his handicap index, then go out the next day, from a different set of tees, and shoot net 69 and have a worse differential than his index.

Garland:

• The math is the math. Neither of us are going to disagree there because you can't disagree with math. It just is.
• Where we disagree, and where I disagree with Dean, is that the WHS has a "flaw." It changed, but change alone is not a flaw. Most of what Dean talks about is that things changed.
• Dean uses words like "precise" and "reliable" as if they have meaning, but they don't in this context because the entire system is somewhat arbitrary. There's no universal truth or fact here. Handicaps, again, changed, but he can't prove that they got less "precise" or "reliable."
• Dean is also off base in continually suggesting that "par" was introduced. Again, par came along because the course rating was introduced. Par was used to sort of balance that out so that we'd still get "course handicap" numbers that make sense.

[David Harshbarger]

RE the ongoing commentary on whether or not the new WHS system is as accurate or precise as the old system here are definitions of those two terms to inform the discussion.

Accurate  -  conforming exactly to truth or to a standard

Precise  -  strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention

Can anybody tell be what the "truth" or "standard" handicap measure is?  There is nothing like the atomic clock standard for checking the accuracy of your watch.  In fact, it seems to me that most everybody thinks that the handicapping system, new or old, or USA vs UK favours somebody else, precisely because there is no standard against which to measure any handicapping system.

The USGA rating system is predicated on two hypothetical data points - the scratch and bogey golfer - and they are defined solely by how far they hit the ball.  No mention of iron play or short irons or chipping or putting and accuracy.  That's a pretty simple and not very definitive model  And, all other golfers are linearly related to those two hypothetical golfers.  How unlikely is that?

Course ratings in the old USGA system (and the new WHS for that matter) are 90% related to effective playing length.  The longer a course, the more difficult.  The other 10% is made up of 10 obstacles.  The obstacles are rated on a scale of 1 to 10 and each is weighted by a fraction to 2 decimal points and the final number is arrived at by multiplying by factors that go to 3 decimal points. 

Bryan, great points on accuracy and precision. 

I interpret the system in this way:

Accuracy: This is a statistical test: across the range of handicap scores, how close a fit is there between the reported scores and the expected scores?

Precision: the purpose of a handicap is to calculate an integer adjustment for competition.  Measuring the value (index) to the tenths allows as precise a number as is useful when it is then multiplied then rounded to the nearest integer. 

(If you looked at accuracy, you might find that the index is overly-precise when specified to the tenths, if those intra-stroke values aren't leading to a better statistical fit.  For example, if a 4.5 and 4.6 don't, statistically score more differently than the error term calculated in the model, then they are overly-precise.  On the other hand, it's hard to see how you would measure a meaningful distinction between a 4.55 and 4.56, given that, in practice, in a given round, you can only measure scores to the whole number, a magnitude 100 times the precision when measured to the hundredth.  For that matter, it may well be that the justifiable precision isn't to .1, but more within the .2 to .5 stroke range.  However, if that were the case, going to a fractional index that properly captures that (4 2/5 vs. 4 3/5 -or- 4 1/2 vs. 5) is probably a bridge too far.)

Given the huge volume of data points the WHS is designed to ingest, I'm sure they have the ability to do some pretty sophisticated analyses.  For example, they should be able to measure the "fit" for each of the feature adjustments (traps, water, etc.).  They could also do a sensitivity analysis to each of those factors, or identify clusters of similar scoring patterns relative to the course features.  I assume that the data scientists involved get to geek out over all manner of statistical insights they can surface from the data.

The introduction of day-of-play adjustments is one of those statistical insights that the data scientists must have uncovered that was deemed strong enough and important enough to actually build into the model.  That's pretty telling right there about the statistical strength of the underlying model.

Also, as someone mentioned, the wealth of data collected can also be used to flag courses where the handicap ratings lead to variations in expected vs reported scores that are systematically inaccurate.  That's good, if that leads to follow up re-rating.

At the end of the day, the fact that there's a metrics-based system that can be created and justified to measure scoring potential for an activity performed by essentially the full range of humans, across unique playing grounds and all variety of conditions, is really pretty amazing.

[Lou_Duran]

In the spirit of not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, I am with SL on this one.


David H- your last paragraph sums it up nicely.


David Elvins- assuming that Mickey is ok with your characterization, I know reasonable men with substantial financial means who quit playing in our club's regular $20 Stableford's because they have little chance of succeeding.  Some people do manage their handicaps- the famous and informal TX BBQ circuit attempted to handle this problem by putting a score improvement limit from the qualifying/placement round to the final (money) round.


Garland, in your match with Erik, you may wish to consider how your 18 or so handicap compares to his around scratch.  I have never met anyone who has gone as deep on this as Erik.  Perhaps he should replace Mr. Knuth as the latter might have a bit too much skin in the game.  As freebie advice for the USGA/R&A, bringing in Professor Izatt to fact check Erik would add gravitas (though the latter might find it annoying).


Mark Pearce- an easy way to stop the whining is to conform to the new WHS.  I know, I just need to play better on your home turf!  It does amaze me how our European visitors seem to play parkland course well (of course, they also seem to like riding carts, cold beer, country music on the speakers, and the cart girls).  Their handicaps also appear to travel quite well.


   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As freebie advice for the USGA/R&A, bringing in Professor Izatt to fact check Erik would add gravitas (though the latter might find it annoying).

I'd welcome the checking. I hope not to have made any math mistakes, though I won’t guarantee it as I typed all of that as quickly as possible, and if it turns out I subtracted 71 instead of 72 or something somewhere, it wouldn't change the points I was trying to make. For me, the Knuth thing could probably be further boiled down (from the bullet points above) to two things: Dean didn't like that they changed things, and he misunderstood (for lack of a better word) the addition of the "CR - Par" part of the course handicap calculation, even while writing that NDB is "better than what it replaces."