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

[Niall C]

........also this slope rating business, how does the rater/ranker allow for different winds on different days; convex fairways and concave fairways; gathering bunkers; varying degrees of run depending on the prevailing conditions; and length of rough depending on season/weather ?

Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

First, it's insanely complex.

Wow. Really? Insanely complex? I assume you took and passed algebra, no?

A player's handicap under the system is the amount over course rating that they would successfully achieve one out of five rounds. I guess that means it represents one's potential. Well, isn't the handicap supposed to represent one's current ability? 

No. It's supposed to represent their current real-world potential: that's why it's representative of a score they can and do beat about 20% of the time, as you note.

The current system encourages people to finish holes when their score doesn't matter

Not really. I know a number of people who will pick up and write down their most likely score. Or pick up at ESC. Or pick up and put down par + handicap.

I suppose it is easy enough to post a score and then let the computer do the real calculation for you based on various inputs that I suspect the average player probably is unaware of or can't comprehend. I'm not sure what Jeff's concerns are but for me the issue is how meaningful is it going to be when you don't really follow or fully understand the calculation ?

That calculation is only really going to be needed when situations are fairly extreme. Most of the time, the course rating and slope will be unadjusted, and the calculations are thus the same as they've always been (and are pretty straightforward).

........also this slope rating business, how does the rater/ranker allow for different winds on different days; convex fairways and concave fairways; gathering bunkers; varying degrees of run depending on the prevailing conditions; and length of rough depending on season/weather ?

They account for the prevailing wind, if there is one. If the wind changes directions frequently, then it all evens out. And if there's a day when the wind blows 30 MPH when normally it's 5-10, then the automatic adjustments will account for the higher scores that day.

[Niall C]

Erik

I do tend to look at things through the prism of links golf which I appreciate is only a small sub-set of golf, however it perfectly highlights the problems. In terms of wind, if someone tells you the prevailing wind is in such and such a direction on a UK links course, what they mean is that it blows in the general direction for maybe 60% of the time although it will swirl about, often at different parts of the course. The direction of the prevailing wind also changes between winter and summer on some courses.

The strength of the wind also depends on time of day. At one course I was a member of the wind picked up at about mid day. Therefore do you make adjustments for time of day ?

Niall

[Michael Whitaker]

Niall - here is a really good FAQ from the Metropolitan Golf Association in New York about the Slope Ratings, how they are determined, and how they impact your handicap index. Read this article and I think you will gain a great deal of understanding:
https://www.mgagolf.org/handicapping/course-rating-top-ten

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Niall, you're overthinking it a bit. The handicap system you'll soon be using does a pretty good job while remaining relatively simple: two numbers, and an automatic adjustment if the math warrants it. It would be never-ending if you tried to account for the somewhat unique conditions almost every golfer experiences. It would be a fool's errand to try to account for the difference in wind between the 8:00 group and the 10:12 group, and all that stuff, when ultimately a lot of it just kinda evens up over time anyway.

Trust that it's been fairly well vetted and the groups have the best interests in mind, etc. It's better - more precise, etc. - than the single number system I believe you use now, because it has the slope, and the daily adjustment (if the math warrants it) will be a further help to better accuracy, but adding any more to that needlessly complicates things for little benefit, IMO. The current system is, also IMO, pretty good for being so simple (two numbers).

FWIW I skimmed the PDF Michael Whitaker linked to and it seems pretty good.

[Niall C]

.........so the guys that do it are nice guys and we should trust them because they have our interests at heart ? I would much rather have a system that was understandable rather than one that was opaque and needed a computer to work things out.


But more to the point, the idea that you keep a score for every round is awful considering they are supposed to be trying to speed the game up.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

.........so the guys that do it are nice guys and we should trust them because they have our interests at heart?

The guys that do what, Niall? Rate the courses? If that's what you mean, then yes, you should trust them, because they know what they're doing. They measure things, and that stuff all fits into a formula. They also make a few subjective calls, which is why you need people (not to mention that you can't measure everything on Google Earth or something; checking measurements on-site is still very important) to judge whether a green is "moderately" or "highly" contoured, how difficult it may be to escape from some trees, the average or playing depth of bunkers, etc.

I would much rather have a system that was understandable rather than one that was opaque and needed a computer to work things out.

Do you mean the actual Course Rating and Slope calculations? You could work them out by hand; they're not that difficult to understand if you're familiar at all with the system. But that's what computers are good at - computing. Making sure that a math error isn't made, like humans can often make.


And the end result is just two numbers, which are EASILY understandable by a human being.

But more to the point, the idea that you keep a score for every round is awful considering they are supposed to be trying to speed the game up.

I can play in 90 minutes keeping score. My daughter and I play, from two different tees, in two hours. I'll often play 18, walking, with two other guys from 6800 yards in under three hours, and we're all keeping score.

This question, I honestly feel, has been addressed already. It's slow PLAYERS that play slowly, not stuff like this. You don't need to play every hole out entirely to post an accurate score for handicap. Heck, you only have to play 13 holes at all to post an 18-hole handicap.


I realize this will all be new to you Niall so your questions come from a place of not knowing, so I get that. I've lived in and lived with this system for quite awhile, and know it better than most simply because of my involvement with my local GA and being a USGA Rater. It'll be okay. I think you'll come to understand the system pretty well. It does a good job while remaining simple, IMO.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Yes, its insanely complex.   And why do we want people to be generally disappointed by how they play?


Let's start by doing the following. 


A) Set the Slope baseline to 100 instead of 113.  That way people will have a much clearer idea how challenging a course is when they see the slope.


B) Use all of your scores, or simply throw out the outliers.  But the emphasis on one's best scores creates a very negative mindset around handicap.


C) Drop the .96 adjustment

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don't think entering every score slows down play at all, I have done this for the twenty years that I have been keeping my handicap and I don't find it an issue at all. 


I think the main goal of a handicapping system should be accuracy that leads to the fairest game between golfers of varying abilities.  If you are mathematically inclined then neither the current USGA system nor new global system is overly complex.  If you are not mathematically inclined then any system beyond a simple arithmetic mean of scores will be complex to you.

[Garland Bayley]

It's slow PLAYERS that play slowly, not stuff like this.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes, its insanely complex.   And why do we want people to be generally disappointed by how they play?

A) Set the Slope baseline to 100 instead of 113.  That way people will have a much clearer idea how challenging a course is when they see the slope.

I understand how that would "appeal" to some in the short term, but… it's 113, and changing it would not be worth the pain. Plus, the number already lets people see "how challenging a course is". I think they know that 144 is likely more difficult* than 133 just as, under your system, 127 would be tougher than 118.

* "Toughness" is of course two things: the combo of the course rating and slope, for many golfers. For scratch golfers, the slope is almost irrelevant, and for bogey (or worse) golfers it's more relevant than the course rating. To the specific point of the asterisk, a 71.3/144 course is likely much EASIER to a scratch or +2 golfer than a 73.5/133 course.

B) Use all of your scores, or simply throw out the outliers.  But the emphasis on one's best scores creates a very negative mindset around handicap.

I haven't found that to be the case.

C) Drop the .96 adjustment

Study up, man, it's gone in 2020. Best 8 of last 20, no multiplier.

[Garland Bayley]

Besides, Wayne seems not to be aware that Dean Knuth has ratings for most if not all Scotland courses, and approximately 1/2 are below 113, and approximately 1/2 are above 113. And, he apparently doesn't play executive course and par 3 courses in the US that will have slope below 113.

I looked into this Garland and perhaps half of the courses in Scotland have slopes below 113 but I am guessing that, for the most part, these are fairly basic courses that are not in the higher echelon of Scottish golf.


I took a look at some of the "fun" courses that I have played in Scotland that are considered a notch or two below those on the Open rota to see their slopes. 


Here are a few examples:
Brora 117
Gullane No 1 120
Gullane No 2 120
Gullane No 3 107
Leven 119
Lundin 129
Luffness 119
Crail Balcomie 115


And I downloaded the slopes of all courses with names starting with the letter A-D.  Of that list there are 156 courses with slope ratings.  Of those, 45 have a slope rating of 113 or lower. 


So it appears that, at least from this sample size, less than 29% of Scottish courses have slope ratings of 113 or lower.

I posted my scores yesterday, and couldn't help but notice that Crail Balcomie was slope 113 from the visitor tees. Are you a member playing the blue tees? 😊 Or, playing open competitions to save money? 😉

[Pete Lavallee]

Jeff,


The .95 multiplier was called “ the incentive for improvement”, giving a slight edge to the lower handicap player. Sadly it’s is being dropped in the new system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The .95 multiplier was called “ the incentive for improvement”, giving a slight edge to the lower handicap player. Sadly it’s is being dropped in the new system.

Nitpicks: 0.96, and "Bonus for Excellence."

Part of the reason it's going away is because they're taking 8 of 20 instead of 10 of 20. It works out to about the same handicap index without needing the 0.96 multiplier.

[Ulrich Mayring]

You mean picking the best 8 of 20 instead of 10 of 20 favors the lower handicap player?

That would mean that the 8 best scores of a high handicapper are (relatively) better than the 8 best scores of a low handicapper. Thus the low handicapper would have more variation in his scores, which is not at all what conventional wisdom says. In fact, the higher variation in scores of the higher handicapper were always used as an argument to doctor any formulas in favor of the lower marker.

Ulrich

[Ken Moum]

You mean picking the best 8 of 20 instead of 10 of 20 favors the lower handicap player?

That would mean that the 8 best scores of a high handicapper are (relatively) better than the 8 best scores of a low handicapper. Thus the low handicapper would have more variation in his scores, which is not at all what conventional wisdom says. In fact, the higher variation in scores of the higher handicapper were always used as an argument to doctor any formulas in favor of the lower marker.

Ulrich

I'm sure Erik can defend his statement, but you do have it backwards.


Using fewer scores should always favor the low handicapper because the smaller number of scores will be closer to his average.


A player who has a few good rounds and a significant number of bad rounds will have his handicap lowered by reducing the number of scores used.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You mean picking the best 8 of 20 instead of 10 of 20 favors the lower handicap player?

I didn't really say it favors anyone: I'm saying that taking the best 10 scores (differentials) and multiplying them by 0.96 tends to equal about the same as the best eight scores out of 20… because you're lopping off the 9th and 10th highest scores.

I'm just saying that, mathematically, it works out to be about the same, without needing 0.96 to be thrown in there. This makes the math simpler.

(Somewhat related but not what I was saying: the bonus 0.96 multiplier, just as keeping 8 out of 20, slightly tilts the odds in the favor of the lower handicapper.)

[Ulrich Mayring]

Using fewer scores should always favor the low handicapper because the smaller number of scores will be closer to his average.

A player who has a few good rounds and a significant number of bad rounds will have his handicap lowered by reducing the number of scores used.

I believe we have the same idea, but a different definition for what is favorable to a golfer. If I understand you correctly, you think that between two systems the one that is favorable to a golfer is the one, where he ends up with a higher handicap. I happen to think that a system favors a golfer, if it gets him a lower handicap.

The high handicapper stands to improve a lot more with the WHS, because you are taking two blow-up rounds out of his calculation, whereas from the lower handicapper you are taking out two slightly below average rounds.

The playing field would be level again, if you took out the two best rounds also.

In terms of matchplay the usual argument I hear is that variation wins over steadiness, because a high handicapper may make a quadruple bogey, but still lose only one hole. But what I see in practice is that matchplay tournaments are almost always won by lower handicappers.

Ulrich

[Rob Marshall]

I always thought the “concrete” rock was just along 18. It looks like it runs in spots anyway, all the way to the 10th green?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The high handicapper stands to improve a lot more with the WHS, because you are taking two blow-up rounds out of his calculation, whereas from the lower handicapper you are taking out two slightly below average rounds.

I don't understand what you're saying there.

You're taking their 9th and 10th best rounds out of the equation. Their 10 worst rounds, which ostensibly includes their "blow up rounds," haven't ever been used. And you're losing the 0.96 multiplier to those 10 rounds that used to count, which for most people averages out to about the same (i.e. 8/20 with no multiplier ~= 10/20 with multiplier).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Welcome (in the U.S. at least) to the WHS.

On (or about) January 6, golfers should be able to see their new handicap index. The GHIN app was completely re-written (by the GolfGenius people), so you'll want to download the new version of that. And you'll want to be aware of the following:

• Post your rounds daily so the PCC (playing conditions correction) works properly.
• Post a score with a max of net double bogey on your bad holes.
• Learn how the new course handicap is calculated.*

* This mostly makes it easier for people playing from different tees. Let's say you have a pair of 9.0 index players, and one wants to play the blues (par 72, 72.0/144) while the other wishes to play the whites (par 71, because on one hole the tees are on the near side of a large lake, 69.0/133).

Old Way:
Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 = 11 course handicap
White: 9.0 * 133/113 = 11 course handicap

That's how both would be listed on the sheet hanging in the pro shop, so they'd often forget the last step which was to subtract out the course rating, giving Blue an extra three shots or taking three away from white (same thing). They'd end up at either 14 and 11 or 11 and 8.

New Way:
The new way bakes this right in, right from the start, by making your course handicap relative to par.

Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 + 72.0 - 72 = 11
White: 9.0 * 133/113 + 69.0 - 71 = 9

You add the course rating and subtract the par to get the course handicap. This "bakes in" the course rating so that tournament directors and gambling buddies and whomever else don't have to argue about playing from different tees. This is also why par is important in the new handicapping system (though it will be rare for a par to change from one set of tees to another, it can happen).

Correction: Then, pursuant to 6.2b, because the pars are different, you subtract another shot from the White player (par 71) as he is playing a course that is one lower par than the Blue player (par 72). So, they arrive back at the same three shots different.

[Jason Topp]

Interesting article from Dean Knuth that is critical of the new system, although from a very different angle:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth


Knuth is primarily critical of the adjustment for par, pointing out that course handicaps will vary wildly under the new system.  According to him a zero index could have a course handicap that ranges from +12 to 6 depending on the tee used. 


I think his fear is a bit overblown.  Most people have their preferred distance and play within a relatively narrow range of course ratings. 


It will be interesting to look back after a year and see how it worked.  The flagstick change for putting seemed like a huge deal a year ago but now, at least to me, it seems like such a minor change to the game.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

I too saw the Knuth article, and came here to post about it. When thinking about the new system basing handicap on par, I had to wonder how effective that would be as it deviates from the course rating. Knuth explained my misgivings well. He also explained that you get the most handicap benefit by playing the back back tees. Guess I'll give up playing the club championship in my age appropriate group, and go back to playing the open division from the back tees. Since I have never been able to compete on gross score, net score is my bread and butter.

Also, of note is that the Pope cites Doak to support his argument.

[David Harshbarger]

It *seems* like this is an improvement.


At our club the point of contention is the seniors who establish their handicap from the men's tees then compete in all-ages competitions from the senior tees.


Should this help fix this?

[Jason Topp]

It *seems* like this is an improvement.


At our club the point of contention is the seniors who establish their handicap from the men's tees then compete in all-ages competitions from the senior tees.


Should this help fix this?

Before the change, handicaps should have been reduced for those playing forward tees in an all-ages competition.  Under the new system, that adjustment will be baked into the formula automatically. 


If your pro shop was not adjusting handicaps for those playing forward tees under the old system, this formula should force them to do so.  If they were adjusting handicaps, I do not believe the changes will make a significant difference.[size=78%]  [/size]