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

[Sean_A]

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?

That truly is stupid.  Your wife and kid could be doing something fun.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

The next things addressed by Dr. Knuth from where I left off above are 1) daily handicap updates, 2) Playing Conditions Calculation, 3) manual application of net double bogey. I haven't seen any noticeable (to me) criticism of these points on this thread so I will not address them now.

in the remaining portion of the article, he reiterates his stance that the new system is less precise, cautions against implementing it immediately (opting out for a while as is allowed and is being done in the British Isles), and that he doesn't think leveling the playing field across jurisdictions is enough to justify the less precision.

[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?

That truly is stupid.  Your wide and kid could be doing something fun.

Ciao

got me there!

[Garland Bayley]

In this post, both Erik and I got Dr. Knuth's argument wrong. Since I mostly use handicap to play match play, I coached my statements in a match play scenario. What we must remember is that Dr. Knuth's emphasis is medal play. While Erik refutes my match play thinking, he does not refute Dr. Knuth's argument.

After the quote I will show the inaccuracy of the new system that Dr. Knuth is pointing out by using Erik's data.

Using my 17.9 index and Windsong's back tees (CR 75.0, SR 141, Par 71). First old system.Handicap is 22 and I can play others with indexes from 17.3 to 18.0 without either of us giving a stroke.Dr. Knuth would tell you this is proper handicapping.Using my 17.9 index and Windsong's back tees with the new system.Handicap is 26 and I can play others with indexes from 17.2 to 18.0 without either of us giving a stroke.

Incorrect.

Old
17.9 * 141/113 = 22.3x = 22 CH
17.3 * 141/113 = 21.58 = 22 CH
18.0 * 141/113 = 22.46 = 22 CH

New
17.9 * 141/113 + 75.0 - 71 = 26.3x = 26 CH
17.3 * 141/113 + 75.0 - 71 = 25.58 = 26 CH
18.0 * 141/113 + 75.0 - 71 = 26.46 = 26 CH
17.2 * 141/113 + 75.0 - 71 = 25.46 = 25 CH

So under the new system, I would not get the stroke when playing someone with a 17.2 index in the new system that I used to be entitled to. Dr. Knuth would tell you this is the flaw in the new system.

First, you're wrong. The math is right there.

Second, just because there's a change (and again, there's no change here) does not mean there's a flaw.

Using my 17.9 index and Windsong's combo 1 tees (CR 71.3, SR 136, Par 71). First old system.
Handicap is 22 and I can play others with indexes from 17.9 to 18.6 without either of us giving a stroke.
Dr. Knuth would tell you this is proper handicapping.

Using my 17.9 index and Windsong's combo 1 tees with the new system.
Handicap is 22 and I can play others with indexes from 17.6 to 18.4 without either of us giving a stroke.
So under the new system, I would not get the stroke when playing someone with a 17.6, 17.7, & 17.8 index in the new system that I used to be entitled to. And, I would be giving strokes to players with 18.5, and 18.6 indexes in the new system that I didn't use to have to give. Dr. Knuth would tell you this is the flaw in the new system.

Oh brother.

Old
17.8 * 136/113 = 21.42 = 21 CH
17.9 * 136/113 = 21.54 = 22 CH
18.6 * 136/113 = 22.38 = 22 CH
18.7 * 136/113 = 22.50 = 23 CH

Range is 0.7 strokes - 17.9 to 18.6.

New
17.6 * 136/113 + 71.3 - 71 = 21.48 = 21 CH
17.7 * 136/113 + 71.3 - 71 = 21.60 = 22 CH
17.9 * 136/113 + 71.3 - 71 = 21.84 = 22 CH
18.4 * 136/113 + 71.3 - 71 = 22.45 = 22 CH
18.5 * 136/113 + 71.3 - 71 = 22.57 = 23 CH

Range is 0.7 strokes - 17.7 to 18.4.

The range shifts slightly (because of the 71.3 - 71) but it's still the same width, the same 0.7 (which is 8 tenths, as the endpoints are inclusive).

As Erik points out the handicap index ranges to obtain the the same course handicap are
17.9 to 18.6 in the old system
17.7 to 18.4 in the new system

When using the system most closely tied to the ratings (the old system) a player whose index is 18.5, or 18.6 will play with the same Course handicap as the players whose handicaps are 17.9 to 18.4.
However, when players with 18.5 or 18.6 course handicaps play in a medal play tournament under the new system, they will have an advantage of one stroke over the players with 17.9 to 18.4 handicap indexes. This is how the par handicap system has moved away from being as accurate as the course and slope rating system. You are shifting the calculations away from the most accurate system to one that approximates it some, but does not match its accuracy.

[Rob Marshall]

I'm shocked that the gentleman who invented the slope system didn't write and publish an article that was wrong. Who would have thought that?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

That mis-states or fails to understand what "par" is being used for. As I've shown, it's just a number (except that if it was 54, net double bogey would have been goofy, of course). Par + NDB leads to accurate handicapping.

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.

The course rating is still doing all the same things it used to do, and is in fact elevated as it's relationship to par has a direct "baked in" effect on the playing handicap.

Then comes the crux, "calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system."

This is complete bull. You state this like it's a fact, Garland, but I don't think you even understand the role of par.

1. Par is not used when determining your differential (except in the application of NDB, which replaces ESC). That formula is the same.
2. Par is used to relate the course rating(s) against each other so that the players playing from different tees are "baked in." Previously, you still had to adjust for the differences in course rating when playing from different tees. This "bakes it in," greatly simplifying it for all involved.

Before:

A: 9.3 * 139/113 = 11.4 = 11 CH
B: 9.3 * 128/113 = 10.5 = 11 CH

Then you take the difference in course rating and B gives A five shots (73.4 - 68.3).

Now:
A: 9.3 * 139/113 + 73.4 - 72 = 12.8 = 13 CH
B: 9.3 * 128/113 + 68.3 - 72 = 6.8 = 7 CH

So, tell me again how using par screws this up? Tell me again how Knuth makes his case here? Because I don't see it. I just see someone ranting about how par shouldn't be involved.

And yes, I see that one is five shots different while the other is six, but I would make a case, and I think the USGA would as well, that the latter is a better representation of the difference between those two players. The old way benefits B by rounding twice both the difference in course handicap and the difference in the course ratings is rounded, while in the current way, that rounding only takes place once.

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.

Well of course he "correctly" points that out, because it's really simple math, but the opinion part of this is that this is "bad."

As I've said a few times now already: this just "bakes in" players playing from different tees (and affects the application of NDB). So what is his actual point here, because… he doesn't make one. He just implies that this is "bad." He ignores that almost the exact same math had to be done before.

He calls this an "imperfect “over-spreading” of the course handicaps."

He doesn't back up this opinion with any facts. He just doesn't like it.

My interpretation of this is that you are now adjusting to an imperfect measurement of the difficulty of the hole, par.

Not at all what's happening.

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.

OMG, this has always been the case.

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.

And what do his calculations show that's so "bad"? Nothing. They show the range of playing handicaps the players might get from the back to the front tees. So?

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.

I already did. That's just how rounding freaking works. This is a terrible "point."

In the next paragraph, he points out that the USGA says the new system is "more intuitive".

It is, because the difference in course ratings when playing from different tees is baked in. Players only have to look at the sheet. Tournament directors only have to look at the sheet. That's it. They don't have to figure out the differences in course rating and add that in to the calculation, which can get really hairy when you're playing from two or three sets of tees (or more) within a single event.

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.

An opinion stated as fact.

The USGA now requires you go to the computer every time you play to get your handicap.

Huh?

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.

So you're at the computer either way? So how is this a negative of the current system, where you actually do NOT have to go to the computer, because if you're a 12 from the whites and Bob is a 17 from the blues, and you play those tees, you now do NOT have to make any adjustments, while before you still had to figure out that Bob's 13 from the 73.2 tees and your 12 from the 69.3 tees means Bob needs 3.9 shots more, which means he's getting five.

17 - 12 is more intuitive than 12 vs. 13, minus or plus 3.9… five.

Again, the Knuth article is lousy.


Par does two things in the WHS:

• It "bakes in" your course handicap when playing from different tees. This is a big win for those who play from different tees, tournament directors overseeing an event played from different tees, etc. So much simpler.
• It slightly affects NDB, in a positive way. If you're a 5.1 index from the blue tees, you can almost always take an 8 on the 4th Stroke Index hole… from the back tees. This hole is typically a par five. But, when you play up several sets of tees and the course rating is 67.3 to a par of 72, you'll probably only have a playing index of 1 or 2, and that formerly difficult 550-yard par five becomes a 463-yard hole… posting a 7 (no strokes given) makes much more sense and aligns with the purpose of NDB.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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?

Please find a time machine to go back to 2015 when this was announced. My, how you would have felt if they had required attested scores!!! One can't begin to imagine the shock and horror you might have experienced…

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.

I'm not in Australia. I read the page and I was under the impression the 0.93 was going away entirely like the 0.96 was here. But yeah, I'm not claiming to be an expert on how every association or nation is handling some of the areas they're allowed to tweak for themselves (like which scores are acceptable to post).

The next things addressed by Dr. Knuth from where I left off above are 1) daily handicap updates, 2) Playing Conditions Calculation, 3) manual application of net double bogey. I haven't seen any noticeable (to me) criticism of these points on this thread so I will not address them now.

All three are good additions.

1) Good. We no longer have to wait two weeks for a new handicap.
2) Good. This will help those who play on tough condition days, and will help identify courses where the rating is likely off or they habitually put the tees too far forward or something.
3) Good. Easier than ESC and avoids the weird break point between 9s and 10s and 19s and 20s.

in the remaining portion of the article, he reiterates his stance that the new system is less precise

How is it less "precise"?

cautions against implementing it immediately (opting out for a while as is allowed and is being done in the British Isles), and that he doesn't think leveling the playing field across jurisdictions is enough to justify the less precision.

They're delaying because the tremendous task of rating all their courses has taken longer than planned.

However, when players with 18.5 or 18.6 course handicaps play in a medal play tournament under the new system, they will have an advantage of one stroke over the players with 17.9 to 18.4 handicap indexes. This is how the par handicap system has moved away from being as accurate as the course and slope rating system. You are shifting the calculations away from the most accurate system to one that approximates it some, but does not match its accuracy.

‍🤦🏼‍♂️
The bold makes me think you don't even understand this stuff at a basic level. The course rating and slope system are DEEPLY embedded in the WHS. The entire rest of the freaking world is implementing course ratings and slope when this was largely only the U.S. (and somewhat recently Australia) before. The slope is used to calculate your differential and the course rating AND slope are used to calculate your playing handicap.

Your post showed nothing about how the math screws anything up. As I pointed out the range of handicaps stays exactly the same, it just drifted 0.2 points.

[Rob Marshall]

"Please find a time machine to go back to 2015 when this was announced. My, how you would have felt if they had required attested scores!!! One can't begin to imagine the shock and horror you might have experienced…"

My point which went over your head was that the USGA is saying you can't post when you play alone........ BUT this is a game of honor and integrity. Where you call penalties on yourself. If you don't see the irony in that there is not much more I can say. 



 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My point which went over your head was that the USGA is saying you can't post when you play alone........ BUT this is a game of honor and integrity. Where you call penalties on yourself. If you don't see the irony in that there is not much more I can say.

I didn't miss that point. You're simply wrong: it's not about "trust." If it were about trust they'd make you turn in physical cards and/or make someone else actually attest to every score you post. As you noted yourself, you can post a score from GHIN that your five-year-old kid watches you play. They trust you. You don't need attested scores.

So it's not about trust or integrity. You've been wrong about that from the start. You're choosing to be offended… and are over four years late at doing it.

[Pete_Pittock]

"Please find a time machine to go back to 2015 when this was announced. My, how you would have felt if they had required attested scores!!! One can't begin to imagine the shock and horror you might have experienced…"

My point which went over your head was that the USGA is saying you can't post when you play alone........ BUT this is a game of honor and integrity. Where you call penalties on yourself. If you don't see the irony in that there is not much more I can say.

Actually, the requirement about posting when playing alone came from the R&A, not the USGA (I have heard).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Actually, the requirement about posting when playing alone came from the R&A, not the USGA (I have heard).

That too. It was a compromise the USGA made to the R&A and others who didn't even take accompanied rounds, but who took only actual competitive rounds.

[Rob Marshall]

My point which went over your head was that the USGA is saying you can't post when you play alone........ BUT this is a game of honor and integrity. Where you call penalties on yourself. If you don't see the irony in that there is not much more I can say.

I didn't miss that point. You're simply wrong: it's not about "trust." If it were about trust they'd make you turn in physical cards and/or make someone else actually attest to every score you post. As you noted yourself, you can post a score from GHIN that your five-year-old kid watches you play. They trust you. You don't need attested scores.

So it's not about trust or integrity. You've been wrong about that from the start. You're choosing to be offended… and are over four years late at doing it.

It's not about trust or integrity?

Why will scores made while playing alone no longer be eligible for posting?

Primarily, to support a key tenet of the USGA Handicap System: peer review. Knowing golfers rely on the integrity of the system to produce an accurate view of playing ability, this change helps golfers form a better basis to support or dispute scores that have been posted to a player’s scoring record.


The majority of handicapping authorities around the globe have employed this policy for some time. With them, the USGA believes it provides a more accurate view of a golfer’s ability, supporting integrity, fairness and equitable play among all golfers.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not about trust or integrity?

No. If it were, they wouldn't have let you keep posting unattested scores.

And the USGA, from all I've read, would have been happy to let you keep posting solo rounds. But they had to compromise a little for the WHS, because the US system was BY FAR the most relaxed. So they gave a little, begrudgingly, but still stuck up for their trust in you by letting you post UNATTESTED scores.

This discussion is about the WHS, so I'm done talking about something that's over four years old. #FourYearsLate

[Sean_A]

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?

That truly is stupid.  Your wide and kid could be doing something fun.

Ciao

got me there!

It is bonkers. Nobody can actually believe that having someone walk along without ever looking at the card is anything but lip service to the idea of attesting.  If this is the USGA's idea of attesting, then I am all for solo rounds...lets drop the pretence.  It seems more and more that anything the USGA gets their hands on is either loaded with double talk, not fit for purpose and/or overly complicated. If this is the sort of nonsense the USGA pushes, it is hard to take the USGA seriously when they chase down errors in card marking for USGA events.  When will that august body of blue blazers ever admit that bifurcation is not only rampant, but encouraged by the USGA...except it isn't   

Once everybody else in the world fully realizes that the US handicapping system is largely unchanged and remains incredibly easy to manipulate, do ya think folks will want to adhere to these numbers?  They may well accept the numbers for argument sake, but most will treat US handicaps with an asterix.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Does it bother some of you that anyone who knows your home club can look at your history and see when and where you've played?  Does "transparency" trump privacy?  I once held a job where playing golf with any frequency was politically costly.  I am sure that if someone was "watching me" that it would have had a big impact on my career with that company.


I don't like the ESC change that forces me to think and adjust more with no net benefit to how well I play.  I wonder if a club might do better with an active handicap committee certifying handicaps periodically, say every month or two.  It is a thankless job, but if I was active in the MGA and cared that some of my most active players were dropping out because the same 10 or so guys won most of the money, I might be willing to take some flak- nobody would dare cold-cock an old man, right?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Does it bother some of you that anyone who knows your home club can look at your history and see when and where you've played?  Does "transparency" trump privacy?  I once held a job where playing golf with any frequency was politically costly.  I am sure that if someone was "watching me" that it would have had a big impact on my career with that company.

It's worse that they've gone with (reverted back to) just needing your GHIN # and last name to log in. Especially with daily revisions. Makes it all too easy for nefarious sabotage of a buddy (or enemy).

[SL_Solow]

Lou,  I don't know how it works in Texas but the CDGA system of peer review does not reveal the location of rounds played.  Regarding committees, the new system continues the role of committees so if it becomes apparent that someone is gaming the system, a committee can make adjustments.  Similarly, if someone is recovering from an illness, a committee can adjust a handicap upward.  See Rule 7.  In my experience, committees have been reluctant to make adjustments although I have seen it happen.


Regarding the larger issue raised by several posters concerning the posting of all scores without verification, we should understand that the system is a result of several years of negotiation and compromise.  The same issue was debated in the USA many years ago.  Here, there were fewer Stableford, alternate shot and other forms of competition where the "regular" form of scoring is not used. Similarly, there were fewer regular competitions.  Most golf was (and is) played in matches outside of formal competition.  Where the same group plays on a regular basis, the handicap system is not needed as the competitors know each other's games. That is why most golfers do not have an official handicap.  But in a larger club setting where tournaments are played with handicaps, it was decided that regular play gave the best indication of a golfer's ability.  Thus all rounds were counted.  Back in the day, one posted a score by writing it on a sheet, or, at some clubs, having an assistant pro enter the scores.  Clearly someone with larceny in their heart could turn in phony scores.  That is why the handicap committee was and is given a monitoring role.  In my years I have only seen a few instances of individuals with significantly inflated handicaps.  There are a larger number who maintain "vanity" handicaps.  Moreover, there are many ways to game any system if one has the inclination.
I agree that tournament scores as the sole determination of handicaps is probably the way to assure the most accurate reporting of scores although it is not much more accurate than scores obtained from those who are gambling.  But I submit that, given the small number of tournament rounds, that method would restrict the number of players with handicaps and would likely be a less accurate measure of a player's ability.


Two quick additional points.  First, with respect to The suggestion that Erik's failure to have a handicap is unusual, very few pro's in our area maintain handicaps as their tourney's are played at "scratch" and most don't gamble with members.  I also note that the best amateurs, while they maintain handicap indexes, play in our district tournaments at "scratch".

[Garland Bayley]

Your signature is a resume. As I said before that’s a shame.

So hide it and stop complaining about it.

It's information, and as I said, I wish others posted their information so I had more context for their comments.

Perhaps it is about humility. A concept you seem to have little knowledge of. I.e., In this thread, you have been boisterously maintaining that Dr. Dean Knuth published false information about handicapping. If you had an ounce of humility, you would carefully examine your ideas about handicapping that conflict with Dr. Knuth, and use an open mind to examine what others tell you about your ideas vs. those of Dr. Knuth. If you had an ounce of humility, you would realize that Dr. Knuth has forgotten more about handicapping than you will ever know. if you had an ounce of humility, you wouldn't post statements like "Please find a time machine to go back to 2015 when this was announced. My, how you would have felt if they had required attested scores!!! One can't begin to imagine the shock and horror you might have experienced…", which is the kind of behavior you have often exhibited on this site.

If your behavior were more humble, you might find people opening up to you privately about their accomplishments. People that don't want to advertise their accomplishments, and don't need to, because the quality of what they write speaks for itself. You might find people people here that have reached the pinnacles of their chosen profession, far beyond what you could accomplish in your chosen profession.

We have seen you state that your chosen profession was computer science. We have also seen that you have moved on from that.

That makes my chosen profession pertinent, because it is also computer science. I have a Ph. D. in computer science and have taught in universities. This experience caused me to recognize your type and talents from the beginning when you first joined the site, because I have had students like you in my classes. I recognized this when you were claiming to have a science degree, even before you were specific to it being computer science. The students that exhibited your behavior were a real problem for the professors. They would attend classes and boldly proclaim their knowledge, and expertise. This would cause other students to seek them out for advice on their class projects, which probably had the effect of emboldening the students providing said advice. Eventually the students who had taken their advice would find they had reached a dead end with no glimpse of future success in sight, and would turn to the professor for help. And, the professor would have to disabuse them of all the bad (incorrect) advice they had been given.

In our society today, we see there are those that have found that saying things that are wrong, and repeating them constantly will lead people to believe they are correct. Unfortunately, they are still wrong, and all the repetition in the world cannot make it right. You constantly exhibit this trait, even after it has been demonstrated that what you are saying is wrong using your own data as was done above.

You found that I had made some simple math errors above, and I acknowledged it admitting to having made some rounding errors. You should take this as a sign of strength, as the ability to admit mistake is. You should not take it as a weapon to beat me over the head with, as you have done above. You could learn from this. If someone says you have made a mistake, it is time to re-examine what you have done, and seek guidance on why it might be a mistake instead of blithely dismissing it and carrying on with your obstinance.

Now I leave it to you to see if you can surprise me with some behavior modifications. I pray that you do.

[Garland Bayley]

  Dr. Knuth recommended not rushing into the new handicap system like he feels the USGA is doing. I got this message from a golfing partner.

"Have you checked out your handicaps yet? My index went up from 10.6 to 10.9. That is the first thing that seemed odd. They also show the par for OHCC as 69. That is the second thing that seemed odd. The last thing that is odd is that my course handicap is 55 from the blue tees. I am thinking we can start playing for money again. I think I can be pretty competitive with a 55 handicap. Unfortunately, they are showing the par from the blue tees as 137. It looks like there are a few issues with the migration to WHS. I expected my handicap to go down. I am still a 12 from the whites. I suppose that is because the course rating and par are both 69. I suspect they are treating #2 as a par 3. I guess that means my 2 yesterday is a birdie not an eagle?"

Also, Dr. Knuth pointed out how the range of course handicaps will vary greatly when moving from one set of tees to another. 12 to 55 is quite a variation. 

In a follow up email he wrote, "On second thought forget about playing for money from the blues. My handicap is +55, not 55..."

12 to +55 is even a larger variation.  Unfortunately, it disproves Dr. Knuth's statements about what will happen as you move to longer tees. 

 

[David Harshbarger]

My index went up from 10.6 to 10.9

Old way average of last/best 10 * 0.96 means that with rounding, your friends 10.6 was based on 0.96 * 11.0.  On other words, the old handicap was based on 10 rounds whose average score was 11.0

New way, instead of last/best 10 we go to last/best 8.  Dropping the 2 rounds that were most above the average of 11 could very well nudge the average down to 10.9.  Which is what the new handicap is.

Checks out to me.

[Rob Marshall]

"Two quick additional points.  First, with respect to The suggestion that Erik's failure to have a handicap is unusual, very few pro's in our area maintain handicaps as their tourney's are played at "scratch" and most don't gamble with members.  I also note that the best amateurs, while they maintain handicap indexes, play in our district tournaments at "scratch"."

I live in the same region (WNY) where Erik is a PGA member. None of my pro's know him. I looked at the tournament results for the WNY and could only find one tournament where he posted an individual score. I wanted to see if it was indicative of his playing ability or just a bad tournament round. I've had more than my share as we all have. That was my interest in his handicap. Without rehashing old posts, he has been less than diplomaticwhen[size=78%][/size] contradicting what I have been taught over the last 45 years of playing golf. Things I learned from pro's like Dr. Jim Suttie, Craig Harmon and a host of others or read in books by Bob Rotella. In the future I will just ignore his responses such as "I assume you are being sarcastic...." about a response of mine to another poster here.

[jeffwarne]

Simple right?
Just like the new rules.


Cheaters gonna cheat.
UK had it right-use tournament scores.
Those who don't play in events(most) can simply make up their handicaps or negotiate as any money players do.
Waaaay too many variables and easily manipulated in US system-old and new/World.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Unfortunately, they are showing the par from the blue tees as 137.

Someone probably accidentally put the slope in where the course par goes or something. Many golf associations are still catching up.

Garland, the only part of your almost entirely personal post which I believe is on topic is the bit here:

If you had an ounce of humility, you would carefully examine your ideas about handicapping that conflict with Dr. Knuth, and use an open mind to examine what others tell you about your ideas vs. those of Dr. Knuth.

The truth is I've spent tens of hours discussing the WHS with people responsible for putting it together, people responsible for administrating it, regular golfers looking to understand it, etc. Just today my phone shows two hours of calls doing just that. The truth is that I've done just what you've suggested: I've read Dean's article several times, I've discussed it with the people I've talked to, I've considered it from different angles… and ultimately I arrive at the same conclusions. For whatever reason, Dean doesn't seem to understand the changes, the relevance of "par," etc. The article, IMO, is bad.

As congenially as possible, please ask yourself: what have you done but blindly support Dean's article here? What examination have you conducted except to say "Dean is an expert and you are a jerk"? (I'm paraphrasing of course.) I stand by what I've said about Dean's article, and have given it MUCH of my time and thought over the past few days, on top of the time I've spent learning the WHS prior to the article's publication.

FWIW, my degrees are in French, computer science, and medicinal chemistry. I also don't believe I've ever said computer science is my "chosen profession."

Rob, nothing you wrote seems related to the WHS, and if you wish to continue to believe, despite the ample evidence we have to the contrary, that "Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO," by all means… I feel differently, and have the data to support my view.

[Rob Marshall]

Simple right?
Just like the new rules.


Cheaters gonna cheat.
UK had it right-use tournament scores.
Those who don't play in events(most) can simply make up their handicaps or negotiate as any money players do.
Waaaay too many variables and easily manipulated in US system-old and new/World.

Agree, competition rounds are the only way.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,

You have claimed to be a software developer. That is usually the professional path computer science majors choose.