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

[MClutterbuck]

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

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


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

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


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

Rob, all clubs should have a handicap committee that can eventually contact folks that played with you and check on your scores. That can not be done if you plan alone. If you post from your home fake scores, you should be caught. The new system makes sense.

[Rob Marshall]

How do they get a hold of the guys I played with in Florida when I went out as a single every day of the two weeks I spent down there? I don't know the guys and neither does the committee. I agree that if it's at your own club they can ask you who you played with.


My point was and still is it's a game of honor and integrity. That's what the game is all about. But they don't trust you to post the correct score if you play alone.

[MClutterbuck]

I have tried to read all of the previous discussion and I have to agree that Dr. Knuth (or whomever edited the final version) is not quite right in criticizing the "inclusion of par".


Par is not included other than to get a relative difference between different tee rating to a constant. Any constant could have been used, but the use of par as this constant in the Course Handicap calculation makes sense because:


1. It automatically adjusts handicaps for each tee, which facilitates match play
2. It provides a reference for your net score. Below par will reduce your handicap, above par will increase it.


Par is not used for the handicap index calculation so this does not change from the prior situation.


Doak´s comments about par not being important to the game are coming from an entirely different angle and one can agree with Doak (I do) and also understand how the use of par as the constant for the calculation makes sense.

[MClutterbuck]

How do they get a hold of the guys I played with in Florida when I went out as a single every day of the two weeks I spent down there? I don't know the guys and neither does the committee. I agree that if it's at your own club they can ask you who you played with.


My point was and still is it's a game of honor and integrity. That's what the game is all about. But they don't trust you to post the correct score if you play alone.

You dont, most times. But if you are investigating a player that cheats, you do.

Sean I believe advocates for attestation, as is the case in the UK and in South America. I would to. The US was more lax. All regions are compromising a bit and having a playing partner I think makes sense. I am shocked if a 5 year old grandson is allowed. In my region, the playing partner has to have a valid handicap.

[Garland Bayley]

I have tried to read all of the previous discussion and I have to agree that Dr. Knuth (or whomever edited the final version) is not quite right in criticizing the "inclusion of par".

Do you believe Dean Knuth's assertion that the inclusion of par reduces the accuracy of handicapping?

Par is not included other than to get a relative difference between different tee rating to a constant. Any constant could have been used, but the use of par as this constant in the Course Handicap calculation makes sense because:


1. It automatically adjusts handicaps for each tee, which facilitates match play

I don't understand how you think this is different than the old system.

2. It provides a reference for your net score. Below par will reduce your handicap, above par will increase it.

The course rating is typically printed on the scorecard. Below course rating will reduce your handicap, above course rating will increase it.

Par is not used for the handicap index calculation so this does not change from the prior situation.

But handicap index is just one step in the calculation of course handicap, the value used in competitions. The situation has changed because the process of calculating the handicap players will use to compete now includes something that previously wasn't included.
Doak´s comments about par not being important to the game are coming from an entirely different angle and one can agree with Doak (I do) and also understand how the use of par as the constant for the calculation makes sense.

I would like to understand why you think Doak and Knuth "are coming from an entirely different angle" on the relevance or accuracy of par.

[MClutterbuck]

Re your 5 comments:


1. I dont believe it changes accuracy or have seen any calculation that can demonstrate one is more accurate than the other.


2. It is not different than the old system if the old system adjustment was applied correctly, which it often was not. Now it is automatic. Good deal.


3. So? No big deal with the change.


4. I referenced handicap Index calculation. Your reply talks about Course Handicap. I repeat, the inclusion of the par - course rating differential does not modify your Handicap Index.


5. I mentioned Doak only. Doak talks about the lack of importance of shooting above or below par, especially in pro competitions. He also discusses some holes to be in between par. I agree with him. He is not discussing the merits of introducing a constant in a handicap calculation.

[Garland Bayley]

1. It clearly changes the accuracy. Would you like more explanation.

2. Are you talking about the two players in a match playing from different tees? Otherwise it seems your assertion is incorrect.

3. And, no big deal in not changing.

4. I know you only mentioned handicap index. But, that is irrelevant since players compete using course handicap, not handicap index.

5. At the point Knuth reference's Doak, I believe he is talking about the inaccuracy of par. Doak's acknowledgement of half par holes also points out par as an inaccurate number.

[Garland Bayley]

...Dean also says:

(An aside: Scratch golfers are no longer 0 handicaps everywhere. They could be playing anywhere from a plus 12 to a 6 handicap.)

They're still scratch golfers. They still have 0.0 indexes (or very close to it). A scratch golfer in 2019 had to shoot 74 to get a 0 differential on a 74.0-rated course, and that's true in 2020 as well. He'll have a course handicap (assuming par is 72) of 2 in 2020, but that again makes sense to me. Just like a scratch golfer had to shoot 68 on a 68.0-rated course in 2019 to get a 0 differential. Still true today, though they'll be a -4 course handicap if the par is 72.
...

What Erik misses here is "According to the USGA, a scratch golfer is defined as "a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses." I.e., Dean is using the USGA's definition of scratch golfer.
Erik's scratch golfers would have a handicap of 2 at the 74 rated course, and a handicap of +4 at the 68 rated course above. So really there was no need to take issue with what Dean wrote in this case.

[Rob Marshall]

...Dean also says:

(An aside: Scratch golfers are no longer 0 handicaps everywhere. They could be playing anywhere from a plus 12 to a 6 handicap.)

They're still scratch golfers. They still have 0.0 indexes (or very close to it). A scratch golfer in 2019 had to shoot 74 to get a 0 differential on a 74.0-rated course, and that's true in 2020 as well. He'll have a course handicap (assuming par is 72) of 2 in 2020, but that again makes sense to me. Just like a scratch golfer had to shoot 68 on a 68.0-rated course in 2019 to get a 0 differential. Still true today, though they'll be a -4 course handicap if the par is 72.
...

What Erik misses here is "According to the USGA, a scratch golfer is defined as "a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses." I.e., Dean is using the USGA's definition of scratch golfer.
Erik's scratch golfers would have a handicap of 2 at the 74 rated course, and a handicap of +4 at the 68 rated course above. So really there was no need to take issue with what Dean wrote in this case.

My new index is .3. I'm a 0 from our white tees and a 2 from the blue tees. Under the old system I was a 0 from both.

[MClutterbuck]

1. It clearly changes the accuracy. Would you like more explanation.

2. Are you talking about the two players in a match playing from different tees? Otherwise it seems your assertion is incorrect.

3. And, no big deal in not changing.

4. I know you only mentioned handicap index. But, that is irrelevant since players compete using course handicap, not handicap index.

5. At the point Knuth reference's Doak, I believe he is talking about the inaccuracy of par. Doak's acknowledgement of half par holes also points out par as an inaccurate number.

1. Please do explain. I am always open to learning or being corrected.


2. Yes.


3. Correct, but as the constant is being introduced to automatically adjust players from different tees, it makes sense the constant is par.


4. So your argument in 4 goes back to 1, the playing handicap and not the handicap index. I am all ears.


5. Par is inaccurate as a measure of difficulty correct. This does not undermine it is a good constant to use to correct for players from different tees. In fact, such correction also considers that net score is just a relative. We will all shoot less from back tees and potentially more from forward tees with this adjustment. It is all relative.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What Erik misses here is "According to the USGA, a scratch golfer is defined as "a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses." I.e., Dean is using the USGA's definition of scratch golfer.
Erik's scratch golfers would have a handicap of 2 at the 74 rated course, and a handicap of +4 at the 68 rated course above. So really there was no need to take issue with what Dean wrote in this case.

Ahem: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html#!rule-14370


And since I'm breaking my "I'm out" rule, let me just say, I've still not stopped laughing at how bad your responses continue to be. The significant figures bit took the cake, my man. Props to MClutterbuck for trying, too.

[Garland Bayley]

What Erik misses here is "According to the USGA, a scratch golfer is defined as "a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses." I.e., Dean is using the USGA's definition of scratch golfer.
Erik's scratch golfers would have a handicap of 2 at the 74 rated course, and a handicap of +4 at the 68 rated course above. So really there was no need to take issue with what Dean wrote in this case.

Ahem: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html#!rule-14370


And since I'm breaking my "I'm out" rule, let me just say, I've still not stopped laughing at how bad your responses continue to be. The significant figures bit took the cake, my man. Props to MClutterbuck for trying, too.

My bad. I used the 2019 definition without looking up a 2020 definition. Dean Knuth of course was using the 2019 definition. So what he wrote was entirely consistent with that.

[Rob Marshall]

Off the USGA site today: Looks like it is defined mulitple times.


Course Rating™ Primer
The USGA Course Rating System™ is the standard upon which the USGA Handicap System™ is built. It affects all golfers in the calculation of a Handicap Index®. Players "play to their handicaps," when their net scores (gross score-handicap strokes) equal the USGA Course Rating™.

The USGA Course Rating System takes into account the factors that affect the playing difficulty of a golf course.

Course rating teams from authorized golf associations carry out the on-course portion of the rating process. Authorized golf associations review the work of the teams and then issue ratings.

Accuracy and consistency are the keys to effective course rating. A course must first be accurately measured. The measured yardage must then be corrected for the effective playing length. These effective playing length corrections are roll, elevation, dogleg/forced lay-up, prevailing wind, and altitude. Obstacles that affect playing difficulty must then be evaluated in accordance with established standards. These standards increase objectivity in course rating.

Important Definitions
The following are terms essential to the USGA Course Rating System:
Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Off the USGA site today: Looks like it is defined mulitple times.

Rob, they simply haven't taken down or updated all of the old information or information they haven't gotten around to updating yet. You can still find the 2019 handicapping info online, too.

https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html

<meta property="article:published_time" content="2015-02-27T12:31:00Z">
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2015-03-06T19:30:24.598Z">

The article hasn't even been modified since March, 2015.

Hopefully, back to being "out" again.

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,
It's not from an "article". It's off the USGA website today and there is no date on the web page. It may not have been updated but no one reading the "rating primer" would know that.

[David Harshbarger]

Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots.

By definition, a scratch golfer plays to the course rating on any course.  That's what a course rating is, the score a scratch golfer should expect to shoot. 

The Old Course Handicap is the number of strokes a golfer gets relative to the course rating, based on slope and handicap index. A scratch golfer has a handicap index of 0, so the the math (handicap index * (course slope / 113) -> (0 * (course slope / 113) -> 0) always comes out to 0 strokes relative to the course rating. 

The New Course Handicap is the number of strokes a golfer gets builds on the Old Course Handicap by adding in the number of strokes relative to par the course is rated.    For a scratch golfer, this results in a Course Handicap of  Course Rating - Par.


(A new concept introduced is the Playing Handicap.  Playing Handicap also includes a format adjustment and the USGA offers some suggestions on this, but for this discussion assume it is 100%.)


So:


Course rating: 70
Par: 70
Scratch golfer Old Course Handicap: 0 Strokes
Scratch golfer New Course Handicap: 0 Strokes
Expected score: 70


Course Rating: 74
Par: 70
Scratch golfer Old Course Handicap: 0 Strokes
Scratch golfer New Course Handicap: 4 Strokes
Expected Score: 74. <----


In the new model, the scratch golfer will be told up front that they should expect to shoot a 74 on the par 70 course in the second example, that they are getting 4 strokes, and which holes they would get those strokes on.


On easier courses:


Course Rating: 68
Par: 70
Scratch golfer old course handicap: 0 Strokes
Scratch golfer new course handicap: +2 Strokes
Expected Score: 68


On a different course with a different par:


Course Rating: 70
Par: 72
Scratch golfer old course handicap: 0 Strokes
Scratch golfer new course handicap: +2 Strokes
Expected Score: 70


Course Rating: 72
Par: 72
Scratch golfer old course handicap: 0 Strokes
Scratch golfer new course handicap: 0 Strokes
Expected Score: 72


It seems that it's the addition of Net Double Bogey, as a replacement of ESC, that ties much of this together.  Scratch golfers, before, new that ESC meant nothing more than double bogey. So, it didn't matter what par was, nor what the difference between and par and course rating was. 

Now, with NDB, it does matter on which holes you would get strokes, and how many. 

For a scratch golfer playing in the example above where the Par is 70 but the course rating is 74, the scratch golfer is expected to shoot 74.  They are given an allowance of 4 strokes over double bogey to account for the course difficulty relative to course par, and those strokes are to be applied for handicap purposes on handicap holes 1-4.   Should the scratch golfer card a triple on any of those holes they would report that for handicap purposes.  Triples on the other 14 holes would be reported, for handicap purposes as double bogeys.

That's probably a minor impact for scratch golfers since they earned their scratch handicap by not tripling too many holes, and when they did, it never snuck into their score for handicap purposes.  But for your mid-handicapper, say a 15, now they will have a few more triples on par-5's sneak into their adjusted scores where before these would be adjusted down to doubles.

Last thought: this is an hour I will never get back :-(.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not from an "article". It's off the USGA website today and there is no date on the web page. It may not have been updated but no one reading the "rating primer" would know that.

I'm not getting into the definition of an "article." The simple fact is it's outdated information the USGA has not gotten around to updating or removing, while the information they have updated - the 2020 handicapping manual - has a clearly different definition than an article (!) last updated in 2015.

[Garland Bayley]

1. The easiest explanation uses significant digits. To quote Knuth's article.

"here was the old formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113)

Take the Slope Rating of whatever tee you’re playing, plug it into the formula, round that result up or down to a whole number and that’s how many strokes you were getting.

Under the new WHS, however, course handicaps reflect the strokes you get in relation to par with a subtle but significant change to the formula.
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + (Course Rating - par)"

Notice that in the first formula you generally have numbers with three significant digits. Handicap indexes from 10.0 on up are clearly three significant digits, slope rating and 113 are clearly three significant digits, as will be their quotient. Handicap indexes from 0.0 to 9.9 don't appear to be three significant digits, but they have the same number of decimal digits as the rest of the handicap indexes have.

However, the second formula introduces Course Rating and par. Course rating of course has three significant digits. However, par has two strikes against it.
1) It is not a very accurate measure of course difficulty. Certainly nowhere near as accurate as course rating. E.g., Windsong Farm Golf Club maintains a par of 71 throughout its tees ranging from course rating 67.9 to 75.0. http://wsfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Windsong-Scorecard.pdf
2) It is only two significant digits.

Therefore if the course rating is nn.0, then the course handicap under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system. However, if the course rating is nn.5, then half of the course handicaps under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system, and half of the course handicaps will be one different than they were under the old system.

2. Playing different tees necessitates an additional calculation. However, since the handicapping organizations often provide an app for posting scores, they could simply provide that calculation in the app. If you don't have the app, then the pro shop should have it. Any organization running a tournament should have it. Etc.

3. As long as you agree that score - handicap can also be compared to course rating to see whether you have bettered your handicap or not, I'm happy. After all Knuth's preference is that the new system not be implemented, and in the old system you still have the way to see whether you have bettered your handicap.

4. Only on a course with slope rating of 113 is the handicap index accurate for staging a competition using net scores based on handicap index. To adjust for the different difficulties of courses with a different slope rating you have to use course handicap to stage a competition using net scores. Therefore, you have to consider how course handicap is calculated to see how accurate your net scores will be. Point 1 above explains why the new formula is less accurate for staging competitions using net scores.

5. Par is the best number for adjusting in the new system. However, Knuth is saying the new system should not be adopted, because it lacks the accuracy of the old system.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,
It's not from an "article". It's off the USGA website today and there is no date on the web page. It may not have been updated but no one reading the "rating primer" would know that.

This is what I ran into too. I would often come up with pages from the USGA that would say they would be filled in when 2020 arrives. Well, I have news for them. 2020 has arrived!

[Rob Marshall]

It's not from an "article". It's off the USGA website today and there is no date on the web page. It may not have been updated but no one reading the "rating primer" would know that.

I'm not getting into the definition of an "article." The simple fact is it's outdated information the USGA has not gotten around to updating or removing, while the information they have updated - the 2020 handicapping manual - has a clearly different definition than an article (!) last updated in 2015.

Please tell me where in the article it is dated 2015? I'm not saying your wrong. But nowhere on the USGA web page is there a date. Not 2015 not 2020.

[Garland Bayley]

...
In the new model, the scratch golfer will be told up front that they should expect to shoot a 74 on the par 70 course in the second example, that they are getting 4 strokes, and which holes they would those strokes on.
...

Actually in the old model, the scratch golfer was told up front that they should expect to shoot a 74. After all, the course rating was 74.

Similar argument for course ratings below par.

[Garland Bayley]

...
See how in every example the playing handicap varies based on par?  That's why they introduced the new term "playing handicap", as prior this concept wasn't defined and named.

Whoops! That is not my understanding of playing handicap. Perhaps you should revisit that.

[David Harshbarger]

...
In the new model, the scratch golfer will be told up front that they should expect to shoot a 74 on the par 70 course in the second example, that they are getting 4 strokes, and which holes they would those strokes on.
...

Actually in the old model, the scratch golfer was told up front that they should expect to shoot a 74. After all, the course rating was 74.

Similar argument for course ratings below par.

Fair enough.  With the new system they also find out on which of the 4 holes a triple would remain on their card for handicapping purposes.

[Garland Bayley]

Didn't understand the context, so I mistakenly replied.

[David Harshbarger]

...
See how in every example the playing handicap varies based on par?  That's why they introduced the new term "playing handicap", as prior this concept wasn't defined and named.

Whoops! That is not my understanding of playing handicap. Perhaps you should revisit that.

You are right I screwed that up.


The difference between Par and Course Rating is now in the Course Handicap.  Before, the Course Handicap didn't include that.
The playing handicap is the adjustment for the playing format, derived from the Course Handicap.