My yearly handicap system rant

[Craig Sweet]

I am so glad I no longer keep a handicap. I save $35 and a lot of time discussing something I don't care about.

[Chris Hughes]

Pretty bad system if you play for a month with similar bad results and it has no impact, then play one good round and get punished for an anomoly in your scoring

Nah. Hard disagree there.

Isn't the system supposed to make for a fair match?

If you're capable of shooting a round tomorrow that would drop your handicap to 6 or 5, then arguing both sides of this is really kinda dumb.

You: "my handicap hasn't gone up after 11 poor rounds" (ignoring how rare it would be that a non-counting score didn't drop in 11 rounds).
Also you: "my handicap could drop to 6 or 5 if I play a good round tomorrow."

So opining that you would  be better throwing out your highs and lows over a specified time frame seems far more equitable

No. It's a measure of your demonstrated ability closer to your ceiling, not your average or your floor.

The "soft/hard-cap" system hasn't changed since 2020 -- the date of officially published USGA comments is not relevant.  They clearly designed this mechanism as "an anti-abuse safeguard".

Chris, I quoted a more recent USGA/WHS document and you simply said you "don't agree." It's got nothing to do with whether you "agree" with a document or not, the document exists and I quoted it. You can "not agree" that 2+2=4 but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

The "system" didn't change.  USGA doesn't get a do-over on how they describe it.  They said what they meant the first time, it's designed/meant to be "an anti-abuse safeguard" -- direct quote.
 
Since you STILL can't/won't answer the question, I'm done. I don't appreciate the intellectual dishonesty you've continued to display.


What is it you want to know?  What I want to know is what % of active and honest golfers do you feel should be caught up in/by a USGA rule meant to be "an anti-abuse safeguard"?

Put another way, what % of active handicap holders do you believe actually do manipulate their handicap in nefarious fashion?

[Chris Hughes]

Archie,

Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job.

Hi,


I'm curious what you mean here? 


Wouldn't Knuth be considered the Godfather of Handicapping?


I'm certain he's generally displeased with the advent of the WHS, as well as the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap" specifically.

[archie_struthers]

 




Talked to Dean Knuth around this time every year, lol!    He probably never played for anything either

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The "system" didn't change.  USGA doesn't get a do-over on how they describe it.  They said what they meant the first time, it's designed/meant to be "an anti-abuse safeguard" -- direct quote.

The simple facts are:

• I posted a quote directly from the USGA/WHS.
• You said "I don't agree on any of that."
• You then said "the language from the USGA specifically says…" while ignoring the fact that I also quoted from the USGA.

So, like I said before, I'm done. You're intellectually dishonest, and for reasons beyond your question ducking.

[Mark Pearce]

   


Ok just finished playing again this afternoon ....played bad shot a high score and have not shot my handicap in over a month . 12 rounds without a score that reflects my lousy 7.0 index. Got killed by my buddies but that's ok .


The system sucks it doesn't track the way you are trending at present and if I happen to play good next week just once my number will likely drop, it's a joke but so be it .    Gotta be a better way than just trying to stop a few sandbaggers


Imagine playing for a month strait playing a two or three times a week posting all the scores religiously and never once shooting your index without any adjustment.   Hahahah

So you’ve played 12 consecutive rounds without playing to your index.  Does that mean that the 8 scores that count toward your index are the oldest 8 scores?  8 in a row that counted, and now 12 in a row that haven’t?

It must, mustn't it?  What a run of form that was.  And, presumably, preceded by 12 non-counting rounds, too?  Are there many players who exhibit these 8 round streaks, I wonder?


The great news is that your handicap is about to start moving quickly, as you're going to start dropping those 8 scores.  Let us know what it is in a month's time.....

[A.G._Crockett]

I am so glad I no longer keep a handicap. I save $35 and a lot of time discussing something I don't care about.

This is solution #1 to the “I hate the handicap system” problem.  Don't have a USGA handicap.




Solution #2, for golfers who want to maintain a handicap to monitor progress or whatever, is to simply not play in net competitions, including net money games.




Solution #3 would be to try to get your group to allow you to use your average score or some sort of trend in your scores instead of an actual current index. (If they go for this, please let me know when and where your group plays; that sounds like easy money!)




Good or bad, GHIN is not only completely voluntary, but impacts everyone else exactly the same way as it does me.

[Garland Bayley]

Archie,

Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job.

Hi,


I'm curious what you mean here? 


Wouldn't Knuth be considered the Godfather of Handicapping?


I'm certain he's generally displeased with the advent of the WHS, as well as the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap" specifically.

There are to many dimensions (factors) in play when trying to describe golf ability with a statistical number. Knuth has as much as admitted that. But, his claim is that is as well done as anyone could do.

[Rob Marshall]

I am so glad I no longer keep a handicap. I save $35 and a lot of time discussing something I don't care about.

This is solution #1 to the “I hate the handicap system” problem.




Solution #2, for golfers who want to maintain a handicap to monitor progress or whatever, is to simply not play in net competitions, including net money games.




Solution #3 would be to try to get your group to allow you to use your average score or some sort of trend in your scores instead of an actual current index. (If they go for this, please let me know when and where your group plays; that sounds like easy money!)




Good or bad, GHIN is not only completely voluntary, but impacts everyone else exactly the same way as it does me.

The problem with #2 is that at my club if you want to play that day you have to play in the net tournament. So we do and watch the same guys win year after year.


The Ghin doesn't impact everyone the exact same way when you have some guys (me) who post every score and others who don't post their good scores or finish double, double after they close out the match.


The Ghin system does impact the players the same who enter every score...................The honest players.

[Chris Hughes]

The "system" didn't change.  USGA doesn't get a do-over on how they describe it.  They said what they meant the first time, it's designed/meant to be "an anti-abuse safeguard" -- direct quote.

The simple facts are:

• I posted a quote directly from the USGA/WHS.
• You said "I don't agree on any of that."
• You then said "the language from the USGA specifically says…" while ignoring the fact that I also quoted from the USGA.

So, like I said before, I'm done. You're intellectually dishonest, and for reasons beyond your question ducking.

The language I posted describes the specific nature/design of the rule/mechanism ("anti-abuse").


The language you posted surrounds the purported byproducts of the rule and that blather by the USGA/R&A is highly debatable!


What is it you want to know?


What I want to know is what % of honest and active golfers do you believe should be caught up in rule design to prevent handicap "abuse"?


You're unwilling to accept stats from my club as being representative of the broader handicap-holding population, but contend your eClub is representative?


Out of curiosity I looked up every handicap holder in the great United States of America named Chris Hughes (plus first name derivations thereof)...


...after cleaning up the data to include only active golfers there were 21 GHIN records left -- 7 of the 21 are caught up in the anti-abuse protocol known as the soft/hard-cap.


The info tracks with what I was seeing previously -- is definitely excessive -- and is clearly indicative of a dysfunctional rule.

[Chris Hughes]

Archie,

Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job.

Hi,


I'm curious what you mean here? 


Wouldn't Knuth be considered the Godfather of Handicapping?


I'm certain he's generally displeased with the advent of the WHS, as well as the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap" specifically.

There are to many dimensions (factors) in play when trying to describe golf ability with a statistical number. Knuth has as much as admitted that. But, his claim is that (it) is as well done as anyone could do.

This was the case previous to the WHS overhaul -- definitely not the case anymore -- and especially as it goes to the anti-abuse mechanism known as the soft/hard-cap.


In fact, Dean gave me permission to post a direct quote he made during a lengthy discussion we had on this topic -- here it is:


 "The soft cap/hard cap procedure is primitive and is a major step down from the USGA Handicap System Section 10-3 which only reduced the handicaps of players who did exceptionally well in two or more tournament rounds in a 12 month period. Under theWHS procedure, tournament scores are no longer identified and as a result,many innocent golfers are being capped.

And the ability to beat your handicap by a whopping six shots does nothing under WHS, but 7 under does--that is stupid."

[Daryl David]

Archie,

Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job.

Hi,


I'm curious what you mean here? 


Wouldn't Knuth be considered the Godfather of Handicapping?


I'm certain he's generally displeased with the advent of the WHS, as well as the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap" specifically.

There are to many dimensions (factors) in play when trying to describe golf ability with a statistical number. Knuth has as much as admitted that. But, his claim is that (it) is as well done as anyone could do.

This was the case previous to the WHS overhaul -- definitely not the case anymore -- and especially as it goes to the anti-abuse mechanism known as the soft/hard-cap.


In fact, Dean gave me permission to post a direct quote he made during a lengthy discussion we had on this topic -- here it is:


 "The soft cap/hard cap procedure is primitive and is a major step down from the USGA Handicap System Section 10-3 which only reduced the handicaps of players who did exceptionally well in two or more tournament rounds in a 12 month period. Under theWHS procedure, tournament scores are no longer identified and as a result,many innocent golfers are being capped.

And the ability to beat your handicap by a whopping six shots does nothing under WHS, but 7 under does--that is stupid."

This makes sense. The scarlet letter applied to so called sandbaggers in the old days was very rare before this change. I would say 50% of my golf group was under the oppression of the soft cap sometime this winter season. That’s just weird. None of them are “cheaters”. They just have injuries or are in a slump. Stupid.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What is it you want to know?

From you? Nothing, as you've got nothing to offer. You don't have inside knowledge of anything. You have opinions and an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.

The language I quoted is directly from the page under the heading "Why does the soft cap and hard cap exist?" Some part of it is anti-abuse, but that's not the only reason for the existence of the caps. Believe it or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Just the fact of the matter.

What I want to know is what % of honest and active golfers do you believe should be caught up in rule design to prevent handicap "abuse"?

I already spoke to that. The first time you asked, when you first ducked the question.

You're unwilling to accept stats from my club as being representative of the broader handicap-holding population, but contend your eClub is representative?

Except:

• I never said my club was representative of anything. I simply answered your question.
• Unless I missed it, you've never shared the stats from your club. Not that I care if you do; it's not representative either.

The info tracks with what I was seeing previously -- is definitely excessive -- and is clearly indicative of a dysfunctional rule.

I don't agree.

Can we be done now? You think it sucks. We get that.

[Matt Schoolfield]

This makes sense. The scarlet letter applied to so called sandbaggers in the old days was very rare before this change. I would say 50% of my golf group was under the oppression of the soft cap sometime this winter season. That’s just weird. None of them are “cheaters”. They just have injuries or are in a slump. Stupid.

Okay, I think it might be helpful if I brought up that a handicapping system probably needs to include some "unfairness" if we want it to achieve what most people expect from a handicapping system.

What even is the function of a handicap?

I would posit that the function of a handicap is, effectively, to reduce correlation between established playing skill and event victory. Why do we want this? To maximize the fun of all player involved. People like to win, it's fun, people don't like to lose.

However, when the entire point of a handicapping system is to increase the distribution of fun/victories to more players, we need a system that actually achieves this. When the system is game-able, say, by sandbagging, then the distribution of fun/victories stops being an even distribution. However, even without concerning ourselves with sandbagging, we still don't want scores that even resemble sandbagging (results with high variance).

We have ended up is a system that is weighted to reward consistency in results and punishes big swings in results, even though punishing big swings in results will punish some honest players, who have a style of play with high variance.

Why should we want to punish honest players with high variance? Well, even when people are honest, we must remember that the function of the system is to created a wide distribution of fun/victories. A playing style with extremely high variance will over-index for victories compared to the mean result. E.g. imagine three players: Steady Eddie, Wild Willy, and Extreme Emma. When playing their round results will look like:

-

Steady Eddie (netting to average score):	-1	0	0	-1	+2	0
Wild Willy (netting to average score):	-5	+2	-1	-2	0	+6
Extreme Emma (netting to average score):	-20	+21	-18	-17	+19	+15

-

The problem with this scenario, is that even if Extreme Emma is being totally honest and up to date about her scoring she has broken the system because her style of play ends up netting 1/2 of the fun/victories instead of only 1/3. Eddie and Willy will rightly whine because no matter how many Eddies and Willies play in these matches, Emma will consistently win 50% of the time.

Thus, even in a world where sandbagging doesn't exist, we still need a system in which high variance in scores are "punished", simply because our goal is a high distribution of winners.

[Chris Hughes]

What is it you want to know?

From you? Nothing, as you've got nothing to offer. You don't have inside knowledge of anything. You have opinions and an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.


How do you feel about Dean Knuth's opinion?

The language I quoted is directly from the page under the heading "Why does the soft cap and hard cap exist?" Some part of it is anti-abuse, but that's not the only reason for the existence of the caps. Believe it or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Just the fact of the matter.


Blah blah blah...

What I want to know is what % of honest and active golfers do you believe should be caught up in rule design to prevent handicap "abuse"?

I already spoke to that. The first time you asked, when you first ducked the question.


Did you?  Was there a number included?

You're unwilling to accept stats from my club as being representative of the broader handicap-holding population, but contend your eClub is representative?

Except:

• I never said my club was representative of anything. (Sure you did.)  I simply answered your question.
• Unless I missed it, you've never shared the stats from your club. Not that I care if you do; it's not representative either.

The info tracks with what I was seeing previously -- is definitely excessive -- and is clearly indicative of a dysfunctional rule.

I don't agree. (So what's an appropriate % of active and honest handicap holders to be caught in an "anti-abuse" seine net?)

Can we be done now? You think it sucks. (So does Dean Knuth...but you know better than him?) We get that.

[Rob Marshall]

Matt,
"simply because our goal is a high distribution of winners"

Isn't the system if working correctly simply to put everyone on a level playing field? One guy with more tournament experience could win more often than a guy who only plays in matches with his buddies. This is why basing handicaps on tournament scores makes the most sense imo. (UK method)

[Chris Hughes]

Archie,

Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job.

Hi,


I'm curious what you mean here? 


Wouldn't Knuth be considered the Godfather of Handicapping?


I'm certain he's generally displeased with the advent of the WHS, as well as the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap" specifically.

There are to many dimensions (factors) in play when trying to describe golf ability with a statistical number. Knuth has as much as admitted that. But, his claim is that (it) is as well done as anyone could do.

This was the case previous to the WHS overhaul -- definitely not the case anymore -- and especially as it goes to the anti-abuse mechanism known as the soft/hard-cap.


In fact, Dean gave me permission to post a direct quote he made during a lengthy discussion we had on this topic -- here it is:


 "The soft cap/hard cap procedure is primitive and is a major step down from the USGA Handicap System Section 10-3 which only reduced the handicaps of players who did exceptionally well in two or more tournament rounds in a 12 month period. Under theWHS procedure, tournament scores are no longer identified and as a result,many innocent golfers are being capped.

And the ability to beat your handicap by a whopping six shots does nothing under WHS, but 7 under does--that is stupid."

This makes sense. The scarlet letter applied to so called sandbaggers in the old days was very rare before this change. I would say 50% of my golf group was under the oppression of the soft cap sometime this winter season. That’s just weird. None of them are “cheaters”. They just have injuries or are in a slump. Stupid.

Another good data-point illustrating the epic dysfunctionality of the "anti-abuse" rule known as the soft/hard-cap.


Cheers mate...

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt,

"simply because our goal is a high distribution of winners"

Isn't the system if working correctly simply to put everyone on a level playing field? One guy with more tournament experience could win the more often than a guy who only plays in matches with his buddies. This is why basing handicaps on tournament scores makes the most sense. (UK method)

I posit that the goal of a handicapping system should be to distribute victories fairly evenly across the field for all purposes (tournament or even casual play). It makes little sense to use a handicapping system if this isn't the goal. Any system that doesn't distribute victories fairly even across all players (e.g. one subset of players usually wins), seems pointless, and we might as well use pure skill (playing off scratch) in that case since we're effectively picking winners and losers anyway.

Where the math becomes tricky is that, a system to "level the playing field" doesn't care about variance when there are only two players, but as soon as that three or more players are involved (and the effect goes up with the number of players), high variance distributions of results (wide U-shaped distributions) end up consistently outperforming all other distributions of results, which means by "leveling the playing field" we've actually tilted it toward Extreme Emma insofar as number of victories are concerned.

We could account for variance in handicapping system (which would probably be a good thing), but that would make the math extremely, extremely complex, and we wouldn't get the nice benefit of discouraging sandbagging at the same time.

Is that "fair"? I mean, that's sort of irrelevant. The entire point of handicapping is to create a fictitious "fairness" focused on maximizing fun, from what is obviously an inherent system of unfairness.

[Rob Marshall]

Matt,
You give me two 10 handicaps playing head to head and I'll take the 10 who plays in a lot of tournaments every time.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt,
You give me two 10 handicaps playing head to head and I'll take the 10 who plays in a lot of tournaments every time.

That seems like a very good heuristic. I would probably join you in taking those bets.

[Chris Hughes]

Matt,
You give me two 10 handicaps playing head to head and I'll take the 10 who plays in a lot of tournaments every time.

That seems like a very good heuristic. I would probably join you in taking those bets.

I'd take the the 10 who is "more consistent" and especially so if the "tournament seasoned" 10 is caught up in the anti-abuse soft/hard-cap seine net...


...the "consistent" 10 has a built in advantage in all scenarios.

[Chris Hughes]

Cool. What's the number? How do you define "a large %"?

What's the number at your club?
In your opinion what would meet the definition of "a large %"?2%?12%?22%?More?

Currently I have 4 members at my club soft capped, none hard capped. I just ran the report.


"4" of how many in your "eClub"?   

I don't see that as a flaw, either — the purpose of the hard and soft caps are to prevent someone from ballooning their index quickly.


Is this ("ballooning their index") really a widespread problem?

[Sean_A]

This makes sense. The scarlet letter applied to so called sandbaggers in the old days was very rare before this change. I would say 50% of my golf group was under the oppression of the soft cap sometime this winter season. That’s just weird. None of them are “cheaters”. They just have injuries or are in a slump. Stupid.

Okay, I think it might be helpful if I brought up that a handicapping system probably needs to include some "unfairness" if we want it to achieve what most people expect from a handicapping system.

What even is the function of a handicap?

I would posit that the function of a handicap is, effectively, to reduce correlation between established playing skill and event victory. Why do we want this? To maximize the fun of all player involved. People like to win, it's fun, people don't like to lose.

However, when the entire point of a handicapping system is to increase the distribution of fun/victories to more players, we need a system that actually achieves this. When the system is game-able, say, by sandbagging, then the distribution of fun/victories stops being an even distribution. However, even without concerning ourselves with sandbagging, we still don't want scores that even resemble sandbagging (results with high variance).

We have ended up is a system that is weighted to reward consistency in results and punishes big swings in results, even though punishing big swings in results will punish some honest players, who have a style of play with high variance.

Why should we want to punish honest players with high variance? Well, even when people are honest, we must remember that the function of the system is to created a wide distribution of fun/victories. A playing style with extremely high variance will over-index for victories compared to the mean result. E.g. imagine three players: Steady Eddie, Wild Willy, and Extreme Emma. When playing their round results will look like:

Steady Eddie (netting to average score):	-1	0	0	-1	+2	0
Wild Willy (netting to average score):	-5	+2	-1	-2	0	+6
Extreme Emma (netting to average score):	-20	+21	-18	-17	+19	+15

-

The problem with this scenario, is that even if Extreme Emma is being totally honest and up to date about her scoring she has broken the system because her style of play ends up netting 1/2 of the fun/victories instead of only 1/3. Eddie and Willy will rightly whine because no matter how many Eddies and Willies play in these matches, Emma will consistently win 50% of the time.

Thus, even in a world where sandbagging doesn't exist, we still need a system in which high variance in scores are "punished", simply because our goal is a high distribution of winners.

The point of handicapping is for all players to be competitive despite varying playing abilities. It is clear that the wider the variance between players the less accurate the system becomes.

People think they have all kinds of great ideas to stop this and encourage that. No system can be anything close to perfect. However, I will say, any system without proper attestation has zero chance. The best way to reduce cheating is to play by the rules and with someone else marking and signing your card. It’s not perfect, but that’s the best we can do.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

Isn't the system if working correctly simply to put everyone on a level playing field? One guy with more tournament experience could win more often than a guy who only plays in matches with his buddies. This is why basing handicaps on tournament scores makes the most sense imo. (UK method)

I want to apologize a bit here Rob. Upon reading through here again, I think I misunderstood your point. I do think that different frameworks of play (casual vs tournament) lead to different styles of play. In that, I think your intuition here is worthwhile and it definitely makes the following comment make much more sense. I would agree with you that tournament handicaps should weighted to count more tournament play than causal play.

I think I missed your intuition because I was in the middle of discussing handicap system as such, so I missed the subtlety that would lead you to, if I'm hearing you correctly, suggest that tournament play is different in kind, and is therefore notable. I will say I think casual handicaps should be mostly based in causal play, but I will definitely echo your suggestion here that tournament play is more serious, and better reflects the actual game.

The point of handicapping is for all players to be competitive despite varying playing abilities. It is clear that the wider the variance between players the less accurate the system becomes.

People think they have all kinds of great ideas to stop this and encourage that. No system can be anything close to perfect. However, I will say, any system without proper attestation has zero chance. The best way to reduce cheating is to play by the rules and with someone else marking and signing your card. It’s not perfect, but that’s the best we can do.

I like the expression "locks keep honest people honest" and that's what I hope a handicap system strives for. Anyone can be a blatant cheat if they like, but the point is that blatant cheats are fairly identifiable -- whether or not the club has the fortitude to do something about it is a different story. I'm a strong believer in reputation, and while I might not be the most likable person, nor do I make the best first impressions, essentially everyone that knows me (even the folks that I'm not exactly besties with) know that I'm about everyone getting a fair shake.

It's just golf. It's a game. We are just talking about a children's game we play as adults. I got taken for a ride in my club last year, and played in the net match play championship, and my opponent effectively refused to give me the strokes I was entitled to, and well, essentially the worst case scenario happened. It ended up being a minor controversy, as I probably would have won if it had been a fair game. I promise you it's rare for me to be so livid.

I lost out on a mostly symbolic honorific. However, my counterpart will never be trusted to play another round without an independent observer. I still think I came out on top.

At the end of the day, as much as I enjoy playing golf with the guys at my club. It's just golf and I never want it to leave the realm of being a fun afternoon with friends. In that way, I think handicapping systems should simply strive to keep honest people honest (and be designed to incentivize honesty!), but it's on clubs to hold their members to task when it comes to blatant cheating.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How do you feel about Dean Knuth's opinion?

I'd weight it above yours, but at the end of the day, that's all it is: an opinion.

It's not like the USGA hasn't considered this, in concert with the other members of the WHS, and it's not like they don't have billions of sores to run simulations on, etc.

The language I quoted is directly from the page under the heading "Why does the soft cap and hard cap exist?" Some part of it is anti-abuse, but that's not the only reason for the existence of the caps. Believe it or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Just the fact of the matter.

Blah blah blah...

Sorry the facts don't align with your forced narrative.

Did you?  Was there a number included?

Yep. Maybe go back and look.

• I never said my club was representative of anything. (Sure you did.) I simply answered your question.

Now you're just making stuff up. I did no such thing.

I'm done. You're not capable of an intellectually honest discussion and are nearly just trolling at this point.

Currently I have 4 members at my club soft capped, none hard capped. I just ran the report. One of those has been playing with an injury.

What are your answers? You spoke as if it was nation-wide, too, not just at your club: "That such a large % of active golfers are caught up in an "anti-abuse" handicap rules provision is indicative of a flawed system."

I don't see that as a flaw, either — the purpose of the hard and soft caps are to prevent someone from ballooning their index quickly.

You don't like it. Cool. We get it.