Combining back and middle tees

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Your take makes amazing sense to me.

But what I still don't get is why it matters.  The ONLY time this will ever matter at all is when US golfers play against UK golfers.  At those times, yes the systems are so different that it makes fair matches difficult.  But seriously, how often does it happen?  And in those limited times, how often will it be net?  And why can't it just be handled like gentlemen?  That is, if I go play Rich Goodale at Aberdour, he knows my US 3.4 equates to about a UK 6, so he's a gentleman and gives me 6.  

This really does seem like much ado about nothing.  And I still don't get why it's a big deal that a 5 handicap should be expected to shoot 5 over the course rating.  Seriously - who cares?  A US 5 plays against a US 5 and they play straight up.  A US 5 gives a US 8 3 shots.  Who cares what they are expected to shoot?

TH

Tom

It makes a difference for two reasons.  First, there must be a baseline to work from.  It makes complete sense that the course rating should be the baseline to work handicaps from.  Why try to reinvent the wheel?  Second, trying to work out caps from across the world is guesswork.  Rich offering a few extra shots is a guess and there are no numbers to back up why its 2 shots rather than or 4.  If we are going to go through the trouble of capping doesn't it make sense to keep it simple and understandable?  Handicaps in the States have gone the way of rules.  Geez, when will the handicapping book outgrow the rule book?  

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

OK, if you say so.  I still say our system works just fine, and Brent explained very well how it works.  It's really not that complex and heck the nuts and bolts don't need to be understood - the only thing we really need to know is that you are to try your best and post all scores.  The system then gives you your index, that translates to a course handicap, you give strokes accordingly.  

I don't find that to be difficult - seems pretty simple to me.

Again, the difficulty becomes when you try to do a match of US v. UK, but that would tend to happen so infrequently that it seems silly to overhaul either system to allow for it.  Remember to that a very fair approximation is to just take our Tournament scores and calculate a handicap based on that... it surely can be done.

Yes this could all be simpler, for sure.  But it seems to me it works just fine, so I am again going to say your complaints are much ado about nothing.

But heck, that's par for the course in this forum.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Remember to that a very fair approximation is to just take our Tournament scores and calculate a handicap based on that... it surely can be done.

I would love to see the USGA have an optional handicap for players who play in tournaments, based only on "T" scores or something very close to that. I realize that would be logistically unweildy but it sure as heck would be easier to police^H^H^H^H^H^H peer review and I believe it would lead to a more valid system for handicapped competition.

Then again, the vast majority of those who would be interested in that kind of thing probably just play in scratch tournaments anyway. For good players the handicap is just to validate your entry into certain tournaments which want to exclude hacks.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent -that does exist - it's one of the reasons why T scores are separated out in your record.  Typically GHIN doesn't calculate a separate index for you based on those, but it's pretty easy to do... I've played in tournaments that have used this.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent and Sean, note I emailed the USGA and asked Sean's question more or less - that is, why do we use low 10 out of last 20 (thus giving the results that we get and making a 5 handicap's expectation 80-82 rather than the 77 logic would otherwise dictate on a 72-rating course), and here is their response:

In reply to your recent e-mail, the goal of the USGA Handicap
 System(tm)is for anyone to be able to compete in any form of competition and havean equal chance of winning.  By using "average score" as a benchmark,this would produce a lot of lopsided results.  By using the USGA Handicap System, any player has a statistically equalchance to finish near the top of any competition. True equity isachieved in head to head competition using potential as a benchmark.The USGA(r) has used a number of differing methods since 1911, and hasused tens of thousands of scores in reviewing its handicap formulas.
 TheHandicap Research Team analyzed the 10 of 20 procedure after that
 methodbecame USGA policy  The HRT analysis took on many variations of the 20score model, including using all 20 scores, 15 of 20 scores, trimmingthe low two and high two and averaging the other 16, trimming the lowfive and high five and using the middle ten and other variations aswell.  The HRT determined that the 10 of 20 method inclusive of the 96percent factor, continues to provide for the best chance of equitablecompetition for a variety of formats.

That makes sense to me.  Does this give you any satisfaction, Sean?

Note I also asked why we use all scores instead of medal scores, and I haven't gotten a straight answer there - still waiting.

TH

[JohnV]

First, think about a Handicap Index is calculated.

For each round you play, a differential is calculated as follows:

Diff = (Score - CourseRating )* 113 / Slope

Take the 10 best differentials of the last 20 and average them.

Multiply by .96

Truncate everything after the 1/10ths.

Once the Handicap Index is calculated the player's Course Handicap is calculated as follows:

CH = HandicapIndex * Slope / 113

round to the nearest number.

Should the Course Handicap + the Course Rating = the player's average score?  No, it should be about the 25th percentile.

Is that a problem?  Not in my mind.  As long as things are consistently calculated for everyone it doesn't matter.

I went to the Scottish Golf Union and saw the following in their FAQ:

Q. What is the purpose of the Stableford or Nett Double Bogey adjustment in the CONGU Handicapping System as contained in Clause 19.8?

A. Clause 19.8 is a form of ‘equitable stroke control’ and is the downward adjustment of individual hole scores to a maximum equivalent to nett double bogey. This control is for handicap purposes only. The intent is that by placing a limit on the maximum score that can be recorded at any hole, handicaps are more representative of a player’s potential ability.

Q. Is Clause 19.8 not contrary to the spirit of the Rules of Golf whereby the player is required to hole out at each and every hole?

A. Application of Clause 19.8 is purely for handicap purposes. It was introduced to lessen the impact of the occasional ‘bad’ score on a player’s stroke play return and to reduce the incidence of ‘No Returns’ which at some clubs can represent an undesirable proportion of the competition entry. It allows a competitor who, for example, has lost a ball and does not complete the hole to continue the remainder of the round for handicap purposes. As well as providing valuable information regarding the playing ability of the player it also sustains interest on a day that may be otherwise spoiled from a golfing standpoint.

Competitors should be aware of the intent of this clause within the System and take advantage of it.

I guess that the folks in Scotland shouldn't be expected to average their handicap if they counted everything either.

Let he who is without sins cast the first stone.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV:

First, great point about the glass houses, so to speak (mixing allusions).  I KNEW they had to have something like this but was too lazy to go find it.

 

But second, note Sean doesn't care how we come to our numbers - his beef is that we shouldn't do it that way in the first place.  He seems to want us to use pure average, or whatever would give an expectation that a five handicap should expect to shoot 77 on a 72-rated course.

Thus my question to the USGA....

TH

[JohnV]

To take the offense.

I created 20 random scores.

I looked up the way that the CONGU does handicapping.  I assumed the first three scores were the ones used to create the player's initial handicap.  I then applied their rules Handicap Adjustment rules using the next twenty scores.  I did this three times with the same scores, but each time I changed my starting point.

I got three different handicaps, 3.5, 4.6 and 5.5, based on which point I started.

Under the USGA Handicap system the player's handicap was 3.9 regardless of which scores were posted first or last.

Here were the twenty scores.  I assumed a course rating (SSS) of 72.0 and a slope of 113:

78, 75, 74, 79, 82, 76, 77, 73, 78, 82, 81, 76, 79, 80, 83, 92, 84, 84, 82, 75

The first time I calculated them in the order presented.  The second time I started with the 78, 82, 81 sequence and wrapped around to finish with 76, 77, 73.  Third time I started with the 92, 84, 84 point and wrapped around.

It is possible I made a couple of errors, as I was in a hurry, but I don't think they were significant.

So what is the players handicap under CONGU?  Well, it depends on what order you shoot the scores.  Obviously if you are establishing a handicap, shoot three high scores to start it and then get better.

[Tom Huckaby]

LOVE IT!

Note that's also one of the points I always made to Goodale... what's to stop a miscreant from tanking his first three - sandbagging that way?

They do have pretty much same mandatory reduction stuff as we do, as I recall.  But for at least one tournament a sandbagger could really make some hay over there.  It would take more work, but hey, when did that ever stop a bagger?