[A.G._Crockett]

Odds of winning the MegaMillions game are 1 in 259 million.

Odds of giving birth to quadruplets (without medical "intervention") are 1 in 600,000

Odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1 million

Odds of being killed by lightning are 1 in 2.3 million

Odds of being attacked by a shark (U.S.) are 1 in 11.5 million

Odds of getting a royal flush on the first deal are 1 in 650,000

Odds of meteor striking your house are 1 in 182 trillion

Odds of contracting the human version of Mad Cow Disease are 1 in 40 million

Odds of being killed by a falling airplane part are 1 in 10 million

And perhaps my personal favorite:
Odds of dying from ignition or melting of nightwear: 1 in 31 million

ALL of these things can and DO happen!  You have been warned!  Or encouraged, as the case may be...

[Patrick_Mucci]

The difference is that I employ facts and geometric like logic, while you delve into the realm of the hypothetical  [/color]

[/quote]

So the fact that Dr. Dean Knuth understood the question and provided the answer has no bearing on your "employ facts and geometric like logic".

You need to reexamine the question and the response, as you seem, today, to understand neither.

Dr Dean Knuth is far from infallible, and I suspect that he didn't understand the biased/nuanced aspect of your question.

With a wild, eratic, random golfer, such as yourself, moving further back will only increase your scores, ergo your handicap.

That you don't understand that is truly amazing.

I'm sorry Patrick, but your are no Dean Knuth and your assertions are laughable.

Garland, I think you'll find that you're the one that everyone is laughing at.

[/quote]

[Garland Bayley]

...

Dr Dean Knuth is far from infallible, and I suspect that he didn't understand the biased/nuanced aspect of your question.

With a wild, eratic, random golfer, such as yourself, moving further back will only increase your scores, ergo your handicap.

...

He understood the question. The person not understanding is you. The question specified handicap index, not handicap, but you keep repeating the word handicap. When are you going to catch on?

[Garland Bayley]

Odds of winning the MegaMillions game are 1 in 259 million.

Odds of giving birth to quadruplets (without medical "intervention") are 1 in 600,000

Odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1 million

Odds of being killed by lightning are 1 in 2.3 million

Odds of being attacked by a shark (U.S.) are 1 in 11.5 million

Odds of getting a royal flush on the first deal are 1 in 650,000

Odds of meteor striking your house are 1 in 182 trillion

Odds of contracting the human version of Mad Cow Disease are 1 in 40 million

Odds of being killed by a falling airplane part are 1 in 10 million

And perhaps my personal favorite:
Odds of dying from ignition or melting of nightwear: 1 in 31 million

ALL of these things can and DO happen!  You have been warned!  Or encouraged, as the case may be...

And the chance that the handicap differential of your next round is lower than the average of your last 20 handicap differentials is 1/2.
And the chance that the handicap differential of your next round is higher than the average of your last 20 handicap differentials is 1/2.
This independent of whether you played from forward or back tees.

So what is your point of posting the the probabilities above? Don't you understand basic math, probability, and statistics?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

What was the date of your query to Dr Dean Knuth ?

What was the date of his response ?

Can we see the entire text of both ?

[Garland Bayley]

Sent 01/10/2014 02:12 PM
Received 01/13/2014 11:05 AM

I already have given you the full text.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sent 01/10/2014 02:12 PM
Received 01/13/2014 11:05 AM

I already have given you the full text.

I thought that Dr Knuth retired from the USGA 17 years ago, in 1997 ?

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

He can be reached at the Pope of Slope website.
If by full text, you meant you wanted to see his email address, you can see it there. I prefer not to post such info online.

I also emailed the USGA handicap section. Their response is typical of USGA responses from other sections of the USGA. I think USGA is the new spelling for obfuscate.

Their response:

"In regard to your inquiry, a player does not establish a Handicap Index from a specific set of tees. The Handicap Index calculation is a standardized calculation for everyone so theoretically a players Index will be the same regardless of where they normally compete from."

In my experience the typical golfer goes primarily to his "home" course, and plays with his usual group from the same set of tees. So in my experience their first statement is false. Had they said, it is not necessary to establish a Handicap Index from a specific set of tees, they would be correct. With that correction, everything they wrote was useless, as it was known already.

[Mark Pearce]

God I'm glad we have CONGU.

That said, isn't the theory behind course ratings, slopes and handicap indexes that a "standard" player with a specific index, playing to the same skill level, will shoot a higher average score from back tees but that the relation between those scores can be calculated using the higher index and slope from those back tees?  If that is true, on average (and if it isn't then the US handicap system is even more broken than first appears), then it follows that some players shoot a higher average score from those back tees than might be predicted by the rating/slope/index calculation.  That means that some will be lower because of the way the nature of their game interacts with the particular course.  For them, then despite shooting a higher score from the further back tees then their index will, in fact, be lower.

It's all lunacy, of course, and I am entirely persuaded that Garland is an opponent to be very wary of, but it does seem to me that it is entirely possible that a player of almost any skill level, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of their own particular game, might have a lower index from a further back tee than from a forward tee.

[Brent Hutto]

Mark,

Like any other complicated numerical system in which things are expected to "average out" the USGA handicap system can be gamed by exploiting small differences between ones own situation and those averages. But there's no other way for it to be done once the decision was taken that Every Round Must Count. That is the initial foundational principle on which the entire edifice is constructed.

To a very good approximation, the current USGA Handicap System is the best numerical approximation that could be created to turn every single score of every single golfer in the system into a portable handicap. But it is severely compromised by that underlying premise. Of course there is one other glaring error in the USGA's assumptions. They are fond of frequently saying the whole system can only work due to Peer Review...which is in fact completely non-existent for 90% of the golfers holding handicaps in GHIN right now.

So build a system on a stupid-ass requirement that garbage rounds determine ones handicap. Then give lip service to Peer Review while allowing people to post any number they like into the system from their cell phone. The result is a garbage handicap, no matter how well you thought out the little numerical adjustments and formulae.

[John Kavanaugh]

I really hate to call everyone with a bogus handicap a sandbagger because it implies they are cheaters.  I prefer Knuthie.  A Knuthie is someone who uses the current system in a legal and ethical manner to give them an advantage when traveling.  I'm a Knuthie myself because of my affiliation with Victoria National.  My index automatically jumped three strokes just by posting scores at a much, much harder course.  

I help keep it that high by not having to post my scores out in the Sand Hills because they are not in the system.  If I had to post my scores at Dismal I probably couldn't continue to be a member there.  It and Sand Hills may be the easiest courses in an inverse relationship to the Knuth system ever built.  Look at the evidence, everyone shoots career rounds on courses that would be rated as some of the most difficult in the country.  I owe Dick Youngscap a debt of gratitude for having the vision to see past this inherent flaw and setting the standard being followed by other courses in the region.

Now if I wanted to take it up a notch I would play Victoria National from the back tees.  I can't break 90 back there and the rating is around 77.  I would have an index of 11 which is basically double what I have now. That is taking being a Knuthie to a new level.  Here is a fun fact.  If you are a legit 4 handicap or above, legit being that we know you, there is a running offer of a $1000 bet that you can not break 85 from the back tees at Victoria.  Sound like it is rated properly at 77?  Of course not.

[Philip Caccamise]

I'd give a legit 4 a 1 in 20 shot of breaking 85 on their first time around Victoria National. Provided they have the length to carry it on the holes that require it. I'm a few lower than a 4... but would struggle from back there in a legitimate competition, because the carries required on some holes are more than I have in the bag.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,

What was the date of your query to Dr Dean Knuth ?

What was the date of his response ?

Can we see the entire text of both ?

Patrick,
Whatever the dates, and whatever the text of the query/response, I don't think you need to see it.  You KNOW what happened;  Garland posed a ludicrous hypothetical to Dr. Knuth that had a minute degree of mathematical possibility and Dr. Knuth confirmed that there could be hypothetical cases where it occurred.  Garland, of course, has been arguing for days now that such a thing DOES happen, despite the fact that nobody here has ever seen or even heard of it ACTUALLY happening even once, much less routinely.

Referring to my post #279, here is an analogous conversation between me and my life insurance agent.

Me: "Would it be possible for me to die from the spontaneous combustion of my pajamas?"

My agent: "Huh?"

Me: "I'm asking you is that POSSIBLE?"

My agent: "There are many, many thousands of more likely scenarios for your demise; maybe we should talk about those."

Me: "But is the PJ scenario POSSIBLE?"

My agent: "Well, I'm looking at a website that says the odds are 1 in 31 million against it."

Me: "BUT IS IT POSSIBLE?"

My agent: "Well, yes, I suppose it must be or the odds would be even higher, say 300 million to 1 or something like that."

Me: "Thanks; that's all I wanted to know!"

I played 117 rounds on my home course in 2013; the course has the traditional 4 par 3s and 4 par 5s.  If what Garland is saying, that yardage really doesn't matter, then there should have been a few days where my aggregate score on the 5s was lower than my aggregate score on the 3s.  Moreover, the gap between the hole handicaps of the 3s should be pretty low compared to the 5s, because bogey golfers don't lose much when they move back, according to the Book of GJB.

But I didn't even have one day like that among the 117 rounds in 2013, and the hole handicaps for the 3s and 5s are NOT close together.  The obvious reason for the first is that yardage matters to low to mid handicappers.  The obvious reason for the second is that yardage matters to bogey golfers, too.

Imagine for a moment a club that handicapped their holes in such as way as to NOT give strokes on the par 5s and the longest par 4s first, but instead gave the strokes first on the par 3s.  Who would be pleased and who would scream about the handicaps?

Or put another way, why did Ross end so many courses with a par 3?  Presumably to lessen the likelihood that a match that reached the 18th hole see the match won or lost because of an awarded handicap stroke.  Par 3s are shorter, and shorter is the biggest single factor in easier.  This was known to Ross, it is known to you and me, and it known to every golfer everywhere.  

Except one...

[Garland Bayley]

A.G.,

Since your post doesn't even mention any of the parameters of the discussion, I have to ask why you bother?

I suggest you go read the handicap manual, and familiarize yourself with course rating, slope rating, handicap differential, handicap index, and course handicap.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
I didn't address my post to you, so no worries if you didn't understand it.  

Thanks for the advice about the handicap manual, course rating, slope rating, handicap differential, handicap index, and course handicap.  First I'd heard of any of that stuff.  Should add a lot to my enjoyment of the game if I can puzzle it out.  

I promise to study up on all of those if you promise to try learn all about why it is harder to hit a golf ball accurately a long way than a shorter distance for every golfer on the planet but you.

Best regards.  

(No need to reply; I've given up on discussion with you anyway.  Perhaps you should give up on me as well?)

[Garland Bayley]

... if you promise to try learn all about why it is harder to hit a golf ball accurately a long way than a shorter distance for every golfer on the planet but you.
...

I have in no way indicated that the above is true. If you knew what the discussion was about, then you would know that I have never advocated any such thing. I would say some one that produces posts ridiculing the author of other posts should at least make an effort to understand what the discussion is about. To do otherwise would be extremely argumentative at the minimum.

[Brent Hutto]

A.G.

Not your aggregate SCORE. But your aggregate scores relative to the course and slope rating.

Nobody is claiming some players average 3 strokes from 600 yards and 5 stroke from 150 yards. But if you take the number of strokes for a scratch (course rating) and bogey (course rating and slope rating) anticipated by the USGA handicap system for a 600 yard hole versus a 150 yard hole, those are averages across all "bogey" and "scratch" golfers.

Let's say the system estimates that a certain Par 5 on your home course will take a "scratch" golfer 4.5 strokes and a "bogey" golfer 5.7 strokes. And let's say the system estimates 2.9 strokes and 4.0 strokes for a certain Par 3.

Then the system is saying that a "scratch" golfer will score 1.6 strokes higher on the Par 5 than the Par 3 on average, right?

And the system says a "bogey" golfer will score 1.7 strokes higher on the Par 5 than on the Par 3 on average, OK?

What Garland is correctly saying is, for every "bogey" golfer who averages 1.7 strokes more for a 600 yard hole than a 150 yard hole there is also a "bogey" golfer who averages on 1.4 strokes more from 600 than 150. And yet another who averages 2.0 strokes more from 600 than 150.

It may work out that 1.7 is the average "bogey" golfer difference but not for every golfer. And over many rounds those differences can tend to be consistent for a given golfer. So for myself or Garland, and ideal set of course/slope ratings might go up more than average as the distance gets longer. Maybe for you the perfectly rated course would have course/slope ratings that go up less than average as distance increases.

But USGA can't do this. They have to compute a single course rating and slope rating for each set of tees. It covers you, me, Garland and all those average golfers in between. With the net result that the system doesn't know what happens when Garland plays 7,000 yard tees instead of 5,500 yards tees. It knows only what an average player would do. For someone far from average, it is trivial to game the system by choosing tees that under-represent the difficulty of the course for that person's game. The result will be an inflated handicap INDEX relative to the one he'd get from a different set of tees.

[Bill_McBride]

Your index is your index no matter what tees you play.  It's more or less the average difference between your ESC adjusted score and the course rating from the tees you played, for the low 10 of your last 20 scores.  I think there are some other adjustments that tend to make scoring your course handicap a challenge to achieve for every level of player.  

All the rest is blather.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Your index is your index no matter what tees you play.  It's more or less the average difference between your ESC adjusted score and the course rating from the tees you played, for the low 10 of your last 20 scores.  I think there are some other adjustments that tend to make scoring your course handicap a challenge to achieve for every level of player.  

All the rest is blather.  

That is not the tune I heard you singing when Garland made a couple of natural birdies against you. Huh partner?

[John Kavanaugh]

In case you don't get it here is a little life lesson I gave my son. We don't step around douche bags to reach our goals, we step on douche bags to reach the next level. Sandbaggers do not steal trophies they simply make us work harder to win gross. Net is for pussies who lose their grip.

[Garland Bayley]

The thing that makes shooting to the level of your handicap difficult is that your handicap index and course handicap for the tees you are playing is calculated from the lowest 10 of your last 20 scores. If it were calculated from all 20 scores, scoring your average would be shooting your handicap.

[Matt Day]

I played five holes last week after work with my 12 year old daughter from the ladies tees and it was good fun,  we will do it again this week  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill, JakaB, Garland, et al.,

We're not talking about moving back 5 yards, we spoke of moving back, on average, 25-30 yards per hole or 450 to 540 yards.

To contend that one's handicap will go down as you move back 450 to 540 yards is beyond moronic.

It CAN'T happen, especially to a wild, erratic 22 handicap.

The ONLY way it could happen is if the handicap from the forward tee was bogus.

Anyone who claims that their handicap, especially a 22, will go down as they move from 6,500 to 7,000 is full of crap or not posting proper scores

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()