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

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't think his concerns are warranted.

The course handicap is only really applicable when you're playing against someone else, and before, people sucked at making the adjustment. Now it's baked in. So if you're a 9.0 playing another 9.0, but you're playing from different tees, you should have one person playing off 12 and the other of 4 or 5.

Your actual differentials - the numbers that determine your handicap index - don't care about par. Par is just a figure to subtract out the course rating so people can easily play matches from different tees.

Should this help fix this?

Yes. Absolutely.

[Carl Johnson]

Erik, pardon the interruption, but

[F***** ** calculations deleted.]

 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

New: Allan has a 0.9 index and a 5 handicap from the back (0.9 + 74.8 - 71 = 4.7(r5))
New: Bert has a 25.6 index and a 29 handicap from the back (25.6 + 74.8 - 71 = 29.4(r29))

I'll stop you there, because you still have to multiply their course handicaps by the slope and divide by 113. This should read:

New: Allan has a 0.9 index and a 5 handicap from the back 0.9 *144/113 + (74.8 - 71) = 4.9 (rounds to 5)
New: Bert has a 25.6 index and a 29 handicap from the back 25.6 * 144/113 + (74.8 - 71) = 36.4 (rounds to 36)

That's 31 strokes different (and 0.1 away from being the same 32 it used to be).

So yeah, you missed out on the fact that you still have to do the slope/113 part.

What this change does is change the course handicap for everyone. You used to have to subtract the course rating out later; this bakes it in earlier.

You know those old course handicap charts where they were just the slope? And how the 20.0 index guy at the club would be a 24 course handicap from the back tees (maybe the slope is 138) and a 21 from the front tees (slope of 116), and you're thinking "how is that possible?" Well, you were supposed to adjust on the tee by taking the difference in the course rating.

Now it's baked in. Let's use your numbers: 74.8/144 and 66.2/118. Now this 20.0's playing handicap or course handicap* is going to be 29 (not 25) and 16 (not 21).

I hope that helps. I'm happy to answer questions if I can.

This will be a BIG help to those who gamble from different tees, those who establish handicaps from one tee but want to play a forward tee in a tournament, and tournament directors - people can clearly see how many strokes they'll get from any set of tees. And if it's 80% handicaps, ditto. They can still see.

[Pete_Pittock]

Forgive me if this has already been breached, but are our handicap tables going to be reevaluated, at least in the US?


  The ESC system has changed to a hole specific net double bogey.  The traditional handicap table allocates strokes where a bogey player most likely needs a stroke to tie a scratch golfer in a match. This is attained by a relative difficulty system, where the average score of a scratch golfer is compared to the average score of a bogey golfer.  The hole with the highest difference becomes the "1" stroke hole, etc, with a few exceptions.  Now we are in a sytem where the difficulty of a hole for a scratch player is combined with the same for the boget golfer, and the hole with the highest combination becomes the "1" handicap hole. There is likely not a direct correlation between relative difficulty and combined difficulty, as it is mentioned above.


Thoughts?    My club, where I am on the competions (and handicap) committee, is set to address our handicap tables this month
and I'd like other opinions.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Forgive me if this has already been breached, but are our handicap tables going to be reevaluated, at least in the US?

Possibly, but not guaranteed.

The ESC system has changed to a hole specific net triple bogey.

Two small points (and the first might be just a misunderstanding):

• ESC isn't "changing" so much as it's going away and being replaced by…
• It's "net double bogey." Not triple.

So my point about the first thing is that there is no ESC, but the way to cap individual hole scores is called "net double bogey."

And what's odd is that you can have a "par" value for the hole that's different than what's on the scorecard. If a hole is 550 from the back tees, and the front tees are on the other side of a big pond and only play 370, for handicapping, the front tees would be a net double bogey 6 because that hole would play as a par four, even if the scorecard says it's a par five.

The traditional handicap table allocates strokes where a bogey player most likely needs a stroke to tie a scratch golfer in a match.

Technically it's where the higher handicapper (any handicap) needs them against the lower handicapper (any lower handicapper, doesn't have to be scratch), plus a whole bunch of wiggling and shifting to get them so there there are 9 per side and the front side tends to have the odd numbered ones.

This was often done empirically by a course sending in 400+ scorecards, where they'd be crunched to determine the order of the holes. The new system, if a course wishes, will basically use the scratch and bogey ratings for the holes from commonly used tees to give handicap recommendations, plus that same wiggling as before.

There is likely not a direct correlation between relative difficulty and combined difficulty, as it is mentioned above.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about all of that. I haven't spent much time reading up on the hole handicapping stuff. I will note that the idea of "difficulty" is best divorced from hole handicaps, as the number one through four handicap holes are often the par fives, and better players find those to be the "easiest" (relative to par) holes on the course.

If any of what you've said about the "new" system (which contradicts what I'd typed up here, but again, I'm not 100% certain by any stretch), then you're just going to find the par fives still 1-4 and the par threes 15-18, because if they add up the scratch and bogey rating, you're going to get 4.7 + 5.8 >>> 3.2+3.5, if you know what I'm saying (to make up some numbers).

But I have been under the impression that it's still about the differences between the scratch and bogey ratings for the holes. But again, not 100% certain there.

[Pete_Pittock]

I made a couple of changes that Erik kindly pointed out.  Under the old system there was a group of scratch golfers (Group A) and a bunch of bogey golfers (Group B). It seems to me the new WHS is using the formula Group A + Group B divided by 2 to determine a holes difficulty relative to par (I am leaving a few intermediate steps out) and set a handicap table based on those differences or difficulties or whatever words work best for you.. But the old USGA system used Group A minus Group B as a determining factor.


What I was saying was (A+B)/2 does nor equal A-B as the starting point for setting a handicap table. And I noted that the US is moving from a handicap table based on A-B to the model of (A+B)/2, and was seeking input as our club will be printing new scorecards with changes on handicap holes.


The example mentioned about the long hole with a lake may have a different par was already known to me, and there is the case of an extremely difficult hole where the A group beats the B group on average by three strokes is not a good place (from the B group member standpoint to receive a handicap stroke, as it is a wasted stroke.


When our course had a members tournament that was scored under stableford, or against a set figure, we would use a different handicap table based on stroke play competition rather than the scorecards match play setup.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I was saying was (A+B)/2 does nor equal A-B as the starting point for setting a handicap table. And I noted that the US is moving from a handicap table based on A-B to the model of (A+B)/2, and was seeking input as our club will be printing new scorecards with changes on handicap holes.

So I followed up with this, and the answer as I understand it now is…

This is now being called the "Stroke Index." The USGA and member associations have tools to assist with the allocation based on the course rating, but ultimately the club can do whatever they want, and my golf association will not be making any recommendations to clubs unless asked.

So, clubs are free to basically assign them however they want.

I also know that a bunch of studies have been done and it almost doesn't matter where strokes are assigned in terms of the actual outcomes of matches. The same people shooting the same scores almost always have the same results given all logical means of distributing the strokes (i.e. it would shuffle results of match play matches if you assigned them in order, 1-18, but that's a non-sensical way to do that).

[Rob Marshall]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth


From the gentleman who invented slope...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

From the gentleman who invented slope...

Mentioned already: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67131.msg1624931.html#msg1624931 (FWIW)

[Garland Bayley]

It *seems* like this is an improvement.


At our club the point of contention is the seniors who establish their handicap from the men's tees then compete in all-ages competitions from the senior tees.


Should this help fix this?

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

In the words of someone in charge of this stuff today: "That article has many flaws. He’s wrong."

[Garland Bayley]

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

In the words of someone in charge of this stuff today: "That article has many flaws. He’s wrong."

Let's do the calculation for Windsong Farm (Jason Topp's course) with my 17.9 index.
Old handicap calculation for Black tees 22
Old handicap calculation for Sienna tees (where old codgers like me would play our morning games) 20
New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Seems to me I would make out like a bandit with the 26 handicap, but struggle to win anything with the 17 handicap.

So exactly where is the Pope wrong?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Didn't I just do one of these? You're not adjusting for the course rating from different tees in your "old" way.

[Garland Bayley]

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

In the words of someone in charge of this stuff today: "That article has many flaws. He’s wrong."

Let's do the calculation for Windsong Farm (Jason Topp's course) with my 17.9 index.
Old handicap calculation for Black tees 22
Old handicap calculation for Sienna tees (where old codgers like me would play our morning games) 20
New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Seems to me I would make out like a bandit with the 26 handicap, but struggle to win anything with the 17 handicap.

So exactly where is the Pope wrong?

So we see that his statements about the vastly differing handicap as you move from tee to tee is correct.

That leaves, "Let’s start with the fact that par is hardly the most reliable measure of course difficulty (that would be course rating). Almost any golfer can list two courses that are both par 72s but vary greatly in how tough they play. Differences in length, in obstacles, in penalty areas, make one drastically harder than another even when they have the same par. Par as a metric, then, is somewhat arbitrary. It’s why course architect Tom Doak, among others, have advocated an “Abandon Par” ideology, saying that it has become meaningless to tour pros and other golfers. Maybe you don’t want to go that far, but calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system."

So what is the fault there?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So we see that his statements about the vastly differing handicap as you move from tee to tee is correct.

Incorrect.

The "par" thing is just used to "bake in" playing from different tees, an adjustment you had to make before, too. (72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4

[Garland Bayley]

New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Didn't I just do one of these? You're not adjusting for the course rating from different tees in your "old" way.

Why would I do that? I calculated the handicap which gives how far off I will be from the course rating. That is what that system is based on, a uniform measure of the difficulty of the course. From that back tees, if I "play to my handicap" I will shoot a net 75.

Par however, is not a uniform measure of the difficulty of the course. So you make handicap calculations less reliable by using it.

[Jason Thurman]

Garland, you're just demonstrating why the change was a good one, at least on this front. You've been missing a step in the formula when adjusting for different tees. A lot of golfers I know we're. The new method bakes in that step so you stop missing it.


If it makes the role of Midwest Mashie Competition Chair easier, I will approve.

[Garland Bayley]

So we see that his statements about the vastly differing handicap as you move from tee to tee is correct.

Incorrect.

The "par" thing is just used to "bake in" playing from different tees, an adjustment you had to make before, too. (72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4

Could you explain this bit of random number generation you done here?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, you're just demonstrating why the change was a good one, at least on this front. You've been missing a step in the formula when adjusting for different tees. A lot of golfers I know we're. The new method bakes in that step so you stop missing it.


If it makes the role of Midwest Mashie Competition Chair easier, I will approve.

Is the competition match play or medal play?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So you make handicap calculations less reliable by using it.

No, it doesn't.

And rather than just replying, Garland, take a beat and try to understand what I'm saying. When players played from different tees before, they had to (but often didn't) adjust their handicaps anyway by using the course rating. The new system just bakes that in. Instead of "par" you could use 54 if you wanted and it would result in the same thing, because…

(72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4 = (54-73.4) - (54-66.7)

Re-read Jason's response, too, please.

[Garland Bayley]

So you make handicap calculations less reliable by using it.

No, it doesn't.

And rather than just replying, Garland, take a beat and try to understand what I'm saying. When players played from different tees before, they had to (but often didn't) adjust their handicaps anyway by using the course rating. The new system just bakes that in. Instead of "par" you could use 54 if you wanted and it would result in the same thing, because…

(72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4 = (54-73.4) - (54-66.7)

Re-read Jason's response, too, please.

I see I have been caught up in my dependence on the "new" button to take me the latest thing since I last looked at the thread, and that I missed much of the discussion.

However, I don't see Dr. Knuth saying anything about handicap adjustments for playing a competition from different tees. Instead, it seems to me that he is saying the person playing longer tees will see his handicap go up and think he will get more strokes, and be pleased thinking he will be obtaining lower net scores. Whereas, the person playing shorter tees will see his handicap go down, and think it will be more difficult to obtain net scores he is used to obtaining.

Your math, which I now understand is to demonstrate adjustments between tees doesn't differ when using par, which I believe you are trying to use to say that Knuth is wrong in criticizing the adjustment using par. However, that is fine for players with exactly the same index, but doesn't work for players with different indexes. As Knuth points out, adjusting using par can result in two players with different indexes having an additional stroke difference in their course handicap when they play a match.

So again, I ask where has Dr. Knuth gone wrong?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So again, I ask where has Dr. Knuth gone wrong?

That's been explained already.

If you're just posting a score for handicap, nothing changes. You shoot 84, you post 84 (minus any net double adjustments). That calculation to get the differential is still the same.

However, I don't see Dr. Knuth saying anything about handicap adjustments for playing a competition from different tees. Instead, it seems to me that he is saying the person playing longer tees will see his handicap go up and think he will get more strokes, and be pleased thinking he will be obtaining lower net scores. Whereas, the person playing shorter tees will see his handicap go down, and think it will be more difficult to obtain net scores he is used to obtaining.

Once again, these people are missing out on the fact that they were supposed to have been adjusting for the different tees all along.

However, that is fine for players with exactly the same index, but doesn't work for players with different indexes. As Knuth points out, adjusting using par can result in two players with different indexes having an additional stroke difference in their course handicap when they play a match.

They should have a different handicap if they're playing from different tees.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, you're just demonstrating why the change was a good one, at least on this front. You've been missing a step in the formula when adjusting for different tees. A lot of golfers I know we're. The new method bakes in that step so you stop missing it.


If it makes the role of Midwest Mashie Competition Chair easier, I will approve.

Is the competition match play or medal play?

The reason I ask this is because I have played Buda, and King's Putter. Both events were played match play, with opposing players or teams playing from the same tee. If you are playing match play, I don't see any reason why a match would be played from different tees, unless of course there are women playing. So I am guessing either you are playing medal with players playing the tees of their choosing, or you have women playing too.

[Garland Bayley]

It *seems* like this is an improvement.


At our club the point of contention is the seniors who establish their handicap from the men's tees then compete in all-ages competitions from the senior tees.


Should this help fix this?

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

Correction. I extrapolated too much from what he wrote. He says the new system will give an extra handicap stroke 1/2 the time.

[Garland Bayley]

So again, I ask where has Dr. Knuth gone wrong?

That's been explained already.

An incorrect explanation is not an explanation.

If you're just posting a score for handicap, nothing changes. You shoot 84, you post 84 (minus any net double adjustments). That calculation to get the differential is still the same.

However, I don't see Dr. Knuth saying anything about handicap adjustments for playing a competition from different tees. Instead, it seems to me that he is saying the person playing longer tees will see his handicap go up and think he will get more strokes, and be pleased thinking he will be obtaining lower net scores. Whereas, the person playing shorter tees will see his handicap go down, and think it will be more difficult to obtain net scores he is used to obtaining.

Once again, these people are missing out on the fact that they were supposed to have been adjusting for the different tees all along.

Once again, you are ignoring that Dr. Knuth never discussed playing a competition using different tees.

However, that is fine for players with exactly the same index, but doesn't work for players with different indexes. As Knuth points out, adjusting using par can result in two players with different indexes having an additional stroke difference in their course handicap when they play a match.

They should have a different handicap if they're playing from different tees.

NEITHER I, NOR DR. KNUTH ARE THE MATCH IS PLAYED FROM DIFFERENT TEES. THE MATCH IS BEING PLAYED FROM THE SAME TEES, AND 50% OF SUCH MATCHES WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT HANDICAP FOR THE PLAYERS THAN WHEN PAR WAS NOT USED IN THE CALCULATION.