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

[Jason Topp]

What are you supposed to do when you play an occasional round with hickories?  Technically, at least in NA, you are supposed to post the score, are you not?  But that could skew your handicap compared to playing with modern clubs.

This hickory website suggests keeping a separate hickory handicap which makes sense to me:


http://apnationalhickoryplayers.com/equipment-guidelinespoliciesrules/

[Jon Wiggett]

What are you supposed to do when you play an occasional round with hickories?  Technically, at least in NA, you are supposed to post the score, are you not?  But that could skew your handicap compared to playing with modern clubs.

This hickory website suggests keeping a separate hickory handicap which makes sense to me:


http://apnationalhickoryplayers.com/equipment-guidelinespoliciesrules/

Would it not need to be the slope and rating that was separate? Of course if it is in a competition only scenario then it doesn't matter if all players are playing hickory.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erilk, according to you the handicap system is complex and simple at the same time. I rest my case!!!

No, I didn't.

I could have been much clearer, but in saying "as complex" I meant something that was at least capable of appreciating that not all 72.3 rated courses play the same for an 18 handicapper (i.e. 72.3/115 versus 72.3/148 are two very different types of courses), but while remaining relatively simple as I feel the current system is - just two numbers.

For example, a simpler system would just be "strokes over par on average" but that wouldn't work for the two examples above. The combo of course rating/slope is, IMO, a really good way to do a pretty good (not perfect) job of accounting for different players on different courses.

There are always going to be courses or tees that set up for different kinds of players, but the rating/slope gets us 90% of the way there while being very simple. It handles the complexity simply.

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


yes you could have been clearer and it is only possible to reply to what is written. The problem with the slope and rating system is it is far more complex than the CONGU and does not do a better job. Using a more complex system to do the same job but with no improvements is a fool's errand.

[Ian Mackenzie]

In a hickory competition I once shot a 78 with a 19 for a net 59. One of the players who takes the game and handicaps very seriously and would get a bit nasty with sand baggers approached me with that evil look in his eyes and said “Mickle! we would all think you were a sandbagger, but we have all played with you before”
Needless to say I was left speechless.

With the odds being about 37,000:1 of that happening, I also would have given you the "stink eye"...


http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html


But, I am so accustomed to US sandbaggers, that I only bet $2 with anyone with an index above 8....

[Jason Topp]

Erik,


yes you could have been clearer and it is only possible to reply to what is written. The problem with the slope and rating system is it is far more complex than the CONGU and does not do a better job. Using a more complex system to do the same job but with no improvements is a fool's errand.

Jon:


While there are aspects of each system that I prefer, the use of slope in the US system is significantly superior to the CONGU system.  My handicap can range from 13 to 16 depending on the difficulty of the course we are playing.  My best friend's handicap ranges from 2-3.  I need more shots on a difficult course.  As I understand it, CONGU does not make similar allowances, meaning handicap can vary depending on the difficulty of course where one posts his scores. 


There are other advantages:

• Use of all scores allows handicaps to more closely reflect recent play.  If someone plays 3 comps a year, one's handicap is going to be based on scores from years before.
• Adjustments are made on a per score basis rather than pursuant to handicap categories, making adjustment more accurate
• According to the math wizards, the CONGU system imposes a severe disadvantage on the higher handicap player

There are also significant disadvantages

• Being required to post all scores creates a stroke play mentality because even if you are playing match play, you need to estimate your score on holes where you pick up.  On a bad day, I would rather forget about score and just play but the handicap system forces you to actually figure out how bad the day was.
• Many people in the US do not really follow the rules, resulting in scoring inaccuracies
• Peer review of posted scores is quite weak.

I will be interested in your reaction to the new system after you have experienced it for a few years.

[Jason Topp]

What are you supposed to do when you play an occasional round with hickories?  Technically, at least in NA, you are supposed to post the score, are you not?  But that could skew your handicap compared to playing with modern clubs.

This hickory website suggests keeping a separate hickory handicap which makes sense to me:


http://apnationalhickoryplayers.com/equipment-guidelinespoliciesrules/

Would it not need to be the slope and rating that was separate? Of course if it is in a competition only scenario then it doesn't matter if all players are playing hickory.

Jon - under the US system, you exclude scores in limited club competitions.  I would think a hickory score would fall in the same category.  One could carry a handicap for use of modern clubs and a separate handicap for rounds played with hickories if one wished to do so.

[Jason Topp]

My understanding of how the WHS will be implemented in the UK is that only competition rounds and pre-announced rounds ( equivalent to supplementary scores at the moment) will be included in the calculation. This will be difference to how the "W"HS is implemented in other regions. There will be a review after a few years to see how it is going.


See https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Handicapping-FAQs-final.pdf

I like this innovation.  I missed it in my glances at this thread in the past.  I hope they adopt it in the US.

[Scott Warren]

Australia changed from the CONGU system to the adaptation of the US system that this “World Handicap” seems to be based on (top 8 rounds, multiplied by .93) about 7-8 years ago.


The US system better represents current form, which given how much comp golf we play is a big feature.


Everyone is a couple of shots lower than they would be under CONGU, which seems more to show your average rather than your potential.


It’s not the end of the world, and there is something to like in all golfers using the same system.

[Niall C]

Scott


Interesting comment. I've often thought that given how much you get cut by over here if you have a good score compared to the incremental increases if you have a bad/atrocious one, that your handicap tends to represent you on a good day rather than an average one.


As you describe it with the new system, it reflects "current" form or if you like, average day. That being the case surely, your handicap would be higher under the new system than it would be for the existing ?


Niall

[Ian Galbraith]

My understanding of how the WHS will be implemented in the UK is that only competition rounds and pre-announced rounds ( equivalent to supplementary scores at the moment) will be included in the calculation. This will be difference to how the "W"HS is implemented in other regions. There will be a review after a few years to see how it is going.


See https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Handicapping-FAQs-final.pdf

I like this innovation.  I missed it in my glances at this thread in the past.  I hope they adopt it in the US.

Sadly I fear any adoption will be in the other direction, and after a few years we in the UK will move to the looser, less strict "USGA" approach.


At the end of the day it is only a golf handicap and there are bigger things to rant about

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


yes you could have been clearer and it is only possible to reply to what is written. The problem with the slope and rating system is it is far more complex than the CONGU and does not do a better job. Using a more complex system to do the same job but with no improvements is a fool's errand.

Jon:


While there are aspects of each system that I prefer, the use of slope in the US system is significantly superior to the CONGU system.  My handicap can range from 13 to 16 depending on the difficulty of the course we are playing.  My best friend's handicap ranges from 2-3.  I need more shots on a difficult course.  As I understand it, CONGU does not make similar allowances, meaning handicap can vary depending on the difficulty of course where one posts his scores. 


There are other advantages:

• Use of all scores allows handicaps to more closely reflect recent play.  If someone plays 3 comps a year, one's handicap is going to be based on scores from years before.
• Adjustments are made on a per score basis rather than pursuant to handicap categories, making adjustment more accurate
• According to the math wizards, the CONGU system imposes a severe disadvantage on the higher handicap player

There are also significant disadvantages

• Being required to post all scores creates a stroke play mentality because even if you are playing match play, you need to estimate your score on holes where you pick up.  On a bad day, I would rather forget about score and just play but the handicap system forces you to actually figure out how bad the day was.
• Many people in the US do not really follow the rules, resulting in scoring inaccuracies
• Peer review of posted scores is quite weak.

I will be interested in your reaction to the new system after you have experienced it for a few years.

Jason,


I can see where you are coming from and you maybe right about experiencing it for a few years but I do have reservations. I think the system is way too open to uncontrolled cheating and as experience suggests most people will cheat when self certifying this should be of concern. As for differences in handicaps due to the difficulty of the course I would suggest that as the vast majority of competitions played are by members around their own course this is not an issue and if difficulty of the course is so important then why are the daily or even hourly playing conditions not factored in as they have a massive effect on score?


How does the system cope with changes in the presentation of the course such as deep rough being cut and removed or tree clearing? Finally, I would also point out that the present system is done on length alone but the new requires a group of 'experts' to judge the degree of difficulty of the course taking a fixed certainty and turning it into an opinion. Oh, and who pays for the cost of these assessments? Or is it all done free?

[Rich Goodale]

Our forefathers from the 19th century left us with a simple way for large groups of people to play golf together, namely:


1.  Competitors are selected randomly from each group
2.  All competitors from each group "scored" based on the number of holes they won (scratch) from their match.


For example if Morris, Jr. was drawn to play the Earl of Garland and wins 15 holes, two are halved and one won by the the Earl, so they report 12 points for Morris to the Committee.  The Earl is elated, because this was the first time that he was able to submit winning one hole from young Morris.  Young Tom didn't care.

We tried this ancient method at the 1st incarnation of the Kings Putter (Barona) and the 2nd incarnation of BUDA (Painswick).  The large majority of the Americans participating hated the method in both cases, and it was quietly buried the next year at Stevenson Ranch and Littlestone.

T'was a pity, alas......

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The problem with the slope and rating system is it is far more complex than the CONGU and does not do a better job.

I disagree with both: that it's FAR MORE complex and that it does not do a better job.

How does the system cope with changes in the presentation of the course such as deep rough being cut and removed or tree clearing? Finally, I would also point out that the present system is done on length alone but the new requires a group of 'experts' to judge the degree of difficulty of the course taking a fixed certainty and turning it into an opinion. Oh, and who pays for the cost of these assessments? Or is it all done free?

I've been a member of my course rating group for 14 years and captain for four. We do them free, as volunteers with our regional golf association, for clubs that are members. Membership is just paying a GHIN fee.

[Ken Moum]

I've been a member of my course rating group for 14 years and captain for four. We do them free, as volunteers with our regional golf association, for clubs that are members. Membership is just paying a GHIN fee.

Erik,


I have a serious question.


I love playing tournament golf, especially at match play, and have done it on courses with widely varied slope ratings.


I, and the people I have talked to all agree that when someone who plays at a course with a lowish slope rating is in competition with a player whose home course has a high slope rating, the chances of having anything like a level match is extremely low.


It's my perception that there is simply not enough difference between courses with low bogey ratings and those with high bogey ratings.  It even shows up in the difference between tees.  I have a relative who plays a LOT of golf for his own money, and on his home course the game is always from the blue tees 71.9/130.


But in the club's "official" competitions he is assigned to play the white tees 69.6/126


He's told me several times that his net scores from the white tees are nearly always better than the guys who always play white.


So, as a rater, do you think we are completely off base in this thinking?


K

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I love playing tournament golf, especially at match play, and have done it on courses with widely varied slope ratings.

I, and the people I have talked to all agree that when someone who plays at a course with a lowish slope rating is in competition with a player whose home course has a high slope rating, the chances of having anything like a level match is extremely low.

You could probably pretty easily find people who believed the opposite to be true, too.

It's my perception that there is simply not enough difference between courses with low bogey ratings and those with high bogey ratings.  It even shows up in the difference between tees.  I have a relative who plays a LOT of golf for his own money, and on his home course the game is always from the blue tees 71.9/130.

But in the club's "official" competitions he is assigned to play the white tees 69.6/126

There's more to that than just the slope adjustment of 4.


An 80 from the blues is a differential (ignoring the 0.96, which is best applied at the end) is 7.0. An 80 from the whites is 9.3. But it sounds like your guy goes the other way…

He's told me several times that his net scores from the white tees are nearly always better than the guys who always play white.

He scores two or more shots better from the white tees? His game likely aligns better for those tees than they do from the blues. I used the 80 above, so let's say he shoots some 80s that count from the blue tees for his handicap, but when he plays the whites, he shoots 76. That's a differential of 5.7.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they're not adjusting for the handicap (course rating difference) if they're playing from two separate sets of tees.

So, as a rater, do you think we are completely off base in this thinking?

I don't have enough information to know exactly what you're saying here.


And the course rating/slope system isn't perfect, but it's good IMO. There will always be exceptions - if you're a short, straight hitter you will play one 71.9/133 course better than another 71.9/133 course that might favor a bomber with longer holes but minimal trouble.

[Jason Topp]

I, and the people I have talked to all agree that when someone who plays at a course with a lowish slope rating is in competition with a player whose home course has a high slope rating, the chances of having anything like a level match is extremely low.

Ken - I have seen similar discrepancies in a variety of circumstances. 


I would love to see course ratings and slopes calculated by actual scoring statistics rather than by committee.  I think many of the assumptions of the current rating system, which is primarily determined by length adjusted for difficulty factors applicable to a hypothetical scratch and hypothetical bogey golfer, would prove inaccurate.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I would love to see course ratings and slopes calculated by actual scoring statistics rather than by committee.  I think many of the assumptions of the current rating system, which is primarily determined by length adjusted for difficulty factors applicable to a hypothetical scratch and hypothetical bogey golfer, would prove inaccurate.

Do you believe that the USGA handicapping committee isn't doing these kinds of studies? That they're just clinging to this old idea of a "scratch golfer" who hits the ball 250 and then 220 "just because"? Honestly asking.

[Jon Wiggett]

The problem with the slope and rating system is it is far more complex than the CONGU and does not do a better job.

I disagree with both: that it's FAR MORE complex and that it does not do a better job.

How does the system cope with changes in the presentation of the course such as deep rough being cut and removed or tree clearing? Finally, I would also point out that the present system is done on length alone but the new requires a group of 'experts' to judge the degree of difficulty of the course taking a fixed certainty and turning it into an opinion. Oh, and who pays for the cost of these assessments? Or is it all done free?

I've been a member of my course rating group for 14 years and captain for four. We do them free, as volunteers with our regional golf association, for clubs that are members. Membership is just paying a GHIN fee.

Erik,


It is good that there are those like you that will do such tasks for free and I applaud you for it. I can assure you this is not the case in some countries I have worked in where having such an assessment done was an expensive undertaking.


I accept that you believe that a system that requires a group of assessors to come up with an opinion of a course and create a two factor system to judge the degree of difficulty a course presents resulting in a numerical calculation to add to the handicap of the player in order to produce a handicap for that course is no more complex than having a number based on the length of the course to set against the par. I cannot understand how you can conclude this but I can believe. What about all the other questions?

[Wayne_Kozun]

I hope they take this opportunity to update the "standard" course rating from 113 to something closer to the average slope of courses that people play - like 130.  This would have the advantage of generally making a course handicap more similar to one's index which I think is simpler for most people.


For example, my index is about 11, but my course handicap is usually 13.  If they upped the standard course rating to 130 my index would be 13 and my course handicap would normally be 13 as well. 


I don't know if I have ever played a course with a slope around 113.  It is either an artifact of the past or way too low.  When I look up my scores posted on the RCGA system the slopes of the courses that I have played range from 126-146.

[Niall C]

I hope they take this opportunity to update the "standard" course rating from 113 to something closer to the average slope of courses that people play - like 130.  This would have the advantage of generally making a course handicap more similar to one's index which I think is simpler for most people.


For example, my index is about 11, but my course handicap is usually 13.  If they upped the standard course rating to 130 my index would be 13 and my course handicap would normally be 13 as well. 


I don't know if I have ever played a course with a slope around 113.  It is either an artifact of the past or way too low.  When I look up my scores posted on the RCGA system the slopes of the courses that I have played range from 126-146.

WTF !!!!!!!!

Wayne - with respect, and I really do mean with respect, what language are you speaking ? If this is the sort of nonsense that we're going to have to put up with in the UK then I can foresee a fair proportion of members just letting their handicaps lapse. I think it's time for me to get back on the medication before my head explodes.

Niall

[Jason Topp]

I would love to see course ratings and slopes calculated by actual scoring statistics rather than by committee.  I think many of the assumptions of the current rating system, which is primarily determined by length adjusted for difficulty factors applicable to a hypothetical scratch and hypothetical bogey golfer, would prove inaccurate.

Do you believe that the USGA handicapping committee isn't doing these kinds of studies? That they're just clinging to this old idea of a "scratch golfer" who hits the ball 250 and then 220 "just because"? Honestly asking.

I hope they are but under the current system I know of two people who each win about 50% of the time playing each other even up in the San Francisco City Match play over the last 10 years.  Current indexes are 0.4 and 5.2.  Both post a lot of tournament scores so the posted scores are likely accurate.  I think the difference in index relates to course ratings at their home courses.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I accept that you believe that a system that requires a group of assessors to come up with an opinion of a course and create a two factor system to judge the degree of difficulty a course presents resulting in a numerical calculation to add to the handicap of the player in order to produce a handicap for that course is no more complex than having a number based on the length of the course to set against the par.

I've never said that it's the same level of complexity. Courses with the same par can vary in difficulty for the 18 handicapper (or the 12, or the 8, etc.). The two-number system accounts for that.

I think the two-number system is as simple as it can be while doing a pretty good job of handling the complexities of golf. Surely someone could create a system wherein each player is categorized and we have a massive equation with fifteen variables to calculate a more accurate index and accompanying "type" of golfer or something, but for being relatively simple, IMO the rating/slope combo does a good job.

I cannot understand how you can conclude this but I can believe. What about all the other questions?

You cannot understand it because you misunderstood it from the start, perhaps? I didn't say it was as simple or complex. I said it's pretty simple while doing a good job.

What other questions, if you don't mind, are you asking?

I hope they take this opportunity to update the "standard" course rating from 113 to something closer to the average slope of courses that people play - like 130.  This would have the advantage of generally making a course handicap more similar to one's index which I think is simpler for most people.For example, my index is about 11, but my course handicap is usually 13.  If they upped the standard course rating to 130 my index would be 13 and my course handicap would normally be 13 as well.  I don't know if I have ever played a course with a slope around 113.  It is either an artifact of the past or way too low.  When I look up my scores posted on the RCGA system the slopes of the courses that I have played range from 126-146.

Wayne, if you end up at a 13 either way, I don't see much point.

113 is the rating at which a golfer's index scales directly. It's not so much an empirical "average" of all the courses, but a mathematical construct that results in a 13.0 index getting 13 strokes, an 18.0 getting 18, etc. There do exist courses with a sub-113 slope, though they're not common.

I understand it would "make more sense" if a 13.0 was a 13 more often, but it would be at the sacrifice of many things: all courses needing to be updated, confusing golfers who understand the system now, a mathematical "lie" that deviates from the current system, etc.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne, if you end up at a 13 either way, I don't see much point.

113 is the rating at which a golfer's index scales directly. It's not so much an empirical "average" of all the courses, but a mathematical construct that results in a 13.0 index getting 13 strokes, an 18.0 getting 18, etc. There do exist courses with a sub-113 slope, though they're not common.

I understand it would "make more sense" if a 13.0 was a 13 more often, but it would be at the sacrifice of many things: all courses needing to be updated, confusing golfers who understand the system now, a mathematical "lie" that deviates from the current system, etc.

Erik - I don't think anything would have to be updated other than the software to calculate handicaps and the translation charts from handicap index to course handicap, but most people probably use computers to do that anyhow.  Course ratings and slopes stay the same, it is just a change in the divisor for the Diff calculation.


Yes it would be slightly confusing at first but longer run it would be less confusing as Handicap Index and Course Handicap would become (almost) the same thing.  It is confusing today when you ask someone what is their handicap?  Do I say 13, which is my course handicap, or 11.3 which is my handicap index (actually handicap factor here in Canada).

[Wayne_Kozun]

WTF !!!!!!!!

Wayne - with respect, and I really do mean with respect, what language are you speaking ? If this is the sort of nonsense that we're going to have to put up with in the UK then I can foresee a fair proportion of members just letting their handicaps lapse. I think it's time for me to get back on the medication before my head explodes.

Round differential score is the basis of the current USGA (also RCGA) handicapping system:  Each score produces a differential which is calculated as follows: (Score - Rating) x 113 / Slope

On Sunday I shot 85 on my course which as a course rating of 71.1 and a slope rating of 136.  (85-71.1)*113/136=11.5 - so 11.5 is then used as my score for handicap calculation purposes.

I am an engineer and a financial quant so I love stuff like this!

[Head exploding mode]Actually I think they should also add in variance as the current system only uses the mean which is the first order of the distribution.  I think they should also incorporate the second order of the distribution so someone who has less consistency in their scores should have a higher handicap[/Head exploding mode]