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

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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).

My point is that you'd be changing from a system that's got some mathematical significance (113 just happens to be the rating where the bogey rating scales at the same rate as a player's handicap index relative to the course rating), to one that has significance for the collection of tees (not even all golf courses) that are about 130.


At Whispering Woods, they have five sets of tees with nine ratings. The slopes for men are 144 142 138 124 and 114. That's a difference of 30 points just for men. For women (four sets), it goes from 145 to 140, 131, and 123. A range of 22.


Moving to 130 "standard slope" would eliminate the mathematical basis for it while not really solving much - WW's men's tees are 8 and 6 points from 130 at the nearest points, and  16 and 14 points away from it at the farthest. I just don't the point.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Niall,


Don't let your head explode.  We'd miss you too much at BUDA. All the calculation stuff is done by computer - all you do is enter the date, the course, the tee played and your score.  Simple.  Whether the system is good at creating "fair" handicaps for all players on all courses in all conditions is up for endless debate.


For whatever it's worth you're already half way there in Scotland. According to Scottish Golf you are already using the USGA rating methodology to derive your SSS's, according to the following quote:


How is the Standard Scratch Score Calculated?

The USGA Course Rating System is used to determine the SSS. The USGA Course Rating System is very objective in nature taking into account all the factors that affect the playing difficulty of a course. It requires numerous specific measurements to be taken on each hole of the golf course, which assists in the consistency of application by course rating teams.

The system is designed to differentiate playing difficulty of all courses relative to each other, which requires a consistent application by all our course rating teams.

The USGA Course Rating System takes account of the actual measured length of a golf course, factors that can affect the playing length and other challenges that influence the playing difficulty of each hole (obstacle factors).

The factors that can affect the effective playing length of a golf course are:

•  Roll – assessment of how far a ball will roll on fairways with various surface conditions/contouring

•  Dogleg – where the dogleg design of a hole does not allow a full tee shot to be played

•  Wind – assessment of average wind strength and direction

•  Elevation – difference in elevation between the tee and green and for player’s approach shots to the green

•  Forced Lay-up – where a player is forced to play short of obstacles that crosses the fairway


The ten obstacle factors that are used to determine the playing difficulty of a golf course are:

•  Topography – nature of the stance and lie within each landing zone and approach shot elevation to the green

•  Fairway – the width of fairway landing zones, hole length and nearby obstacles – trees, hazards and punitive rough

•  Green Target – evaluation of hitting the green with the approach shot – visibility and nature of the green surface

•  Recoverability and Rough – difficulty of recovery if the tee shot landing zones and/or the green is missed

•  Bunkers – size and depth of bunkers and their proximity to landing zones and greens

•  Out of Bounds / Extreme Rough – depth and nature of punitive rough and proximity to landing zones and greens

•  Water Hazards – shot length to carry water hazards, proximity of water hazards from centre of fairways and greens

•  Trees – size and density, proximity to centre of landing zones/greens, shot length to target areas, recovery difficulty

•  Green Surface – putting difficulty on a green – green speeds, surface contours and tiers

•  Psychological – evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other nine obstacle factors

[Bryan Izatt]

Jon,


Do you have a SSS for your course?  If so, where did you get it from?


The USGA rating is about 90% based on effective playing length (see post above), so you could use your straight yardage and not be too far off the USGA rating.  The other 10% is for "obstacles" which accommodates to design features that make courses more or less difficult for scratch and bogey players. The actual rating process is time consuming and detailed.  Here in Canada it is done by 4 person teams who are unpaid volunteers working for the golf association. 


The underlying assumptions and the meaningfulness of the measurements is open for debate, but the system at least promises some consistency across many courses in many locations if it is correctly applied.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,


Perhaps your analytical nature will enjoy this lengthy article that attempts to explain the genesis of the 113 "standard" slope.  If you figure it out, let us know.   


http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/2014/07/why-is-113-in-slope-handicap-system.html


Of course there is the other explanation that empirical data at the time the slope system was created showed that players scores went up 1.13 strokes for each 1 stroke increase in handicap, so multiply by 100 and voila, a "standard" slope.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

The point is that in the past when Wayne traveled abroad, his index was for a course with 113 slope, and they took it as his handicap. This is what happens to American Buda participants. They get a handicap for how they would do on course rated 113, while the UK participants have a handicap from a course or courses with perhaps a 125 slope.

When the standardization happens, this won't matter. As you say, in his example he will be a 13 either way.

Besides, Wayne seems not to be aware that Dean Knuth has ratings for most if not all Scotland courses, and approximately 1/2 are below 113, and approximately 1/2 are above 113. And, he apparently doesn't play executive course and par 3 courses in the US that will have slope below 113.

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


you were the one who brought up complexity and asking for a system of similar complexity not me. I have always said the UK system was simpler which was always my point. Why use a more complex system that does not do a better job.


As for the unanswered questions what I am interested in really is your take on '

[size=0px]How does the system cope with changes in the presentation of the course such as deep rough being cut and removed or tree clearing?' [/size][/color]

I am not trying to wind you up I am genuinely interested with how the system addresses these problems.


Bryan,


SSS is set on the full length of the course from which ever tee. No one gives you it per-se it is set. As for the system you describe below it works fine in theory but how will it cope with the real world situation we find in the UK? I have put some comments to your post.

[/size]
The USGA Course Rating System takes account of the actual measured length of a golf course, factors that can affect the playing length and other challenges that influence the playing difficulty of each hole (obstacle factors).

The factors that can affect the effective playing length of a golf course are:


•  Roll – assessment of how far a ball will roll on fairways with various surface conditions/contouring


How does it adapt from the firm, hard summer conditions we often have here in the UK where the ball can roll out for 50 yards + compared to the soggy, winter conditions where the ball often plugs?
•  Dogleg – where the dogleg design of a hole does not allow a full tee shot to be played


•  Wind – assessment of average wind strength and direction


In the UK we do have prevailing winds but prevailing wind is not the same as average. On top of this the prevailing wind alters across the whole UK depending on the season but can also alter through the day in specific locations (i.e. certain places will often have a different wind direction in the morning to that of the afternoon) There is of course an average wind speed but as with most things it is rare that the wind will be of average speed. Average does not mean usual. How does the system cope with this?
•  Elevation – difference in elevation between the tee and green and for player’s approach shots to the green

•  Forced Lay-up – where a player is forced to play short of obstacles that crosses the fairway


The ten obstacle factors that are used to determine the playing difficulty of a golf course are:


•  Topography – nature of the stance and lie within each landing zone and approach shot elevation to the green


Again, how doe you judge this? Take TOC as an example. The last time I played it the fairways were so short that the ball never stayed on a slope ending up in the flat areas of the hollows. You always had a flat stance. Were they to raise the HOC back to that played in bygone days the ball would stay on the slopes making the course far more challenging. Do you have to have a rating for both situations?

•  Fairway – the width of fairway landing zones, hole length and nearby obstacles – trees, hazards and punitive rough


Again, how does the system cope with a year which is wet and the rough is thick and almost unplayable compared to dry summer where the rough is sparse and of no consequence?
•  Green Target – evaluation of hitting the green with the approach shot – visibility and nature of the green surface


•  Recoverability and Rough – difficulty of recovery if the tee shot landing zones and/or the green is missed

•  Bunkers – size and depth of bunkers and their proximity to landing zones and greens

•  Out of Bounds / Extreme Rough – depth and nature of punitive rough and proximity to landing zones and greens

•  Water Hazards – shot length to carry water hazards, proximity of water hazards from centre of fairways and greens

•  Trees – size and density, proximity to centre of landing zones/greens, shot length to target areas, recovery difficulty

•  Green Surface – putting difficulty on a green – green speeds, surface contours and tiers

•  Psychological – evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other nine obstacle factors
[size=0px]

I think you get my drift. Again, I am just curious to how the new system copes.


A general question to anyone who knows, how are they doing the rating in the UK if we are bringing this in (next year?)?


Jon

[Garland Bayley]

Jon,

I suspect some of the answers to your questions is that the opponents are all experiencing the same conditions so that can be disregarded on the day they play. As for posting scores is concerned, it is my understanding they are to implement variations in the ratings based on the scores posted on a particular day.

I am not an expert, so these are educated guesses.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jon,

Re your comments in blue in the previous posting, the USGA rating system comes with a pretty thick manual and multi-day training course for raters that gives direction on the questions you raise.  The rating is supposed to be done on "normal" conditions.  Clearly many days don't have normal conditions so the differentials on those days will be out of whack a bit.  Over time I'd imagine things even out.  This is no different than the SSS based solely on yardage. 


Your system accommodates different conditions (wind, rain, drought, etc) based on the CSS.  As I understand it the new world system will do something similar to the CSS but for every course and every day based on all the people (however many or few) that played that day and posted scores.  Sounds like a step forward compared to what we have now, assuming enough people post each day and the great computer in the sky can keep up.


As for how the rating will be done in the UK, from what I've read, you've already been using the USGA rating approach for several years now and will continue to use it in the future.  You could contact the Club Development Officer for your region at Scottish Golf  ( https://www.scottishgolf.org/club-services/handicapping/course-rating/ ) about what services they offer for course rating. Or, there's an e-mail address for enquiries - Course Rating Enquiries – courserating@scottishgolf.org   If it's like Canada they probably have raters who could rate your course using the USGA system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

you were the one who brought up complexity and asking for a system of similar complexity not me.

Again, "as complex" doesn't mean the system is complex. It's two numbers - that's pretty non-complex.

By saying "as complex as" I was asking for something that had a similar complexity level (or less), not saying the USGA's system (and seen your system) was highly complex. The USGA system is pretty low complexity - it's just two numbers.

I have always said the UK system was simpler which was always my point. Why use a more complex system that does not do a better job.

I believe it DOES do a better job. A 72.1/119 course is not going to play the same as a 72.1/144 course.

As for the unanswered questions what I am interested in really is your take on '[size=78%]How does the system cope with changes in the presentation of the course such as deep rough being cut and removed or tree clearing?'[/size][/font]

I am not trying to wind you up I am genuinely interested with how the system addresses these problems.

Have you read the bit about the automated daily adjustments to the rating/slope?

[Bryan Izatt]

Erik,

A 72.1/119 course is not going to play the same as a 72.1/144 course.

Indeed they wouldn't and not to nit pick but, your statement is incomplete.  The two courses will not play the same scoring-wise for a bogey golfer, but they will play the same scoring-wise for a scratch player.

I'm having trouble coming to grips with what those two courses would look like.  Could you identify for me a real life example of a 72.1/119 course and a 72.1/144 course - preferably ones that are somewhat known.  I'm not sure it is possible to have a slope of 119 with a rating of 72.1.  I'm pretty sure it's not possible to have a slope of 144 and a rating of 72.1, but I'm ready to be corrected

One of my home courses has a slope of 144 from the back tees and another I play frequently in the winter in Florida has a slope of 148, so I have an idea of what a high slope course looks like.  They are both long with many penal obstacles.  For the record I don't play those tees on either course because they are too long and difficult for me and I'm about halfway between a scratch and bogey golfer.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm having trouble coming to grips with what those two courses would look like.  Could you identify for me a real life example of a 72.1/119 course and a 72.1/144 course - preferably ones that are somewhat known.  I'm not sure it is possible to have a slope of 119 with a rating of 72.1.  I'm pretty sure it's not possible to have a slope of 144 and a rating of 72.1, but I'm ready to be corrected.

Both are possible. Simply put more "trouble" around the bogey golfer's tee shots (ideally just short of it) and the bogey rating will rise while having little to no effect on the scratch rating. I'm not claiming it's common, but one could design such a course.

My point was that the two-number system is better or more accurately classifies courses than the single "scratch score" system while remaining fairly simple.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Besides, Wayne seems not to be aware that Dean Knuth has ratings for most if not all Scotland courses, and approximately 1/2 are below 113, and approximately 1/2 are above 113. And, he apparently doesn't play executive course and par 3 courses in the US that will have slope below 113.

I looked into this Garland and perhaps half of the courses in Scotland have slopes below 113 but I am guessing that, for the most part, these are fairly basic courses that are not in the higher echelon of Scottish golf.


I took a look at some of the "fun" courses that I have played in Scotland that are considered a notch or two below those on the Open rota to see their slopes. 


Here are a few examples:
Brora 117
Gullane No 1 120
Gullane No 2 120
Gullane No 3 107
Leven 119
Lundin 129
Luffness 119
Crail Balcomie 115


And I downloaded the slopes of all courses with names starting with the letter A-D.  Of that list there are 156 courses with slope ratings.  Of those, 45 have a slope rating of 113 or lower. 


So it appears that, at least from this sample size, less than 29% of Scottish courses have slope ratings of 113 or lower.

[Garland Bayley]

Popeofslope lists Elie at 112.
Perhaps when he did the ratings it was just after the ball revolution and many have lengthened since, thereby getting higher slope ratings with the recent ratings for the world handicap rollout next year.

[Mark Pearce]

Popeofslope lists Elie at 112.
Perhaps when he did the ratings it was just after the ball revolution and many have lengthened since, thereby getting higher slope ratings with the recent ratings for the world handicap rollout next year.

Elie hasn't been lengthened.

[Garland Bayley]

Popeofslope lists Elie at 112.
Perhaps when he did the ratings it was just after the ball revolution and many have lengthened since, thereby getting higher slope ratings with the recent ratings for the world handicap rollout next year.

Elie hasn't been lengthened.

Wayne didn't list Elie. I was referring to those he listed thinking that perhaps he had gotten numbers from more recent ratings. I had only looked at courses beginning with A in the popeofslope ratings, and found them to be almost half 113 or lower. He found a much lower percentage rated that low.

[jeffwarne]

With all due respect to course raters(as opposed to rankers)
watching their rigorous measurements of fairway width, rough height, hazards, OB etc...
I asked about wind speed/direction and its effect on ratings-particularly off elevated tees
I was informed that wind wasn't in the calculations.


I thoroughly enjoyed watching those same raters "play" that afternoon .........


I'm admittedly not as versed in our screwed up handicap system as Erik(mainly because I know all the math in the world doesn't factor in the human element of 6 foot gimmes, dropping for lost ball etc.)


but I do know the UK system would make a lot more sense....
and I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing the actual results of a monthly medal

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I was informed that wind wasn't in the calculations.

Perhaps you were only partially informed. The prevailing winds can affect the effective distance of a hole or holes: https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html.

but I do know the UK system would make a lot more sense....

I disagree, and would ask why you think that (let alone "know" it)?

[jeffwarne]

I've now read through most of the thread


great job world governing bodies
Once again you have managed to confuse nearly everyone, and the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head...


The new rules, and new handicaps, have ultimately simply made anyone who actually knew the old rules and systems confused , and at this point few want to even be bothered to learn the new, in fear they will soon change again, when the smoke in the room shifts to the next doddering old fool who is deathly afraid someone will take his Big Bertha(circa 1995) away-and insists he hits it no farther than he did in 1971, so how could there be an issue.....heck even par is still a good score in the US Open


and Good Morning Erik!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Once again you have managed to confuse nearly everyone, and the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head...

What's confusing about the new handicap system to U.S. golfers? It's 8 best of the last 20, with daily updates, and automated adjustments based on scoring for the day (i.e. if weather or conditions affect scores up or down). ESC is simplified to net double bogey.

Pretty straightforward for U.S. golfers.

The new rules, and new handicaps, have ultimately simply made anyone who actually knew the old rules and systems confused

The new rules are simpler. Old time rules geeks like myself (and like you) probably had the most to overcome, and catch ourselves still saying "hazard" and things like that, but the rules are simpler. The book smaller. And honestly, the new rules are "easier" on golfers who can ground their clubs ini penalty areas, etc.

, and at this point few want to even be bothered to learn the new, in fear they will soon change again,

I don't feel or sense this at all.

[Jeff_Lewis]

The US system is one of the many ways in which the USGA harms the game.   


First, it's insanely complex.  Divide by 113?  Huh?  .95 adjustment?


A player's handicap under the system is the amount over course rating that they would successfully achieve one out of five rounds. I guess that means it represents one's potential. Well, isn't the handicap supposed to represent one's current ability? 


The current system encourages people to finish holes when their score doesn't matter, slowing play and creates an environment where most people are disappointed because they played "poorly" by not playing to their handicap - and remember that most course's ratings are above par, too!  Silly, complex and destructive.  So glad the world has to do it now. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

What's confusing about the new handicap system to U.S. golfers? It's 8 best of the last 20, with daily updates, and automated adjustments based on scoring for the day (i.e. if weather or conditions affect scores up or down). ESC is simplified to net double bogey.

Pretty straightforward for U.S. golfers.

I agree - it is pretty straightforward and now you have the advantage of being able to travel around the globe with your handicap.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The current system encourages people to finish holes when their score doesn't matter, slowing play and creates an environment where most people are disappointed because they played "poorly" by not playing to their handicap - and remember that most course's ratings are above par, too!  Silly, complex and destructive.  So glad the world has to do it now.

Why do you say that the system encourages people to finish holes?  Once your hit your ESC max for the hole and additional strokes become irrelevant.  Before I joined a club and played with players who maintained a handicap they would almost always play out a hole.  Since I joined a club 20 years ago it is very common that players will pick up and say, "I have hit my max" due to ESC.  I don't understand your comment.

[Jeff_Lewis]

What I have observed is that players whose partners have already won the hole will still hole out for the ESC max or max-1 even though it is irrelevant to the match, because they will be posting a score. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

Is that really going to slow play - when someone tries a 10 foot putt to see if they make it or not?  Maybe I am part of the problem but I want to post a proper score, especially if I am playing well.  How will you know if you are truly breaking 80 for the first time if you are taking long putts as given?  I also like to keep all of my scores - I use the Golfshot scoring app on my phone/watch and I like to keep a season-long scorecard by downloading all scores.  But as I said earlier, I am a quant geek.

[Niall C]

What's confusing about the new handicap system to U.S. golfers? It's 8 best of the last 20, with daily updates, and automated adjustments based on scoring for the day (i.e. if weather or conditions affect scores up or down). ESC is simplified to net double bogey.

Pretty straightforward for U.S. golfers.

Erik

I suppose it is easy enough to post a score and then let the computer do the real calculation for you based on various inputs that I suspect the average player probably is unaware of or can't comprehend. I'm not sure what Jeff's concerns are but for me the issue is how meaningful is it going to be when you don't really follow or fully understand the calculation ?

Niall