News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #275 on: January 10, 2020, 02:49:12 PM »
Garland, sorry, quick question for you:

The mass of a proton is 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms.

Please answer this: what's the mass of ten protons?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #276 on: January 10, 2020, 02:51:03 PM »
..That's probably a minor impact for scratch golfers since they earned their scratch handicap by not tripling too many holes.  But for your mid-handicapper, say a 15, now they will have a few more triples on par-5's sneak into their adjusted scores where before these would be adjusted down to doubles.

Whoops again on your edit! ESC never allowed scratch golfers to post an adjusted score including triple bogey. So as far as their posted scores are concerned, no triple bogeys were counted.


My point here is that scratch golfers don't triple many holes, period.  Old version, a triple also didn't get into the adjusted score.  New version, a triple may occassionally get into an adjusted score. 


While I didn't point it out, in easier courses, the NDB adjustment will reduce the rare double bogey on the easiest holes to bogey.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #277 on: January 10, 2020, 02:55:08 PM »
1. The easiest explanation uses significant digits. To quote Knuth's article.
Quote
"here was the old formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113)

Take the Slope Rating of whatever tee you’re playing, plug it into the formula, round that result up or down to a whole number and that’s how many strokes you were getting.

Under the new WHS, however, course handicaps reflect the strokes you get in relation to par with a subtle but significant change to the formula.
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + (Course Rating - par)"


However, the second formula introduces Course Rating and par. Course rating of course has three significant digits. However, par has two strikes against it.
1) It is not a very accurate measure of course difficulty. Certainly nowhere near as accurate as course rating. E.g., Windsong Farm Golf Club maintains a par of 71 throughout its tees ranging from course rating 67.9 to 75.0. http://wsfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Windsong-Scorecard.pdf
2) It is only two significant digits.



Why should this adjustment have to factor in course difficulty. Course difficulty is already factored into the Course Rating (and SLOPE). This adjustment is to capture the difference in course ratings between different tees...


And so what if it is 2 significant digits. The adjustment would also work if we used 8. Or 0. Or 111. Just the net scores would make less sense but still be valid to compete and build a leaderboard.

It seems you are more fixated on par than Erik or me are.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 02:59:15 PM by MClutterbuck »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #278 on: January 10, 2020, 03:11:22 PM »
..That's probably a minor impact for scratch golfers since they earned their scratch handicap by not tripling too many holes.  But for your mid-handicapper, say a 15, now they will have a few more triples on par-5's sneak into their adjusted scores where before these would be adjusted down to doubles.

Whoops again on your edit! ESC never allowed scratch golfers to post an adjusted score including triple bogey. So as far as their posted scores are concerned, no triple bogeys were counted.


My point here is that scratch golfers don't triple many holes, period.  Old version, a triple also didn't get into the adjusted score.  New version, a triple may occassionally get into an adjusted score. 


While I didn't point it out, in easier courses, the NDB adjustment will reduce the rare double bogey on the easiest holes to bogey.

I already deleted my original post, as I hadn't understood the context of what you were writing.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #279 on: January 10, 2020, 03:14:23 PM »
..That's probably a minor impact for scratch golfers since they earned their scratch handicap by not tripling too many holes.  But for your mid-handicapper, say a 15, now they will have a few more triples on par-5's sneak into their adjusted scores where before these would be adjusted down to doubles.

Whoops again on your edit! ESC never allowed scratch golfers to post an adjusted score including triple bogey. So as far as their posted scores are concerned, no triple bogeys were counted.


My point here is that scratch golfers don't triple many holes, period.  Old version, a triple also didn't get into the adjusted score.  New version, a triple may occassionally get into an adjusted score. 


While I didn't point it out, in easier courses, the NDB adjustment will reduce the rare double bogey on the easiest holes to bogey.

I already deleted my original post, as I hadn't understood the context of what you were writing.


I updated my original post because I didn't realize that the USGA placed the course rating - par differential in the Course Handicap, not the Playing Handicap.   Ugh!
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2020, 03:14:48 PM »
Garland, sorry, quick question for you:

The mass of a proton is 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms.

Please answer this: what's the mass of ten protons?
Well, I would have to assume that since 10 is accurate to an infinite number of digits, that the answer would have to be 1.6726219 x 10^-26 kilograms.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #281 on: January 10, 2020, 03:21:10 PM »
Well, I would have to assume that since 10 is accurate to an infinite number of digits, that the answer would have to be 1.6726219 x 10^-26 kilograms.
So is par.

It's a count of whole numbers, or exact numbers. Exact numbers have infinite significant digits.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #282 on: January 10, 2020, 03:38:17 PM »
...
It seems you are more fixated on par than Erik or me are.

Well, if the formula did not use par, I would not be so "fixated" on it.  ;)  And, I agree that if any number were to be used in the formula, par is the obvious choice.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #283 on: January 10, 2020, 03:40:24 PM »
...
It seems you are more fixated on par than Erik or me are.

Well, if the formula did not use par, I would not be so "fixated" on it.  ;)  And, I agree that if any number were to be used in the formula, par is the obvious choice.


I mentioned fixation because you were worried about pars accuracy to measure difficulty. And now we agree we just need a constant number across all tees. And par is a good choice.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #284 on: January 10, 2020, 03:47:33 PM »
Well, I would have to assume that since 10 is accurate to an infinite number of digits, that the answer would have to be 1.6726219 x 10^-26 kilograms.
So is par.

It's a count of whole numbers, or exact numbers. Exact numbers have infinite significant digits.

Par is a measurement, and not a very accurate measurement at that.
The ten you use is a quantity with total accuracy.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #285 on: January 10, 2020, 03:51:09 PM »
Well, I would have to assume that since 10 is accurate to an infinite number of digits, that the answer would have to be 1.6726219 x 10^-26 kilograms.
So is par.

It's a count of whole numbers, or exact numbers. Exact numbers have infinite significant digits.

Par is a measurement, and not a very accurate measurement at that.
The ten you use is a quantity with total accuracy.


It is not a measurement in this case. It in an absolute constant used in a equation so that the difference between Course Rating at several tees and this constant changes the handicap used in each tee by the magnitude of this difference.


As you said, the fact par is used is also convenient.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #286 on: January 10, 2020, 03:52:39 PM »
Given all the issues with handicaps-
sandbagging
confusion
not posting
gimmes
lost balls not properly played
not putting out when partner is in
and many other things
negotiation-which is what happens in any real money game
players with no handicaps-the majority


surely there's an easier way to compute handicaps
How about..
1. net bogie max to adjust
2.all scores count-adjusted tournament scores are counted 3 times
3.make the multiplier a combination of slope and course rating.  i.e. how hard is your course from that tee?
i.e. the average multiplier is 1.0


People could understand that and understand the reason for that-our current system is a geek orgasm that nobody understands and only a few bother with and after this thread I think I need a shower...





"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #287 on: January 10, 2020, 03:57:53 PM »
Let me ask you a question.


Course with 2 sets of tees.


Black Par 72 Rating 74.6 Slope 140
White Par 72 Rating 71.4 Slope 120


Scratch Index Golfer. 0.0.


Do you find it wrong that he plays off Whites with a -0.6 Handicap and off Blacks with a 2.6 handicap?

Does par 72 factor into this difference? Or is it just the difference between the 3 significant digit course ratings?


As you can see, the fact 72 has 2 significant digits makes no difference.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #288 on: January 10, 2020, 04:00:46 PM »
,,,
And so what if it is 2 significant digits. The adjustment would also work if we used 8. Or 0. Or 111. Just the net scores would make less sense but still be valid to compete and build a leaderboard.
...

You may be right. It is over 50 years since I have had to use significant figures or digits in college chemistry class, so I may not be applying it right here. That does not invalidate what I wrote earlier.
Quote
Therefore if the course rating is nn.0, then the course handicap under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system. However, if the course rating is nn.5, then half of the course handicaps under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system, and half of the course handicaps will be one different than they were under the old system.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #289 on: January 10, 2020, 04:12:32 PM »
,,,
And so what if it is 2 significant digits. The adjustment would also work if we used 8. Or 0. Or 111. Just the net scores would make less sense but still be valid to compete and build a leaderboard.
...

You may be right. It is over 50 years since I have had to use significant figures or digits in college chemistry class, so I may not be applying it right here. That does not invalidate what I wrote earlier.
Quote
Therefore if the course rating is nn.0, then the course handicap under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system. However, if the course rating is nn.5, then half of the course handicaps under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system, and half of the course handicaps will be one different than they were under the old system.


I dont think that is right. The difference between tees in the course rating is what counts, and it can still be 1.3, 1.9, 2.0 or any number with one decimal place.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #290 on: January 10, 2020, 04:19:57 PM »
Par is a measurement, and not a very accurate measurement at that.
The ten you use is a quantity with total accuracy.
Par has infinite significant digits.

You may be right. It is over 50 years since I have had to use significant figures or digits in college chemistry class, so I may not be applying it right here. That does not invalidate what I wrote earlier.
It invalidates all of your earlier posts about significant digits.

Therefore if the course rating is nn.0, then the course handicap under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system. However, if the course rating is nn.5, then half of the course handicaps under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system, and half of the course handicaps will be one different than they were under the old system.
That's a completely separate thing than all the stuff you wrote about significant figures.

And again, you're just complaining about how rounding works at this point. We had rounding in the previous version of the handicapping system, too, and when players were competing from different tees, we often rounded twice! Rounding twice is less accurate than the current method of rounding only once.

Before, we'd round in figuring out the course handicaps, then again with the difference in the course ratings when when players were playing different tees.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #291 on: January 10, 2020, 04:40:07 PM »
Par is a measurement, and not a very accurate measurement at that.
The ten you use is a quantity with total accuracy.
I really didn't want to get into this ridiculous dick waving contest.  But that statement is utter bollocks.  And obviously so.  Par is, always, an integer.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #292 on: January 10, 2020, 04:43:11 PM »
Let me ask you a question.


Course with 2 sets of tees.


Black Par 72 Rating 74.6 Slope 140
White Par 72 Rating 71.4 Slope 120


Scratch Index Golfer. 0.0.


Do you find it wrong that he plays off Whites with a -0.6 Handicap and off Blacks with a 2.6 handicap?

Does par 72 factor into this difference? Or is it just the difference between the 3 significant digit course ratings?


As you can see, the fact 72 has 2 significant digits makes no difference.
Yes, I find it wrong, because he has to give a stroke to players with index 0.1 to 0.4 when playing from the white tees when he didn't use to.
And, I find it wrong that he gets a stroke from players with index +0.1 to +0.4 when playing from the black tees when he didn't use to.

In the old system, the handicap index was tied directly to the players scoring average. In the new system, there is an offset built in (course rating - par) that moves it farther from the scoring average.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #293 on: January 10, 2020, 04:46:54 PM »
Par is a measurement, and not a very accurate measurement at that.
The ten you use is a quantity with total accuracy.
I really didn't want to get into this ridiculous dick waving contest.  But that statement is utter bollocks.  And obviously so.  Par is, always, an integer.

Of course it is an integer, because it is always rounded to an integer. Tom Doak and others create what they call half par holes, but you never see the decimal .5 under the par column or row on a scorecard.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #294 on: January 10, 2020, 04:48:59 PM »
Of course it is an integer, because it is always rounded to an integer. Tom Doak and others create what they call half par holes, but you never see the decimal .5 under the par column or row on a scorecard.
Oh brother.

Please show me a scorecard where a player has ever taken, for example, 4.2 strokes to complete a hole, or scored a 71.3 for a single round of golf.

Par is an integer and has infinite absolute value. It's an exact number.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #295 on: January 10, 2020, 04:53:43 PM »
,,,
And so what if it is 2 significant digits. The adjustment would also work if we used 8. Or 0. Or 111. Just the net scores would make less sense but still be valid to compete and build a leaderboard.
...

You may be right. It is over 50 years since I have had to use significant figures or digits in college chemistry class, so I may not be applying it right here. That does not invalidate what I wrote earlier.
Quote
Therefore if the course rating is nn.0, then the course handicap under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system. However, if the course rating is nn.5, then half of the course handicaps under the new system will be as accurate as they were under the old system, and half of the course handicaps will be one different than they were under the old system.


I dont think that is right. The difference between tees in the course rating is what counts, and it can still be 1.3, 1.9, 2.0 or any number with one decimal place.

Check my figures in the post that appears below, and then see if you don't think that is right.
Well above this post, but below your post quoted here. ;)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #296 on: January 10, 2020, 05:04:57 PM »
Of course it is an integer, because it is always rounded to an integer. Tom Doak and others create what they call half par holes, but you never see the decimal .5 under the par column or row on a scorecard.
Oh brother.

Please show me a scorecard where a player has ever taken, for example, 4.2 strokes to complete a hole, or scored a 71.3 for a single round of golf.

Par is an integer and has infinite absolute value. It's an exact number.
I said the par column or row. Not a score recording column or row.

Par is an inaccurate, rounded off, measurement of the difficulty of a golf hole. That is why I referenced the discussion of half par holes.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #297 on: January 10, 2020, 05:07:47 PM »
No, it’s an exact number, and several people have now said your whole line of reasoning about significant figures is wrong.

A player can not take 0.3 shots to play a hole.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #298 on: January 10, 2020, 05:11:23 PM »
Let me ask you a question.


Course with 2 sets of tees.


Black Par 72 Rating 74.6 Slope 140
White Par 72 Rating 71.4 Slope 120


Scratch Index Golfer. 0.0.


Do you find it wrong that he plays off Whites with a -0.6 Handicap and off Blacks with a 2.6 handicap?

Does par 72 factor into this difference? Or is it just the difference between the 3 significant digit course ratings?


As you can see, the fact 72 has 2 significant digits makes no difference.
Yes, I find it wrong, because he has to give a stroke to players with index 0.1 to 0.4 when playing from the white tees when he didn't use to.
And, I find it wrong that he gets a stroke from players with index +0.1 to +0.4 when playing from the black tees when he didn't use to.

In the old system, the handicap index was tied directly to the players scoring average. In the new system, there is an offset built in (course rating - par) that moves it farther from the scoring average.


But you are comparing to the past system, where there were also arbitrary cut off indexes where strokes were given or not. A difference with the past is not wrong per se...

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The World Handicap System. Is it Good? (Moved from the BUDA thread)
« Reply #299 on: January 10, 2020, 05:52:08 PM »
...
But you are comparing to the past system, where there were also arbitrary cut off indexes where strokes were given or not. A difference with the past is not wrong per se...

When it comes to match play, the old system could definitely be improved. All this discussion of handicaps has made me realize I could send a proposal to the USGA on how they can make things work better for match play.

I believe Knuth devised the system for medal play, and the cut offs are not arbitrary in medal play, because medal play is about score, and the handicap systems are based on scoring averages.

So let me rephrase in medal play terms.

Yes, I find it wrong, because if he plays in a competition on the white tees and shoots 72 his net score will be 71 while players with index 0.1 to 0.4 will have net score 72. They used to have the same net score.
And, I find it wrong that if he plays in a competition on the black tees, and shoots 72 his net score will be 72 while players with index +0.1 to +0.4 will have net score 71. They used to have the same net score.

Does it not seem to you that the players that establish a handicap index from +0.4 to 0.0 to 0.4 based on their scoring averages should have the same net score in this situation in medal play events?

« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:59:38 PM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne