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

[MClutterbuck]

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?

No. It is no different than before at different cut off ranges. a 5.2 might get a stroke from a 5.1 at one course and not at another.


If your worry is for 2 scratch golfers... they could not care less about the net score.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If your worry is for 2 scratch golfers... they could not care less about the net score.

You are the one that started with the scratch golfer stuff.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Also, this. Again, we had rounding before. Sometimes two guys were both 12s on a 135-rated course but one guy had to give up a shot to the other on a 136-rated course.

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.

This appears to be your most of your beef with the WHS: that the specific points at which rounding occurs in one direction or another may have changed. That doesn't make the previous system right and this one wrong; they're just different. Rounding up or down is just as likely in 2020 as in 2019, they're just not always in the same "place."

Below I'll show it to you in graphical form.

No. It is no different than before at different cut off ranges. a 5.2 might get a stroke from a 5.1 at one course and not at another.

Right. Once again the specific ranges may have shifted, but there's just as many times when a golfer will lose a stroke or gain a stroke.



There you are. The larger size version is here: https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/xQu0wrP5/gralandlarge?v=d537a8593971981f44183164988b5bb9

In each of the charts, green squares exist when the top golfer gains a shot with a course rating adjustment (WHS 2020) versus what they would have gotten in 2019 against the golfer down the left-hand side.

For example, in the 0.2 adjustment chart (top right), previously a 12.5 to a 12.9 would have been rounded up to a 13, while the 12.0 to 12.4 would have been rounded down to 12. Thus, when the 12.2 on the left is adjusted to 12.5, the 12.3 is adjusted to 12.6, and the 12.4 is adjusted to 12.7, the top golfer gains a stroke in the 12.5 to 12.9 columns, so they're green.

The same number of green numbers appear as red, Garland. The 0.5 adjustment doesn't hurt or help anyone except SPECIFIC situations, and I can come up with an equal number of specific situations where the opposite player is helped.

This is what I've meant when I've said this is "how rounding works." The 2020 WHS does no more or less to punish or help people. The numbers where rounding occurs shifted slightly, but are otherwise balanced all the same.

Here's the 2019 system, which is also the 2020 system when the course rating ends in .0.




Edit to add:

No. It is no different than before at different cut off ranges. a 5.2 might get a stroke from a 5.1 at one course and not at another.

This is what I said before. Garland is missing that the higher handicap person is just as likely to LOSE a shot to a lower handicap player with the 0.5 course rating adjustment as he is to GAIN a shot.

For example, a player whose course handicap would have been 12.0 (12 CH) before rounding versus a player who was a 12.5 (13 CH) would have given a shot to the 12.5 before would now has to play that guy straight up: 12.5 (13 CH) versus 13.0 (13 CH). Even a 12.0 versus a 12.9 will play straight up now: 12.5 (13 CH) versus 13.4 (13 CH). (This is demonstrated in the charts above.)

Like I've said, this is just how rounding works, and for players playing different tees, the current system is MORE accurate, because it's only rounded once instead of twice under the previous system.

[Garland Bayley]

...This appears to be your most of your beef with the WHS: that the specific points at which rounding occurs in one direction or another may have changed. ...

No, that is not my beef.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No, that is not my beef.

Yeah, it is. Virtually everything you've said boils down to "but in the old system…". Truth is the WHS is just as accurate if not more so (due to rounding only once instead of twice). People's course handicaps changed, but you can't hold up the old system as the "accurate" one and assume any change makes it less accurate.

[Rob Marshall]

Erik, could you please let me know where on the usga page the article was dated 2015 or just let me know it if it isn’t. I’m confused on how I could be missing it. Thank you.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, could you please let me know where on the usga page the article was dated 2015 or just let me know it if it isn’t. I’m confused on how I could be missing it. Thank you.

I posted it earlier. Look at the page source.

[Rob Marshall]

Erik, could you please let me know where on the usga page the article was dated 2015 or just let me know it if it isn’t. I’m confused on how I could be missing it. Thank you.

I posted it earlier. Look at the page source.

No Erik, you didn’t. You implied it was on the page. If you simply look at the article is there a date? It is a yes or no question. I see no date.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No Erik, you didn’t. You implied it was on the page. If you simply look at the article is there a date? It is a yes or no question. I see no date.

I posted the date of publication and editing, and I didn't imply that it was "on the page." Heck, I posted the HTML, which implies you have to view the source code to see the dates, if anything. At the end of the day, the fact is you cited an article that's almost five years old. Should the USGA take it down or modify it? Yes, but it's not a current article.

[Scott Warren]

Garland and Rob,


Basically all Erik & I have done online is disagree, so I’m not just blindly backing a mate here — it has to be said, he has both your heads on the wall above his fireplace on this one.


It’s an annual event — the North Americans all go stir-crazy and fight constantly during the off-season — but this thread is deceased now.


But also, consider that most of the rest of the world plays a ton of its golf at stableford and the baking-in of rating-minus-par as well as ESC of nett-double make all the more sense.

[Rob Marshall]

No Erik, you didn’t. You implied it was on the page. If you simply look at the article is there a date? It is a yes or no question. I see no date.

I posted the date of publication and editing, and I didn't imply that it was "on the page." Heck, I posted the HTML, which implies you have to view the source code to see the dates, if anything. At the end of the day, the fact is you cited an article that's almost five years old. Should the USGA take it down or modify it? Yes, but it's not a current article.

https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html


The link has no date, neither does the article. The correct answer was no. I'm out, good luck with your teaching.

[Jason Thurman]

Garland and Rob,


Basically all Erik & I have done online is disagree, so I’m not just blindly backing a mate here — it has to be said, he has both your heads on the wall above his fireplace on this one.


It’s an annual event — the North Americans all go stir-crazy and fight constantly during the off-season — but this thread is deceased now.


But also, consider that most of the rest of the world plays a ton of its golf at stableford and the baking-in of rating-minus-par as well as ESC of nett-double make all the more sense.

+1

[Ken Moum]

Garland and Rob,


Basically all Erik & I have done online is disagree, so I’m not just blindly backing a mate here — it has to be said, he has both your heads on the wall above his fireplace on this one.


It’s an annual event — the North Americans all go stir-crazy and fight constantly during the off-season — but this thread is deceased now.


But also, consider that most of the rest of the world plays a ton of its golf at stableford and the baking-in of rating-minus-par as well as ESC of nett-double make all the more sense.

It does make sense, and for those of us who are playing a regular skins game in the US it works perfectly well.


The game I play in has indexes from ~10 to 30+.  Our low handicapper was playing to 10 from the white tees, but he dropped to 4. I was a 21 and dropped to 16, so I'm getting one more shot against him.


But as has been pointed out, it's caused by rounding, and others in the group are either getting the same number of shots or one less.


The biggest change is that no one is shooting ultra-low net scores.  We pay one skin each for low net on each nine and the 18, and the winner's scores so far are much closer to par, which is how it's supposed to work out.


In the end, one stroke either way has zero effect over the long haul.  Daily handicap updates, and the automatic adjustment for "exceptional" rounds is going to have a significant effect on the folks who always seem to have their "best round of the year" during tournaments.

[Rob Marshall]

Garland and Rob,


Basically all Erik & I have done online is disagree, so I’m not just blindly backing a mate here — it has to be said, he has both your heads on the wall above his fireplace on this one.


It’s an annual event — the North Americans all go stir-crazy and fight constantly during the off-season — but this thread is deceased now.


But also, consider that most of the rest of the world plays a ton of its golf at stableford and the baking-in of rating-minus-par as well as ESC of nett-double make all the more sense.

It does make sense, and for those of us who are playing a regular skins game in the US it works perfectly well.


The game I play in has indexes from ~10 to 30+.  Our low handicapper was playing to 10 from the white tees, but he dropped to 4. I was a 21 and dropped to 16, so I'm getting one more shot against him.


But as has been pointed out, it's caused by rounding, and others in the group are either getting the same number of shots or one less.


The biggest change is that no one is shooting ultra-low net scores.  We pay one skin each for low net on each nine and the 18, and the winner's scores so far are much closer to par, which is how it's supposed to work out.


In the end, one stroke either way has zero effect over the long haul.  Daily handicap updates, and the automatic adjustment for "exceptional" rounds is going to have a significant effect on the folks who always seem to have their "best round of the year" during tournaments.

Ken, How do you do net skins in your game? That's been a huge problem in my game. We can't seem to find a system that everyone agrees with. Our handicaps based on the old system range from 0 to 18. For our skin game we use 80% of handicap and and a net birdie can't cut a natural birdie.


I would be interested What everyone else does when it comes to skins.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html

The link has no date, neither does the article.

It does Rob. It’s simply in the source code. I’ve posted it twice I believe.


So the fact is the article is almost five years old. That fact doesn’t change just because you can’t view the source.

[Ken Moum]

Ken, How do you do net skins in your game? That's been a huge problem in my game. We can't seem to find a system that everyone agrees with. Our handicaps based on the old system range from 0 to 18. For our skin game we use 80% of handicap and and a net birdie can't cut a natural birdie.


I would be interested What everyone else does when it comes to skins.

This game is unique in a couple of ways. First is that they play by the rules.  And NO gimmees.  I missed a 3-inch putt yesterday, doing a Lanny Wadkins.  It counted.


The other is that it's the only full-handicap game I've played in that plays off the low handicapper.  Because we don't have the same guys all the time, in the past few weeks the strokes I get ranged from 0 to 12.


All skins must be validated with a net par on the following hole to limit the number of skins and keep the payouts worthwhile. With a $10 buy in recent games have produced skins that are worth $10 to $15 (there are usually 8-16 players)


A scratch birdie beats a net birdie and does NOT have to be validated.


FWIW, I have to ask whyinhell would any of the players above a 10 handicap agree to give up 20 percent of their strokes? The players 4 and under get all their shots and the 10 to 18 are losing at least two strokes.


Sounds like a game invented by good golfers who think they deserve to win.


K

[Rob Marshall]

Ken,
Thanks for the post. I'm going to pass that on to my guys.


"FWIW, I have to ask whyinhell would any of the players above a 10 handicap agree to give up 20 percent of their strokes? The players 4 and under get all their shots and the 10 to 18 are losing at least two strokes.Sounds like a game invented by good golfers who think they deserve to win."


 A 3 and 4 lose one stroke and a 12 only loses 2.


The lower handicaps aren't winning like you would think. We only have 6-8 guys at a time in the game. We can't find a way to make everyone happy. That's why I'm asking. Thanks for the input.

[Ken Moum]

Ken,
Thanks for the post. I'm going to pass that on to my guys.


"FWIW, I have to ask whyinhell would any of the players above a 10 handicap agree to give up 20 percent of their strokes? The players 4 and under get all their shots and the 10 to 18 are losing at least two strokes.Sounds like a game invented by good golfers who think they deserve to win."


 A 3 and 4 lose one stroke and a 12 only loses 2.


The lower handicaps aren't winning like you would think. We only have 6-8 guys at a time in the game. We can't find a way to make everyone happy. That's why I'm asking. Thanks for the input.

Making people happy in a money game is probably a fool's errand.


FWIW, giving skins for net totals on front, back and 18 makes a lot of difference. Someone who plays well without any exceptional holes still has a shot.


Conversely, I played poorly one day last week, but made four straight pars with strokes on the first and third of that run.


I won two skins and validated both.


BTW, cutting a 3 and 4 by one stroke seems even less logical. They're getting 75% and 66% of their handicap.


Why not just use the real number? Especially now that the course handicap figures in par, effectively cutting everyone's handicap.

[Rob Marshall]

"Why not just use the real number? Especially now that the course handicap figures in par, effectively cutting everyone's handicap."

In the Dog fights at Hideout you get 50% of handicap for skins. Everyone is different.


Why do most club tournaments ( at least at my club) play at 90% of handicap instead of the full handicap?

[Ken Moum]

"Why not just use the real number? Especially now that the course handicap figures in par, effectively cutting everyone's handicap."

In the Dog fights at Hideout you get 50% of handicap for skins. Everyone is different.


Why do most club tournaments ( at least at my club) play at 90% of handicap instead of the full handicap?

There's a simple answer.


Good players hate handicaps.


50% in my game would have some guys losing 15 shots while at least one would lose 2.


Hmmmm...

[John Kavanaugh]

Good players play smartly most every hole.  Poor players use their brains in a more opportunistic fashion. Stroke holes trigger an opportunity at the tee.

[John Kavanaugh]

I’m loving the sophistication of this new system. Overnight I went from giving a guy in my group 25 shots to 22. In Indiana I will play to a 7 while in Florida I’m a 3. It’s is much more of a real world reflection of course difficulty than before.


I simply can not wait for grown men to no longer be able to pick up on par 3’s and post a 7. Now if we can just get people who post with a half bag to show up with a half bag.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why not just use the real number? Especially now that the course handicap figures in par, effectively cutting everyone's handicap.

I can't answer the question about "using the real number" in 80% events and so on, but I did want to point out that the latter part of that comment isn't true if you play more difficult tees. The course my daughter plays, for example, is a 75.7-rated par 72. She's a 1.0 that has a course handicap of 5 (when obviously, before, it would be a 1). The men's tees are rated 74.0 and 72.0 (happen to fall on the whole integer), so the black tee players get 2 shots and the blue tee players see no real change in course handicap.

If you're assuming that most players play tees with a rating of < course par, I think you're probably accurate in that assumption most of the time.

[Rob Marshall]

"Why not just use the real number? Especially now that the course handicap figures in par, effectively cutting everyone's handicap."

In the Dog fights at Hideout you get 50% of handicap for skins. Everyone is different.


Why do most club tournaments ( at least at my club) play at 90% of handicap instead of the full handicap?

There's a simple answer.


Good players hate handicaps.


50% in my game would have some guys losing 15 shots while at least one would lose 2.


Hmmmm...

Ken,
For what is worth. I found this from the pope of slope.


http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/2012-05-NetSkinsGame-gd.htm

[Pete_Pittock]

It always falls towards the best negotiator on the first tee.