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

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland, in your match with Erik, you may wish to consider how your 18 or so handicap compares to his around scratch.  I have never met anyone who has gone as deep on this as Erik.  Perhaps he should replace Mr. Knuth as the latter might have a bit too much skin in the game.  As freebie advice for the USGA/R&A, bringing in Professor Izatt to fact check Erik would add gravitas (though the latter might find it annoying).
...

Have you actually met Erik?. Are you actually witness to the study he has made of this topic, or are you just taking his word for it?

Your suggestion the he replace Dean Knuth is the single most outlandishly misguided statement you have ever made on this site.

[Carl Johnson]

I want to hijack this thread, at least the feud part of it, which is getting a little tiresome.  Course ratings and slope ratings are keys to the world handicap system.  For those of you have participated on ratings teams, leading or just being part of a team (as I have), are the course to course validity of the ratings the elephant in the room?  Just asking for honest opinions -- I hope not to start another fight.

[BHoover]

Imagine being as petty and little, to say nothing about having so much free time on your hands, as Garland. I feel sorry for you.

[Garland Bayley]

Imagine being as petty and little, to say nothing about having so much free time on your hands, as Garland. I feel sorry for you.

No need to feel sorry for me. I am long retired. Send your sympathy to Erik. He presumably is still trying to earn a living.

[Lou_Duran]

...
Garland, in your match with Erik, you may wish to consider how your 18 or so handicap compares to his around scratch.  I have never met anyone who has gone as deep on this as Erik.  Perhaps he should replace Mr. Knuth as the latter might have a bit too much skin in the game.  As freebie advice for the USGA/R&A, bringing in Professor Izatt to fact check Erik would add gravitas (though the latter might find it annoying).
...

Have you actually met Erik?. Are you actually witness to the study he has made of this topic, or are you just taking his word for it?

Your suggestion the he replace Dean Knuth is the single most outlandishly misguided statement you have ever made on this site.

No.  No, my comments were mostly in jest; I don't have a strong opinion on the methodology and details, only that if it is going to be a world system, that everyone should post either all or just tournament scores.


I was kidding about replacing Dean, but I am sure that any number of readers would have several other statements I've made over the years which might rank higher (in outlandishness).


Thanks for reminding me that humor doesn't come through well on the internet.


 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Course ratings and slope ratings are keys to the world handicap system.  For those of you have participated on ratings teams, leading or just being part of a team (as I have), are the course to course validity of the ratings the elephant in the room?  Just asking for honest opinions…

I've been on my ratings team for nearly 15 years, and captain for four or five. I forget whether I was on the team for just over 8 or 9 years before I became captain. At any rate…

I've done many calibrations with other teams, and we generally are pretty close to them. I've done national workshops with the USGA, and likewise, are pretty close (though we like to tease the Florida raters who, upon seeing TWO trees on one side of a hole, will immediately jump to "oh my, that's got to be at least a three!"  ) as well. Many of the ratings of course aren't really all that subjective. It's a matter of measurement, as you know, what % of a green is surrounded by a bunker, or whether that bunker is 3' deep, or 6', etc. What's truly subjective, really, has little influence on the final rating/slope. Not none, but not a lot - slightly different ratings on those subjective things won't move a rating much even if they're fairly different.

[BHoover]

Imagine being as petty and little, to say nothing about having so much free time on your hands, as Garland. I feel sorry for you.

No need to feel sorry for me. I am long retired. Send your sympathy to Erik. He presumably is still trying to earn a living.

All that free time and you’re still unable to break 115? Find a new hobby. Maybe crochet or needlepoint?

[Garland Bayley]

Imagine being as petty and little, to say nothing about having so much free time on your hands, as Garland. I feel sorry for you.

No need to feel sorry for me. I am long retired. Send your sympathy to Erik. He presumably is still trying to earn a living.

All that free time and you’re still unable to break 115? Find a new hobby. Maybe crochet or needlepoint?

You have to remember I hate top shot bunkers.

[MClutterbuck]

I want to hijack this thread, at least the feud part of it, which is getting a little tiresome.  Course ratings and slope ratings are keys to the world handicap system.  For those of you have participated on ratings teams, leading or just being part of a team (as I have), are the course to course validity of the ratings the elephant in the room?  Just asking for honest opinions -- I hope not to start another fight.

Carl, I think the system is quite objective, with few subjective items that can really change much. Plus, the WHS will eventually take actual data sets to make changes to both.


I think a larger problem can be courses setting tees in different tee locations than those evaluated and not informing this.

[Pete_Pittock]

     I have decided that WHS is neither good, nor bad, it is what it is and I will live with it. Just like the US tax system.  Some consequences might be that tag-along handicapping systems will either fold or pay a price for the algorithms.
     Also, it seems that Barnbougle Dune's Lost Farm course is not in the GHIN data base because it has 20 holes. That makes the "old" system "better".  I will check before I play there in a few days.
     Attended our club's committee meeting and one committee member couldn't figure out what was the meaning of net double bogey. Another incredulous conversation was "par" being changed for a number of tee configurations because moving up to the most forward tees made some par 5 holes now par 4s.
     One good question. If I am playing a hole where my tees are a par 5 against a person who's tee is a par 4 and he gets a stroke what happens when...…………………………………      I think the overall answer is who had the lower net score, unrelated to par.  Groups that have include people using different tees will have to reconsider their scoring/betting rules.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

     I have decided that WHS is neither good, nor bad, it is what it is and I will live with it. Just like the US tax system.  Some consequences might be that tag-along handicapping systems will either fold or pay a price for the algorithms.
     Also, it seems that Barnbougle Dune's Lost Farm course is not in the GHIN data base because it has 20 holes. That makes the "old" system "better".  I will check before I play there in a few days.
     Attended our club's committee meeting and one committee member couldn't figure out what was the meaning of net double bogey. Another incredulous conversation was "par" being changed for a number of tee configurations because moving up to the most forward tees made some par 5 holes now par 4s.
     One good question. If I am playing a hole where my tees are a par 5 against a person who's tee is a par 4 and he gets a stroke what happens when...…………………………………      I think the overall answer is who had the lower net score, unrelated to par.  Groups that have include people using different tees will have to reconsider their scoring/betting rules.

Pete, this may not fully answer your question, but two points:

• Par for most courses from all reasonably similar tees (i.e. if a course is black, blue, white, yellow, red, then possibly all five, but likely yellow through black) will have the same par. Early on many courses are seeing their course rating data being used to assign pars, but courses and associations will mostly reset these to have the same par.
• The playing handicap will vary from the course handicap when par is different. If someone's course handicap is 3 and they're playing a par 72, and their opponent is a 13 playing a par 71, that's a difference of ten… which becomes nine when you adjust for the par.

So, rather than getting ten shots, they get nine. The hole where you have to give them a stroke will be offset by the hole where they're "deprived" of a stroke they'd have gotten if the par were the same.

But, again, this shouldn't happen or be needed all that often, because the only thing "par" really affects in the context of handicapping is what I just noted plus NDB. Someone playing a 440-yard par "five" because the back tees are a legit par five at 550 on the other side of a pond, for example, can take an 8 if they get a stroke… but it's also unlikely they'll need to take a net double bogey "8" on a 440-yard par four. So it won't matter too much there, either. And regardless of the par for the hole, except for NDB, it won't affect their differential since par is not included in that calculation.

[Garland Bayley]

I want to hijack this thread, at least the feud part of it, which is getting a little tiresome.  Course ratings and slope ratings are keys to the world handicap system.  For those of you have participated on ratings teams, leading or just being part of a team (as I have), are the course to course validity of the ratings the elephant in the room?  Just asking for honest opinions -- I hope not to start another fight.

I have no experience with doing course ratings. But I just looked at what they were for my home course, and find that the rating system rates some of the easiest holes to be the most difficult. We have two 450 yard par 5s that they rate very difficult. Have to wonder if the rating system is considering them to be par 4s. Also we have a 220 yard par 4 that the system rates 5th most difficult hole on the course. Have to wonder if it considers it a par 3. It is a 160 yard tee shot, then make a right angle turn and hit a wedge 60 yards back to a green blocked by trees otherwise. Their handicap stroke allocation index method in Appendix E rates these three holes in the 5 most difficult on the course. However, if you use the same formula on playing averages, you get them to be amongst the 7 easiest holes on the course.

[Pete_Pittock]

I want to hijack this thread, at least the feud part of it, which is getting a little tiresome.  Course ratings and slope ratings are keys to the world handicap system.  For those of you have participated on ratings teams, leading or just being part of a team (as I have), are the course to course validity of the ratings the elephant in the room?  Just asking for honest opinions -- I hope not to start another fight.

I have no experience with doing course ratings. But I just looked at what they were for my home course, and find that the rating system rates some of the easiest holes to be the most difficult. We have two 450 yard par 5s that they rate very difficult. Have to wonder if the rating system is considering them to be par 4s. Also we have a 220 yard par 4 that the system rates 5th most difficult hole on the course. Have to wonder if it considers it a par 3. It is a 160 yard tee shot, then make a right angle turn and hit a wedge 60 yards back to a green blocked by trees otherwise. Their handicap stroke allocation index method in Appendix E rates these three holes in the 5 most difficult on the course. However, if you use the same formula on playing averages, you get them to be amongst the 7 easiest holes on the course.

Garland,
You and the WSGA are speaking two different languages when the word "difficult" arises

[Garland Bayley]

Pete,

My bad. By difficult I meant within stroke allocation index 1 to 5. By easiest I meant stroke allocation index 11 to 18.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have no experience with doing course ratings. But I just looked at what they were for my home course, and find that the rating system rates some of the easiest holes to be the most difficult.

The stroke index is not the "difficulty" of the hole.

[Rob Marshall]

I have no experience with doing course ratings. But I just looked at what they were for my home course, and find that the rating system rates some of the easiest holes to be the most difficult.

The stroke index is not the "difficulty" of the hole.

It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par. The difficulty of each hole can be determined objectively using hole-by-hole data provided from the Course Rating procedure as follows:
From the USGA.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par. The difficulty of each hole can be determined objectively using hole-by-hole data provided from the Course Rating procedure as follows:
From the USGA.

That recommendation is less than a month old at this point, and many (possibly most) courses are sticking with their old stroke index assignments. They have no incentive to change it if it's working just fine.

In the old system that's still the current system used by the vast majority of courses, par fives were often 1-4, with par threes 15-18 (or very close in both cases) because… they're the holes where the higher handicap player was most likely to need a stroke against the lower handicap player.

Par fives are almost never "the difficult holes" for good players. Those are the par threes. And the situation typically reverses for the higher handicappers: they often get higher scores (more chances to hit a poor shot) on par fives relative to par than on par threes, where they often just made a 3 or a 4. The USGA has a ton of data on this, because courses used to submit about 500 scorecards, scores would be entered, and the computer would tell you which holes to give what stroke index based on what I just wrote: the holes where the higher handicapper needed a stroke. (Now they can get that data from people entering Hole-by-Hole scores.)

Edit: Why change it? Because it's a pain in the butt to submit 400 or 500 cards, enter them all in, etc. The new system is significantly easier because it just uses existing course rating data. And let's say it shows that a par five is going to be 4.9 for a scratch golfer and 6.2 for a bogey golfer… and a par three is 3.1 and 3.8. Relative to par, the par five will still show as a lower stroke index (+1.1 vs. +0.9), but still, for the scratch golfer, the par five is not "more difficult." And in the new system, courses might find that handicap holes 1, 2, and 3 are in the first five holes, and they'll shift stuff around even then, to arrange them in "triads" and split them across the front and the back, primarily, so that further removes them away from even this version of "difficulty."

[Pete_Pittock]

      What is wriggling and boring through my mind is the handicap strokes listed on most golf course score card. Traditionally these reflect where the bogey golfer most needs handicap strokes to tie a scratch golfer in a match. These now serve a second purpose, created with the movement (at least in the US of A) with the movement from Equitable Stroke Control (ESC) to Maximum Net Double Bogey (NMDB).
      Under the old system, if you had a blow-up hole you just implemented ESC, it didn't matter which hole was the crime scene of the explosion. Now it does matter. It stands to my reasoning that the mishap will happen on the actual most difficult hole, and fractionally less on each successive less difficult hole.
     If your handicap trends towards the middle of the 1-18 (19-36, 37-54) the chances increase that your hand grenade happens
where the stroke index (SI) does not grant a stroke (or 2 or 3).
     I infer that the exact correlation of combined difficulty (adding bogey and scratch statistics) to the SI hole table is most likely to create the least error in determining handicap.  Any divergence from a strict transfer from data to SI, such as a triad scheme, or an even/odd distribution between nines, increases the chance that the handicap calculation is skewed, especially if the golfer is prone to such mishaps as being stuck in a foozle bunker.
     While I have no mathematical calculations to back this up, errors in the SI table probably shouldn't affect a handicap by more than 0.2 strokes, meaning 80% of the time it is an irrelevancy and all this typing was a waste of my time, and yours.
     

[SL_Solow]

As it was explained to me, the "triads" were created to try and distribute where strokes were given and received throughout a round so as to allow the higher handicap to get the benefit of strokes given.  For me the analogy would be architects who design primarily for match play might not place the most difficult hole as 18 because most matches would be over before the high handicapper ever received the stroke.  Thus the triads with difficulty ratings used within each grouping.  Note this is only a recommendation and there are many who believe that it is not appropriate for their course, myself included.  I suspect that the recommendation will be honored in the breach.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As it was explained to me, the "triads" were created to try and distribute where strokes were given and received throughout a round so as to allow the higher handicap to get the benefit of strokes given.  For me the analogy would be architects who design primarily for match play might not place the most difficult hole as 18 because most matches would be over before the high handicapper ever received the stroke.  Thus the triads with difficulty ratings used within each grouping.  Note this is only a recommendation and there are many who believe that it is not appropriate for their course, myself included.  I suspect that the recommendation will be honored in the breach.

Yeah, the "triads" are to distribute the strokes given.

Look, at the end of the day (I've said this before), the USGA will tell you^ that the research suggests where the strokes fall really makes no difference, except in extreme cases. Extreme cases are where a bunch of the low stroke index holes are in the first six or last six holes of the match.

^ They might not officially tell you that, now that I think about it, but their research says it, and if you know someone with the USGA, that person will probably tell you, even if "officially" they won't say much.

In other words, people worry too much about this stuff. It likely doesn't matter if your fourth hole is stroke index 2 or 16. Matches will basically turn out the same.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

BTW, gambling tip for y'all… Suppose you have to give a guy 8 shots.

Offer to give him three a side, and tell him that so long as he announces that he intends to use a stroke before anyone tees off, he can use them on any holes he chooses.

The suckers take the bet way more often than they don't…

If they were smart, which we already know they aren't since they willingly gave up two shots, they should take the strokes on holes 1, 2, and 3, and then 10, 11, and 12.

[Sean_A]

0

BTW, gambling tip for y'all… Suppose you have to give a guy 8 shots.

Offer to give him three a side, and tell him that so long as he announces that he intends to use a stroke before anyone tees off, he can use them on any holes he chooses.

The suckers take the bet way more often than they don't…

If they were smart, which we already know they aren't since they willingly gave up two shots, they should take the strokes on holes 1, 2, and 3, and then 10, 11, and 12.

After hours of typing about how wonderful the new system is, you then advise people to chuck it aside? 

[MKrohn]

I have come in late to this thread, so ignore if this has been posted previously.


I think in Australia we are perhaps closest to what the new system is. Some time ago I redid our hole ratings, based on what @Rob Marshall said. That is all fine but is only a partial solution if you want to do things "properly".


We have split ratings in Australia, one of our holes is 1/24, its the hardest hole for the 0-6 group but doesn't play that way for the 19 plus guys. You don't get two shots until you are off 24.


In general length and water carries make holes difficult for higher markers whereas they are irrelevant for lower guys. All our par 3s are rated 36,35,34,33 meaning that you need to be close to the maximum handicap to get two shots on a par 3.


There has been more time spent on hole ratings than sock length out here, the good thing we have done is reduce the noise, that is, player A says he doesn't agree with something, "sorry champ (used derogatively) facts don't care what you think".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

After hours of typing about how wonderful the new system is, you then advise people to chuck it aside? 

If your "pigeon" is dumb enough to do so, if they're willing to give up two shots just so they can "choose," it's to your advantage. Sure. The allocation of shots, the actual distribution of them, doesn't really matter.

@MKrohn, the distribution really doesn't matter all that much. Did you have a question, though, that someone can answer?

[jeffwarne]

BTW, gambling tip for y'all… Suppose you have to give a guy 8 shots.

Offer to give him three a side, and tell him that so long as he announces that he intends to use a stroke before anyone tees off, he can use them on any holes he chooses.

The suckers take the bet way more often than they don't…

If they were smart, which we already know they aren't since they willingly gave up two shots, they should take the strokes on holes 1, 2, and 3, and then 10, 11, and 12.

Why would anyone who's a "gambler" approach the bet that way?
No "gambler" is going to be playing without presses, and how "smart" would it be to have NO shots on the last 6 holes of EACH side, when playing against someone who's supposed to be giving you 8?


Now I might the bet as the 8 with the three shots on the LAST 3 holes of each side