[Wayne_Kozun]

Maybe some experts could chime in here.

I'm certainly not a golf handicapping expert, but I do have a non-trivial education in statistics, so I understand the math behind handicapping.

Why do you think that the handicapping methodology has only ever included the first moment of the score distribution and not high moments?  Is it to keep it simple, and/or that in the older days they didn't have computers to calculate handicaps?
Couldn't you solve part of this issue by incorporating variance/sd into the system?

And why not use exponential weighting rather than a cliff drop-off after 20  scores?  For some people 20 scores in a year or two, for others it is a slow month.

[Michael Felton]

If a typical 0 plays a typical 20, the 20 is going to just flat out win regardless of what the 0 does around 2-4 times out of 20. The good side of their top 8 is going to be better than the 0's good side for the most part. The higher 4 scores in the 20's top 8 they're going to have a pretty good game most of the time. The 0 will win if he produces one of his best 4/20, they'll be close around 8/20 and the 0 will lose if he plays one of his worst 8/20. If the 20 shoots one of the worst 12/20, then the 0 is going to win most of the time. Roughly speaking, I think the 20 wins about 3/20 (very good scores)+3/20 (decent scores) +1/20 (poor scores) = 7/20 and the 0 will win about 13/20. This is all off the top of my head, not based on actual statistical analysis.

It's not that high - 65%. It's in the 50s, but the lower handicapper does still win more than they lose one-on-one. Used to be the "bonus for excellence" helped that a bit… now the move to 8/20 helps that as you note.

Fair enough - I figured that 0 vs 20 is pretty extreme, so it might be higher. I do know in the old UK system that you needed to give 125% of the difference to get a good 50/50 match.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Maybe some experts could chime in here.

I'm certainly not a golf handicapping expert, but I do have a non-trivial education in statistics, so I understand the math behind handicapping.

Why do you think that the handicapping methodology has only ever included the first moment of the score distribution and not high moments?  Is it to keep it simple, and/or that in the older days they didn't have computers to calculate handicaps?
Couldn't you solve part of this issue by incorporating variance/sd into the system?

And why not use exponential weighting rather than a cliff drop-off after 20  scores?  For some people 20 scores in a year or two, for others it is a slow month.

I mean, I understand the benefits of keeping it simple, and 100% agree with you here. I'm not too familiar with the history of the handicap, but I definitely think we need a consensus of what we're trying to do before doing it. That's a political concern, so asking the stats guys to come up with a way to handicap golfers really doesn't make sense unless we know what we're trying to do... which is why I was a bit confused before.

[Carl Johnson]

Maybe some experts could chime in here.

I'm certainly not a golf handicapping expert, but I do have a non-trivial education in statistics, so I understand the math behind handicapping.

Why do you think that the handicapping methodology has only ever included the first moment of the score distribution and not high moments?  Is it to keep it simple, and/or that in the older days they didn't have computers to calculate handicaps?
Couldn't you solve part of this issue by incorporating variance/sd into the system?

And why not use exponential weighting rather than a cliff drop-off after 20  scores?  For some people 20 scores in a year or two, for others it is a slow month.

I mean, I understand the benefits of keeping it simple, and 100% agree with you here. I'm not too familiar with the history of the handicap, but I definitely think we need a consensus of what we're trying to do before doing it. That's a political concern, so asking the stats guys to come up with a way to handicap golfers really doesn't make sense unless we know what we're trying to do... which is why I was a bit confused before.

Wow! thanks for this and all other above replies by you "experts."  I agree that the first question is, "What's the purpose?"  Yesterday I fired off this question to:
hdcpquestions@usga.org
If I hear from them, which I expect to (maybe helpful, maybe not), I'll post my question as submitted and their answer.  I did get an auto reply to the effect that I could expect to hear from them in a couple of days.
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To get back to the original question…


It's rare, but I've seen players who play a tougher course (often one that may not entirely suit their game) who can score better on "away" courses.


In one such example, a player who was a long but often hit a few tee shots a round offline… played at a course with a lot of penalty areas, OB, and crap to the sides. He plays well against his handicap when he visits longer courses that have a bit more width and space.


Generally, people do play better on their home course, though. Doesn't mean it's always true, though.

[Michael Felton]

To get back to the original question…


It's rare, but I've seen players who play a tougher course (often one that may not entirely suit their game) who can score better on "away" courses.


In one such example, a player who was a long but often hit a few tee shots a round offline… played at a course with a lot of penalty areas, OB, and crap to the sides. He plays well against his handicap when he visits longer courses that have a bit more width and space.


Generally, people do play better on their home course, though. Doesn't mean it's always true, though.

Fair point - to a certain extent it will depend on what "home course" means. If it's the one that they learnt to play the game on perhaps as a child, then that's less likely I would think since most people will adapt to their usual situation. If it's one that someone has moved to then that's much more likely if they moved to a course that doesn't suit their game.

[Peter Sayegh]

To get back to the original question…


Generally, people do play better on their home course, though. Doesn't mean it's always true, though.

Who would've thunk it?

No stats?

[Carl Johnson]

Regarding the purpose of handicapping, equitable vs. better chance, here's my question to the USGA:


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Rules of Handicapping,  Rule 1.1, says (in part) that the system's "purpose is to enhance the enjoyment of the game of golf and to give as many golfers as possible the opportunity to . . . compete, or play a casual round, with anyone else on a fair and equitable basis."

This is vague.  Three words stand out: "opportunity," "fair" and "equitable."  In general, how do you mean these words in the context of this statement of purpose?  Specifically, are the rules intended to give a 20 handicapper an equal opportunity to beat a 4 handicapper in any given match?  Stated another way, would you expect that in 100 handicapped matches between the 4 and the 20 to come out 50 for one and 50 for the other, or close to it?

It seems to me that given the mathematical basis of the system there should be a mathematical answer.  I recall reading that in a handicapped match of the kind I have described, over the long term the lower handicap player will come out ahead more often than not.  I've done a little research on the web just now, but haven't been able to find a clear answer.

To simplify things, consider a two-ball 18 hole match at full handicaps, so that in the example I give above the 4 would give 16 strokes to the 20.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Here's the USGA answer from Cindy, which I consider to be nonresponsive:

Carl, The World Handicap System does provide the most equitable process for players to compete against each other across the entire handicap spectrum. There are recommended allowances (percentage of a Course Handicap) that should be used in certain formats of play - see Appendix C of the Rules of Handicapping. See also the following FAQ posted on this topic on USGA.org:

Handicap Competitions Q. What are handicap allowances and why are they recommended for various formats of play?

A. A handicap allowance is the percentage of a Course Handicap™ recommended to create equity based on the format of play. Since higher-handicap players typically have more variance in their scores and an increased potential to shoot lower net scores, when full Course Handicaps are used in certain formats, players with lower Course Handicaps are generally at a disadvantage. By taking a percentage of Course Handicap, the higher handicap players are impacted more, which brings the expected scores for all players or teams to a more consistent level. Handicap allowances are mainly applied in team formats, where the combination of players can produce lower scores compared to other teams. Millions of scores and/or simulations were used to determine and validate the handicap allowances used under the WHS™, and the recommendations for each format of play can be found (Appendix C, Rules of Handicapping) Best, Cindy

End of story for me.

[Matt Schoolfield]

The World Handicap System does provide the most equitable process for players to compete against each other across the entire handicap spectrum.

This is something that can be stated but doesn't actually mean anything. What we mean by equability is the question. It's like if you ask someone "what did you design your product for" and they respond "we designed it to be the best, and it is."

[Jason Thurman]

Sure Matt. But I think we're getting deeper into examining the existential Why behind the handicapping system than anybody who's answering an e-mail for one of the governing bodies ever has. Cindy's answer is actually pretty good, in the sense that it's revealing a whole different wrinkle in this whole discussion than what we've treaded so far. In all my years listening to golfers bitch about and dissect the handicapping system, I've never heard someone more clearly articulate how recommended allowances help ensure equitability in certain use cases that go beyond the original purpose of just knowing how many strokes to give in order to have an equitable match.


I'm not sure what value we're looking for in a more esoteric and existential answer - how deeply do we really need to dive into the purpose of a system that gets used by millions of golfers every single day? Is there really a great unanswered question lingering in your or Carl's minds that we need the poor gal assigned to monitor the inbox at the USGA today to pull back the curtain of before she heads out for the holiday weekend? Remember that behind all the acronyms and calculations here, the handicapping system really doesn't do anything more than figure out whether your little brother should start with 6 points vs 8 points when you're playing a halfcourt game to 10. How much intellectual energy do we really need to throw at figuring out the deep and underlying purpose of a system that only exists to allow a 30 handicap to pretend he's a winner in this game that he objectively sucks at?

[Tommy Williamsen]

The system might not be perfect, but golf is the only sport in which players of differing skill levels can compete with one another.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Remember that behind all the acronyms and calculations here, the handicapping system really doesn't do anything more than figure out whether your little brother should start with 6 points vs 8 points when you're playing a halfcourt game to 10. How much intellectual energy do we really need to throw at figuring out the deep and underlying purpose of a system that only exists to allow a 30 handicap to pretend he's a winner in this game that he objectively sucks at?

But people take it a bit more seriously when the Calcutta pool is $25k at your member/guest.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It would be interesting if the USGA Open Sourced all of the data that they have so armchair statisticians or wannabe Dean Knuths can try to come up with their own system.  Why not anonymize the data, post it on Github, and let folks play away?

[Matt Schoolfield]

I fear that maybe I poorly communicated what I was trying to say. I want to respond here in a few parts:

how deeply do we really need to dive into the purpose of a system that gets used by millions of golfers every single day?

I think very it's worth a very deep dive exactly because it's a system that gets used by millions of golfers every single day.

Is there really a great unanswered question lingering in your or Carl's minds that we need the poor gal assigned to monitor the inbox at the USGA today to pull back the curtain of before she heads out for the holiday weekend?

I mean no disrespect to Cindy. I'm sure the day-to-day folks are doing their best. My only point here is that, as a governing body, I would prefer that they take exactly these issues quite seriously, since they are the stewards of the game. Most people do not care, but it is exactly the duty of a governing bodies to care about the trivial minutia.

How much intellectual energy do we really need to throw at figuring out the deep and underlying purpose of a system that only exists to allow a 30 handicap to pretend he's a winner in this game that he objectively sucks at?

I will not apologize for finding intellectual curiosity worthwhile. I appreciate that it's not important to other folks, but entertaining and understanding the function and purpose of day-to-day concepts is just part of who I am. It's a part of my brain that, for better and often worse, I just can't turn off.

[Matt Schoolfield]

It would be interesting if the USGA Open Sourced all of the data that they have so armchair statisticians or wannabe Dean Knuths can try to come up with their own system.  Why not anonymize the data, post it on Github, and let folks play away?

If they did release all the data, I'm exactly type of person who would do just this. However, I worry that the USGA is doing the exact opposite. The introduction of PCC was a big red flag for me, and I worry that they intend to consolidate control over handicapping, and handicapping data.

[A.G._Crockett]

It would be interesting if the USGA Open Sourced all of the data that they have so armchair statisticians or wannabe Dean Knuths can try to come up with their own system.  Why not anonymize the data, post it on Github, and let folks play away?

If they did release all the data, I'm exactly type of person who would do just this. However, I worry that the USGA is doing the exact opposite. The introduction of PCC was a big red flag for me, and I worry that they intend to consolidate control over handicapping, and handicapping data.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, Matt.  There are MORE handicap services now than there used to be, not fewer, though GHIN remains the gold standard.  To whatever extent the USGA is going to "consolidate" control, hasn't that already happened? 


And if you are referring to the PCC as sort of a backdoor method to force golfers to use GHIN instead of something else, I can't see it; PCC adjustments are just not that common, or that large.

I must be the biggest outlier on the board about this; I'm a HUGE fan of the handicap system.  Maybe it's because I'm 72 and only playing from 6000 yds max, but still trying to compete against young guys in club events, or because of interclub matches, or whatever, but I think the system works quite well.  To the extent that it doesn't, it's a problem with individuals who use it improperly, whether it's a vanity index, or, much more rarely, a sandbagger.

Two recent "situations":
1. My partner and I played against a young guy in this year's Member-Member; he is a 17 index.  He had an incredible 9 hole round, making 4 pars from places where bogey would have been good; he shot one over, and they waxed us.  Two weeks later, a different partner and I played the same kid in our 9 hole Wednesday night league.  He shot 48, and we waxed them!  He wasn't sandbagging when he shot 37, and the 48 could be viewed as "regression to the mean".

2. In our club net match play tournament, I played a young man who has just turned 25.  He played from a set of tees one farther back that I played, and I had to give him two a side.  He beat me 1 up, and we'd have gone to extra holes if I hadn't missed the 17th green with an 8 iron; my bogey halved the hole instead of tying the match.

I could go on and on, but I think it's a pretty amazing system, unlike anything else in sports.  There are copies out there in other sports, but nothing works as well or is in common usage as much.    ,

[Jason Thurman]

Remember that behind all the acronyms and calculations here, the handicapping system really doesn't do anything more than figure out whether your little brother should start with 6 points vs 8 points when you're playing a halfcourt game to 10. How much intellectual energy do we really need to throw at figuring out the deep and underlying purpose of a system that only exists to allow a 30 handicap to pretend he's a winner in this game that he objectively sucks at?

But people take it a bit more seriously when the Calcutta pool is $25k at your member/guest.

I would say equally seriously, based on the similarities I've observed between the behavior of 7 year old little brothers who've just gotten their ass kicked at hoops in the driveway as compared with the postround bitching I hear from adult men about handicapping as a concept. The fact that the system nevertheless facilitates such voluntary wagering on competitions it governs is more evidence of its accepted validity and remarkability on that front. I'm with AG here.

And Matt, the part you're communicating poorly is just what "exactly these issues" that should be taken "quite seriously" are. If your question is "What are the cascading goals that underlaid the system's original purpose of providing an equitable basis for matches, and how do they widen the scope of the system to address the myriad formats that golf competition takes and the numerous biases that inevitably emerge in such a widely applied system?", I would humbly suggest that the right person to accost with them is not the lady monitoring the inbox for the USGA's Contact Us page this afternoon.

Let's get the scope back under control just a little bit here. This thread was originally about home course advantage. Matt, it seems like you think a handicapping system that still renders a home course advantage is flawed. Am I understanding your perspective accurately there? If so, why? Doesn't home course/field/court advantage exist in almost every form of competition? Why would handicapped golf competitions be different?

[Carl Johnson]

The World Handicap System does provide the most equitable process for players to compete against each other across the entire handicap spectrum.

This is something that can be stated but doesn't actually mean anything. What we mean by equability is the question. It's like if you ask someone "what did you design your product for" and they respond "we designed it to be the best, and it is."

Agreed.  This question would clearly be above Cindy's pay grade.  I didn't have much hope, but thought I'd give it a try.

[Carl Johnson]

And regarding home course advantage.  When I played senior interclub matches years ago I do not recall noticing a difference between my win/loss at home and win/loss away.  (I noticed some other things about handicaps of our opponents, one in particular, but not that.  That club was notorious for its sandbaggers.  In fact, one year when they qualified for the playoffs on account of their season-long performance the league disqualified them from the playoffs for that reason.)

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm not sure I understand your point here, Matt.  There are MORE handicap services now than there used to be, not fewer, though GHIN remains the gold standard.  To whatever extent the USGA is going to "consolidate" control, hasn't that already happened? 

And if you are referring to the PCC as sort of a backdoor method to force golfers to use GHIN instead of something else, I can't see it; PCC adjustments are just not that common, or that large.

I must be the biggest outlier on the board about this; I'm a HUGE fan of the handicap system.  Maybe it's because I'm 72 and only playing from 6000 yds max, but still trying to compete against young guys in club events, or because of interclub matches, or whatever, but I think the system works quite well.  To the extent that it doesn't, it's a problem with individuals who use it improperly, whether it's a vanity index, or, much more rarely, a sandbagger.

I definitely appreciate your objection here. I just have concern about data ownership and distribution.

I also think the handicapping system works very well, and is clear and practical as is. I'm just a big fan of continuous improvement (kaizen). The irony of PCC is that it is definitely an improvement, my concern is that, as far as I know, the USGA doesn't actually publish these adjustments anywhere for folks trying to calculate their own handicaps at home. I've discussed this at length in other threads. Some folks see things different than I do, and that's fine. I was just commenting that I do not think the USGA will be publishing their handicapping data any time soon. This is not something I'm going to fall on my sword over.

Let's get the scope back under control just a little bit here. This thread was originally about home course advantage. Matt, it seems like you think a handicapping system that still renders a home course advantage is flawed. Am I understanding your perspective accurately there? If so, why? Doesn't home course/field/court advantage exist in almost every form of competition? Why would handicapped golf competitions be different?

Is a home course advantage a flaw? This is my exact line of inquiry. I could argue one way or another. My point is that I don't think the handicapping authorities have been clear on the goals of handicapping beyond equitability and punishing variance... but take a potential home course advantage. We might be fine with one, or even want one. My whole point is that if we aren't clear about the system we are trying to build -- a system that could be built in many different ways -- then there is no real answer to this.

I would say that a home course advantage is a flaw, mostly in that, this discussion leads me to think folks who play more at home vs folks who play more away rounds may not have equitable handicaps when they play against each other. That would seem to be, not really a failing, per se, but at least a limitation.

[Jason Thurman]

Matt, Cindy's holiday weekend has started already, so we need to answer our own lines of inquiry right here within the confines of our Discussion Group. At least until Monday.


I believe that any competitive system must reward competitive key drivers. Athletes and competitors of all types thrive in comfortable environments. This should be especially true in golf, and especially further so on courses with sufficient strategic and tactical architecture as to present challenges that require multiple plays to really unlock.


What else would we, whoever "we" is, want? Would we propose giving players extra strokes to account for their being track virgins? That is not something worth rewarding. A guy who can perceive a course quickly can still win more than his fair share of away games.  The system properly rewards a quick learner, as it should. Great courses reward depth of knowledge too, which is part of why they are great.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who would've thunk it?

No stats?

Your point, Peter? Do you disagree that people will generally do better on their home course? Because if you do, the stats I have seen and could pull up and look at again would match what I said.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt, Cindy's holiday weekend has started already, so we need to answer our own lines of inquiry right here within the confines of our Discussion Group. At least until Monday.


I believe that any competitive system must reward competitive key drivers. Athletes and competitors of all types thrive in comfortable environments. This should be especially true in golf, and especially further so on courses with sufficient strategic and tactical architecture as to present challenges that require multiple plays to really unlock.


What else would we, whoever "we" is, want? Would we propose giving players extra strokes to account for their being track virgins? That is not something worth rewarding. A guy who can perceive a course quickly can still win more than his fair share of away games.  The system properly rewards a quick learner, as it should. Great courses reward depth of knowledge too, which is part of why they are great.

I would very much enjoy having that conversation over a beer, but I worry here that my instinct to push back on the minutia would drive this thread to places that are not relevant. I see where you are coming from, and I think it's a reasonable and popular position. I just don't think I'll convince anyone of my position in this forum, if at all, because most folks are happy to go with their intuitions, and it's subjective anyway. That subjectivity is why I would hope that the handicapping authorities would be clear, but is probably why they aren't clear.

[Pete_Pittock]

Observations. My old home course had two 18 hole courses. During tournaments on the North (Cupp) course low net would be in the 63-65 range. South (Fought) course low net would be in the 68-71 range. I can only conclude  faulty rating/slope on one, or both.


During my travels around Oregon I found a nine hole course (Olalla Valley) which is NLE. It had the same rating/slope as one of our courses.  I figured a person with the same USGA hdcp as me from O.V. would probably beat me by 3 or 4 strokes/holes.


It all depends on you and your home course.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Years ago I joined a new club and a number members I was introduced to all told me the same thing; “your handicap is about to go up but you’ll appreciate it when you travel”. Initially I didn’t quite understand their meaning, but sure enough after a summer of play my handicap had increased by a stroke and a half. Now, you could chalk that up to being new to the course, but even after years and years of play it still was elevated. There is something about the course that makes it play quite difficult that is not clearly accounted for in its rating. Some small collection of fractional strokes that continuously lead to higher scores. For interclub matches, we had a great advantage. Not because of innate course knowledge, but because our home course handicaps.


One summer I dedicated myself to drop my handicap as low as I possibly could and worked my tail off to improve. By the end of the summer I was able to drop ~4 strokes off my handicap to get back to a plus index for the first time in a long time. I was ecstatic, but when I looked through my scores what I noticed my handicap was seemingly supported by away rounds. Of my most recent 20, very few round at my home course were even within a stroke or two of the course rating and all of my under par round occurred away from home.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()