[Garland Bayley]

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.

I'll be back!

I sent email questions to USGA and to The Pope. Am waiting for answers.

[Scott Warren]

Lee Rainwater from the USGA on the No Laying Up podcast discussing the new system:


https://overcast.fm/+Bt21atJKE/1:08:41

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Lee Rainwater from the USGA on the No Laying Up podcast discussing the new system:

https://overcast.fm/+Bt21atJKE/1:08:41

He did a good job, and even Soly and the NLU gang were sucked in initially by the Knuth article. Lee said something like "it's not really that we included par, it's that we included the course rating, that's what the new system really does." Paraphrased of course. The last 15:00 or so of the podcast is Lee.

[David_Elvins]

Just had a flick through this thread.


Erik,


I admire your patience and common sense.

[Ken Moum]

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


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

Fair enough, but of course that's not 50%, not even 80%.


I do think there's a reason why skins games often self segregate into groups without huge variations in handicap.  It's pretty hard to give up two shots on any hole, so the group mentioned that's 2 to 18 makes sense.  We have, under the new system,  about a 20-stroke range.


I also think that requiring a net par on the following hole to validate a skin DRAMATICALLY reduces the likelihood of the situation Knuth describes.  Our group started it because with as few as ~8 players, there were so many skins that each one wasn't worth much. 


The "organizer" also adds skins for net totals on front, back and 18 or fewest putts, or most fairways hit to give the players who don't get many net birdies a shot.  It's interesting that under the new World system, net total scores have gone up from 31 or 32 for nine, and generally under 70 for 18.  Yesterday the front winner was 35, the back was 34 and total was 70.


K

[Rob Marshall]

Ken, I don’t thing there is a great way to do net skins. I would think that validations would favor the lower handicap. I think we’re just going to end up scrapping the skins part of our game.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

I see how the new adjustment using course rating and par moves a same sized range of numbers over. However, I am uncomfortable with moving the range off of playing average like the old system preserved. I haven't been able at this time to settle for myself either way whether this movement matters (Admittedly i haven't spent a lot of time on it as this discussion takes me away from things I need to get done).

I want to thank you for your clear commentary on this.

[Garland Bayley]

Just had a flick through this thread.


Erik,


I admire your patience and common sense.

Wow David,

I am surprised you get sucked in by Mr. Misinformation.

Here is how he restarted the handicapping thread with his first post of the year on the thread.

Welcome (in the U.S. at least) to the WHS.

On (or about) January 6, golfers should be able to see their new handicap index. The GHIN app was completely re-written (by the GolfGenius people), so you'll want to download the new version of that. And you'll want to be aware of the following:

• Post your rounds daily so the PCC (playing conditions correction) works properly.
• Post a score with a max of net double bogey on your bad holes.
• Learn how the new course handicap is calculated.*

* This mostly makes it easier for people playing from different tees. Let's say you have a pair of 9.0 index players, and one wants to play the blues (par 72, 72.0/144) while the other wishes to play the whites (par 71, because on one hole the tees are on the near side of a large lake, 69.0/133).

Old Way:
Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 = 11 course handicap
White: 9.0 * 133/113 = 11 course handicap

That's how both would be listed on the sheet hanging in the pro shop, so they'd often forget the last step which was to subtract out the course rating, giving Blue an extra three shots or taking three away from white (same thing). They'd end up at either 14 and 11 or 11 and 8.

New Way:
The new way bakes this right in, right from the start, by making your course handicap relative to par.

Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 + 72.0 - 72 = 11
White: 9.0 * 133/113 + 69.0 - 71 = 9

You add the course rating and subtract the par to get the course handicap. This "bakes in" the course rating so that tournament directors and gambling buddies and whomever else don't have to argue about playing from different tees. This is also why par is important in the new handicapping system (though it will be rare for a par to change from one set of tees to another, it can happen).

P.S. I'm rounding 11.469 down to 11 but honestly am a bit too lazy right now, but there's a small chance this becomes 11.5 and thus the 11.5 rounds up to a 12 course handicap. I don't think so, but the point remains the same even if you have to adjust by 1 for my rounding.

He gets the number of strokes to be given (or received) wrong in the new system. Notice that in the old system there is a 3 stroke difference in handicap, but in the new system only a 2 stroke difference. He doesn't seem to know why, and suggests there is a rounding error.

Interestingly, Dean Knuth's article points out the correct way, and points out that people would tend to make the mistake that Erik made.

From the article, "The other argument USGA officials make supporting the par handicap is that the switch eliminates the need in the old USGA system for an additional adjustment when two players are competing from different tees (Old Section 3-5 for handicap nerds), something many tournaments and leagues neglected to apply. Replacing the misunderstood section is a good idea, so long as it can be done reliably. But that’s not the case because in the WHS, when the pars of the two tees are different, the same correction must be applied to account for par difference. And since players will be told the old correction is already taken care of, there’s a danger that this par difference will not be corrected." Emphasis added.

Erik neglects to apply exactly the correction that Knuth suggests he will neglect to apply. He needs to apply the extra par stroke  for blue to bring the stroke difference to 3 as it was in the old system.

You might think that Erik can be forgiven for this oversight. Let's see what Erik says about his expertise on the matter.

...
The truth is I've spent tens of hours discussing the WHS with people responsible for putting it together, people responsible for administrating it, regular golfers looking to understand it, etc. Just today my phone shows two hours of calls doing just that. The truth is that I've done just what you've suggested: I've read Dean's article several times, I've discussed it with the people I've talked to, I've considered it from different angles… and ultimately I arrive at the same conclusions. For whatever reason, Dean doesn't seem to understand the changes, the relevance of "par," etc. The article, IMO, is bad.
...

Again, emphasis added.

His claim of expertise suggests to me that he shouldn't make such mistakes. Especially since he read the warning about the possibility of such mistakes "several times."

One problem that does exist is the difficulty in finding up to date information from the USGA. Google searches that I did came up with pages that were blank except for the message that they pages would be filled out in 2020, which of course they hadn't been. Eventually, Erik gave a link to USGA 2020 manual (draft?). The unfortunate thing is that, although it gave the new handicap calculation formula, my search through that manual did not give the adjustment for different par from different tees.

The USGA did give the information on the adjustment in their FAQs for the upcoming changeover to the new system.

4.  I play in a group where we all play from different tees. Do we still have to make a Course Handicap adjustment when we play?
Under the current system, a Course Handicap adjustment is required when players compete from different tees since each set of tees has a different Course Rating. Under the Rules of Handicapping, your Course Handicap factors in both Course Rating and par – meaning an adjustment is only necessary when par is different – which will be far less likely!
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-usga-golf-faqs.html

I also found the adjustment in my online searches. It found it in a Golf Genius white paper.

(Scratch, index 0.0) Players on the red tee will now have a course handicap of 0 – (69.8 – 72) = -2.2, which rounds to -2. Players on the white tee will have a course handicap of 0.1, which rounds to zero, and players on the blue tee will have a course handicap of 1.6, which rounds to 2. Players on the blue tee will now be determined to have a four-stroke advantage over players on the red tee, which makes perfect sense since the difference in course ratings is 3.8 strokes. What if par is different for different tees? Let’s take the case in the above example where par is 73 from the blue tee. Repeating the calculation, the players on the blue tees will now have a course handicap of 0 – (73.6 – 73) = 0.6 instead of the 1.6. To deal with this scenario, WHS specifies a further adjustment: players on a tee with a higher par get additional strokes equal to the difference in par for those tees. So, players on blue tees get an additional 1 stroke, thereby raising their course handicaps to 1.6, which rounds to 2.
http://productionggs.s3.amazonaws.com/WHS-whitepaper.pdf

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He gets the number of strokes to be given (or received) wrong in the new system.

Yep. You got me. I forgot to adjust for par on that first post on January 2. I know why I made the mistake (almost every example I'd done to that point was from tees with the same par, which is what we'll see the vast majority of the time, so I overlooked that I wrote one as a par 72 and one as a par 71), but I'm not a big fan of excuses (I am a fan of learning why I made a mistake so I can avoid doing it again). So, yes, in my first post on this topic (and so far as I know only that post), I made a human error.

I've since corrected it so that nobody is misled in the future.

Notice that in the old system there is a 3 stroke difference in handicap, but in the new system only a 2 stroke difference.

My error aside, a change in any of the numbers doesn't necessarily mean that a change in the number of strokes given or received means either system is "wrong." You've taken issue a few times with the range shifting while not even necessarily changing in size, believing that any change makes the new system "wrong."

He doesn't seem to know why, and suggests there is a rounding error.

The rounding I was referring to how a number like 11.469 was handled, but I had done it the proper way.

Interestingly, Dean Knuth's article points out the correct way, and points out that people would tend to make the mistake that Erik made.

Human mistake acknowledged.

On the whole, I'll stand by the body of information I've provided in this topic, the bulk of which you've ignored. I'll stand by the charts and graphs I made that show you that the 0.5 thing Knuth talked about really didn't merit the complaint he voiced. I'll stand by the assertion that the new system is MORE accurate because you round only ONCE instead of TWICE as you often had to do with the old system when playing from different tees. I'll stand by the other points I've made in the discussion, too, including refuting your stuff about the relevance of significant digits.

Erik neglects to apply exactly the correction that Knuth suggests he will neglect to apply. He needs to apply the extra par stroke  for blue to bring the stroke difference to 3 as it was in the old system.

Yes, before reading the article, I made that mistake. I don't believe I've done so again.

And, that mistake simply resulted in the same three strokes being given or received, had I not made the mistake, so tell me again how the new system is "wrong" or "bad" when, in that example, you got the same difference between the two players?

His claim of expertise suggests to me that he shouldn't make such mistakes. Especially since he read the warning about the possibility of such mistakes "several times."

The post after mine was the first time I'd seen the Knuth article. You're wrong: I hadn't "read the warning about the possibility of such mistakes" several times - or even once - when I made that first post on January 2.

And, again, the vast majority of the time, par will be the same from various commonly used tees. It will take something somewhat exceptional - a 550-yard hole where the next set of tees is at 390 across a lake or something - for par to change from one set of tees to the next or the next after that.

One problem that does exist is the difficulty in finding up to date information from the USGA.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-resources-for-players.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/usga-golf-world-handicap-system-five-things-to-know-infographic.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-usga-golf-faqs.html
https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Handicap/Rules-of-Handicapping_USGA_Final.pdf

BTW http://usga.org/whs redirects you to the first URL up there.

Eventually, Erik gave a link to USGA 2020 manual (draft?). The unfortunate thing is that, although it gave the new handicap calculation formula, my search through that manual did not give the adjustment for different par from different tees.

6.2b.

They didn't even hide it very well. It's called "Calculation When Multiple Tees with Different Pars Are Used in a Competition."

The USGA did give the information on the adjustment in their FAQs for the upcoming changeover to the new system.

Again, it's right there in the handicap manual.


So, your entire post tonight (correctly) demonstrates and calls out a mistake I made. In doing so, you yourself made the mistake of assuming that what I said on January 6 about having read the article several times applied to what I said on January 2. And you bring all of this up on January 21… because… you don't have any other bullets left in your gun?

In other words, you managed to find an error in a post I made, but you still haven't shown me an "error" or a mistake in the WHS. You still haven't backed up the Knuth article with anything that I'd label something other than a "change is bad" type of opinion. A 17.7 giving a stroke to an 18.3 (or whatever) that he didn't have to give before isn't necessarily "wrong" - it's just a change. So again… what's "wrong" about the WHS?

[Garland Bayley]

...

Notice that in the old system there is a 3 stroke difference in handicap, but in the new system only a 2 stroke difference.

My error aside, a change in any of the numbers doesn't necessarily mean that a change in the number of strokes given or received means either system is "wrong." You've taken issue a few times with the range shifting while not even necessarily changing in size, believing that any change makes the new system "wrong."
...

Why are you bringing up whether a system is "wrong?" My post pointed out that your calculation was wrong, without making any comment on a "system."

The reason discussions with you go on, and on, and on, and on, is that you cannot understand what has been written, and continually post irrelevant information, often taking opportunity to demean the other party. You might take note that when M Clutterbuck engaged the discussion went quickly, because he understood the arguments being put forth and made sensible, and reasonable counter statements that were pertinent.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why are you bringing up whether a system is "wrong?" My post pointed out that your calculation was wrong, without making any comment on a "system."

Because, rather than focusing on a mistake I made 19 days ago or so, I'm trying to discuss the actual topic, and any problems you (or Dean) think you have with the WHS.

You made an entire post (with multiple mistakes of your own), 19 days after the fact and a week after I last posted in the topic (and more than that since I responded to you) pointing out ONLY a single mistake that I made nearly three weeks ago. How does that advance the conversation?

The reason discussions with you go on, and on, and on, and on, is that you cannot understand what has been written, and continually post irrelevant information, often taking opportunity to demean the other party. You might take note that when M Clutterbuck engaged the discussion went quickly, because he understood the arguments being put forth and made sensible, and reasonable counter statements that were pertinent.

Whatever you've got to tell yourself…

Edit: Last attempt: what do you think is "wrong" or "problematic" or "faulty" or whatever other word you want to use with the WHS? I've shown how you've been off-base with several of your points, so what's left? What have you got that you believe is still "bad" about the WHS?

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,

Instead of trying to deflect the discussion of your online competence and behavior, why don't you actually try to answer why discussion with M Clutterbuck differs so vastly from discussion with you?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Instead of trying to deflect the discussion of your online competence and behavior, why don't you actually try to answer why discussion with M Clutterbuck differs so vastly from discussion with you?

Whatever you've got to tell yourself man. That was my last attempt. Adieu.

[Rob Marshall]

Whatever you tell yourself is right. After a while it becomes true.....

[Garland Bayley]

His claim of expertise suggests to me that he shouldn't make such mistakes. Especially since he read the warning about the possibility of such mistakes "several times."

The post after mine was the first time I'd seen the Knuth article. You're wrong: I hadn't "read the warning about the possibility of such mistakes" several times - or even once - when I made that first post on January 2.
...
So, your entire post tonight (correctly) demonstrates and calls out a mistake I made. In doing so, you yourself made the mistake of assuming that what I said on January 6 about having read the article several times applied to what I said on January 2. And you bring all of this up on January 21… because… you don't have any other bullets left in your gun?

My mistake in thinking you were familiar with Knuth’s article.
I made the mistake of thinking that you started refuting it the day it was posted as an indication that you were on top of it already.

As we see, Jason posted a link to the article, and not long afterwards you were disagreeing with it.

Interesting article from Dean Knuth that is critical of the new system, although from a very different angle:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth
…

I don't think his concerns are warranted.
…

I failed to recognize from the following that you were just being the mouthpiece of someone at the USGA, and that you probably didn’t have any idea about what the article said.

You aren't specific about what you want fixed. According to Dean Knuth, the old system handled this correctly, and the new system will put the seniors at an unfair disadvantage.

In the words of someone in charge of this stuff today: "That article has many flaws. He’s wrong."

I also failed to recognize that you hadn’t read the Knuth article when you made a response that made no sense, as it did not pertain to anything Knuth had written, nor to my attempt at discussing Knuth, and querying you about where he may be wrong.

Let's do the calculation for Windsong Farm (Jason Topp's course) with my 17.9 index.
Old handicap calculation for Black tees 22
Old handicap calculation for Sienna tees (where old codgers like me would play our morning games) 20
New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Seems to me I would make out like a bandit with the 26 handicap, but struggle to win anything with the 17 handicap.

So exactly where is the Pope wrong?

New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Didn't I just do one of these? You're not adjusting for the course rating from different tees in your "old" way.

Adjusting? Totally off topic concerning my post and Knuth’s assertion that weaker players would get more strokes from back tees, and fewer strokes from forward tees.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The Knuth article was garbage.

The timeline isn't that complicated: when I posted at 10:02am, I hadn't read the article. The link was posted at 10:22am, and by the time of my next post (3:29pm), I had read it and discussed it with several others, too.

[Colin Macqueen]

Good God!


This is extraordinarily boring. Get a grip...on a golf club ..... and play golf!


Cheers Col

[Lou_Duran]

Good God!


This is extraordinarily boring. Get a grip...on a golf club ..... and play golf!


Cheers Col

Right on!  I bet that there is an inverse relationship between # of rounds played and interest in the WHS.


And if what I've heard from friends overseas is true, if casual rounds aren't posted, we will still be comparing apples and oranges.  I retain my right to bargain strokes in all future Budas. 

[Garland Bayley]

Right on!  I bet that there is an inverse relationship between # of rounds played and interest in the WHS.

Probably less of a relationship than there is to winter. I doubt they are playing golf in Erie at all. And our season in the PNW is challenging. Some golf courses will have your ball disappear underground when your tee shot hits the fairway.

And if what I've heard from friends overseas is true, if casual rounds aren't posted, we will still be comparing apples and oranges.  I retain my right to bargain strokes in all future Budas.

Exactly how many strokes do you anticipate giving away? My experience is that very few in the USA can play to their handicap in tournaments. Your opponents will have their handicaps set by tournament scores, and will naturally be higher than ones obtained in the USA obtained from "casual" rounds. EDIT. Yep, my logic here was faulty.  Bargaining for strokes at Buda in the past made sense, because they wanted us to use our handicap index, which is set based on a course with slope rating 113. I.e., they wanted us to use an average of scores based on an easy course, while they were using an average based on more difficult courses in tournament play.

[Sean_A]

Right on!  I bet that there is an inverse relationship between # of rounds played and interest in the WHS.

Probably less of a relationship than there is to winter. I doubt they are playing golf in Erie at all. And our season in the PNW is challenging. Some golf courses will have your ball disappear underground when your tee shot hits the fairway.

And if what I've heard from friends overseas is true, if casual rounds aren't posted, we will still be comparing apples and oranges.  I retain my right to bargain strokes in all future Budas.

Exactly how many strokes do you anticipate giving away? My experience is that very few in the USA can play to their handicap in tournaments. Your opponents will have their handicaps set by tournament scores, and will naturally be higher than ones obtained in the USA obtained from "casual" rounds. EDIT. Yep, my logic here was faulty.  Bargaining for strokes at Buda in the past made sense, because they wanted us to use our handicap index, which is set based on a course with slope rating 113. I.e., they wanted us to use an average of scores based on an easy course, while they were using an average based on more difficult courses in tournament play.

In my experience everyone who participates in Buda states a handicap and off they go. Nobody wants special treatment except Sweet Lou 😎

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Oh Sean, how you wound me!    I am hardly the thought leader on this topic and God knows that the last thing I want is "special treatment".  I don't even expect anything that approaches fairness or justice.


But to answer one of Garland's questions, when giving 12 shots in a match to a fit guy 25-30 years my junior who can hit his 3-wood farther than my driver and is about as straight as I am, the issue in not one of wanting special treatment, but of sportsmanship.  As a 6, I'm not good enough to go 3 under over the last four holes to earn a tie (which I did, only because I made two 10' putts for birdies to my opponent's misses from shorter range on non-handicap holes).  Within a relevant range- a U.S. 6 playing a UK 6, the UK guy is 2 strokes better; the US 6 playing a UK 18, the US guy is at a 3-4 stroke disadvantage.  Of course, this assumes average athletic ability and posting accurate scores.


GB, It is not just a matter of adjusting for slope/course rating, when one posts only competitive rounds, the tendency will be to have higher handicaps.  Most golfers don't play in tournaments as well as on their home course playing for drinks.  If UK players have the choice of posting casual rounds, those who play competitive golf a lot have no incentive to post low rounds played with their buddies.  IMO, either you post all your rounds or just those in competitions with that footnoted.

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

In your example it sounds like the handicap system worked! That said, it's rarely instructive to use one game against an opponent as a rule. That said dos, the wider the gap in handicap the less accurate the system is. If winning and losing is the most important aspect golf, its far better to have players compete within handicap categories.

I would say that using friendly games for handicapping purposes should be noted as wrong. The world system has already made too many concessions to US golfers. I know, why not have each country best determine how handicaps work for their golfers. Too simple I guess.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Colin,

Stop reading now. I don’t want to bore you!

However, David Elvins, this is required reading for you.

The Knuth article was garbage.

The timeline isn't that complicated: when I posted at 10:02am, I hadn't read the article. The link was posted at 10:22am, and by the time of my next post (3:29pm), I had read it and discussed it with several others, too.

So even though he did not read the article before his mistaken calculation in his first post this year, by the time he began to make any responses to me on the matter he “had read it and discussed it with several others, too.”

...
Let's do the calculation for Windsong Farm (Jason Topp's course) with my 17.9 index.
Old handicap calculation for Black tees 22
Old handicap calculation for Sienna tees (where old codgers like me would play our morning games) 20
New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Seems to me I would make out like a bandit with the 26 handicap, but struggle to win anything with the 17 handicap.

So exactly where is the Pope wrong?

So we see that his statements about the vastly differing handicap as you move from tee to tee is correct.

That leaves, "Let’s start with the fact that par is hardly the most reliable measure of course difficulty (that would be course rating). Almost any golfer can list two courses that are both par 72s but vary greatly in how tough they play. Differences in length, in obstacles, in penalty areas, make one drastically harder than another even when they have the same par. Par as a metric, then, is somewhat arbitrary. It’s why course architect Tom Doak, among others, have advocated an “Abandon Par” ideology, saying that it has become meaningless to tour pros and other golfers. Maybe you don’t want to go that far, but calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system."

So what is the fault there?

Note that my calculations above have shown that in the old system you get a handicap range from 20 to 22. But, in WHS the handicap varies from 17 to 26. Knuth clearly is correct in stating WHS gives vastly varying course handicaps. Having read and discussed Knuth’s article, Erik should clearly understand this.

So we see that his statements about the vastly differing handicap as you move from tee to tee is correct.

Incorrect.

The "par" thing is just used to "bake in" playing from different tees, an adjustment you had to make before, too. (72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4

As you can see, Erik finds that to be “Incorrect.” He rants on playing from different tees. Knuth pointed out in his article that “The other argument USGA officials make supporting the par handicap is that the switch eliminates the need in the old USGA system for an additional adjustment when two players are competing from different tees (Old Section 3-5 for handicap nerds), something many tournaments and leagues neglected to apply. Replacing the misunderstood section is a good idea”. Clearly he understands the use of par in the new formula.

New handicap calculation for Black tees 26
New handicap calculation for Sienna tees 17

Didn't I just do one of these? You're not adjusting for the course rating from different tees in your "old" way.

Why would I do that? I calculated the handicap which gives how far off I will be from the course rating. That is what that system is based on, a uniform measure of the difficulty of the course. From that back tees, if I "play to my handicap" I will shoot a net 75.

Par however, is not a uniform measure of the difficulty of the course. So you make handicap calculations less reliable by using it.

“Less reliable” is what Erik should be concentrating on.

...
The "par" thing is just used to "bake in" playing from different tees, an adjustment you had to make before, too. (72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4

Could you explain this bit of random number generation you done here?

So you make handicap calculations less reliable by using it.

No, it doesn't.

And rather than just replying, Garland, take a beat and try to understand what I'm saying. When players played from different tees before, they had to (but often didn't) adjust their handicaps anyway by using the course rating. The new system just bakes that in. Instead of "par" you could use 54 if you wanted and it would result in the same thing, because…

(72-73.4) - (72-66.7) = 66.7 - 73.4 = (54-73.4) - (54-66.7)
...

Finally, he gets to the issue of less reliable. But, he continues to harp on players not adjusting their handicaps, as if it was what was wrong with Knuth’s article. He has been asked twice to point out what is wrong with the Knuth article. But, instead of pointing out that his claims of “less reliable” are at fault, he continually harps on adjusting handicaps when playing different tees. It takes a lot of patience to try to get to the crux of the matter with Erik!

...
However, I don't see Dr. Knuth saying anything about handicap adjustments for playing a competition from different tees. Instead, it seems to me that he is saying the person playing longer tees will see his handicap go up and think he will get more strokes, and be pleased thinking he will be obtaining lower net scores. Whereas, the person playing shorter tees will see his handicap go down, and think it will be more difficult to obtain net scores he is used to obtaining.

Your math, which I now understand is to demonstrate adjustments between tees doesn't differ when using par, which I believe you are trying to use to say that Knuth is wrong in criticizing the adjustment using par. However, that is fine for players with exactly the same index, but doesn't work for players with different indexes. As Knuth points out, adjusting using par can result in two players with different indexes having an additional stroke difference in their course handicap when they play a match.

So again, I ask where has Dr. Knuth gone wrong?

So again, I ask where has Dr. Knuth gone wrong?

That's been explained already.

If you're just posting a score for handicap, nothing changes. You shoot 84, you post 84 (minus any net double adjustments). That calculation to get the differential is still the same.

If it had been explained already, I wouldn’t be asking it. Of course the calculation of the differential is still the same. Neither I, nor Knuth said otherwise. Personally, I had never looked into how calculating differentials is done.

However, I don't see Dr. Knuth saying anything about handicap adjustments for playing a competition from different tees. Instead, it seems to me that he is saying the person playing longer tees will see his handicap go up and think he will get more strokes, and be pleased thinking he will be obtaining lower net scores. Whereas, the person playing shorter tees will see his handicap go down, and think it will be more difficult to obtain net scores he is used to obtaining.

Once again, these people are missing out on the fact that they were supposed to have been adjusting for the different tees all along.

As quoted above, Knuth clearly knows about adjusting for different tees. I learned about adjusting for different tees in the one match I have played against a woman, and needed to do the adjustment. All other matches I have played were from the same tees. So I knew about adjusting, but that is not what Knuth’s article was about, which he should have understood having read it and discussed it a lot.

However, that is fine for players with exactly the same index, but doesn't work for players with different indexes. As Knuth points out, adjusting using par can result in two players with different indexes having an additional stroke difference in their course handicap when they play a match.

They should have a different handicap if they're playing from different tees.

Again puzzlingly, you are the only one that is talking about playing from different tees.

Finally, I lost patience with him and yelled at him.

...
NEITHER I, NOR DR. KNUTH ARE SAYING THE MATCH IS PLAYED FROM DIFFERENT TEES. THE MATCH IS BEING PLAYED FROM THE SAME TEES, AND 50% OF SUCH MATCHES WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT HANDICAP FOR THE PLAYERS THAN WHEN PAR WAS NOT USED IN THE CALCULATION.

[SL_Solow]

It has been several weeks since I posted on this topic and I have observed it with interest.  As one who has passed the test to qualify my club under the new system and who was connected to some who were involved in the negotiations over the last several years which led to the world system, I tried to give some perspective in my post on January 6.  I repeat my comment that there are several compromises in the system and I cannot dispute the suggestion that the most accurate system would likely be one that relied on tournament scores exclusively.  I explained the genesis of these decisions, particularly the decision to use essentially all rounds, so I will not repeat myself.  But that ship has sailed so there is no use repeating one's displeasure; right or wrong the system is being implemented.


As for the arguments regarding the calculations and their impact, much of which has been generated by the Knuth article, while it has ventured pretty deep into the weeds, I have found it to be quite interesting.  But the level of personal invective does not advance the cause of either side and distracts from the substance.  It is possible to disagree without attacking the intelligence or character of the other side and it is possible to ignore insults and focus on the substance.  Indeed, if the objective is to convince the reader on anything other than an emotional basis, focusing on the substance improves an argument.  Moreover, how one feels about this system and/or whether their calculations are perfect should not be viewed as a reflection on their character.


Enough of my pontificating, I apologize if I went over the line.  I can remember when Pat Mucci and others got into some pretty tough arguments but at least they were arguing about matters of judgment and opinion.  Even then they were roundly criticized.  We can do much better.  But by all means, if there is more to be learned about the calculations, have at it.  I suspect there will be plenty to talk about regarding implementation as we go forward.

[Pete_Pittock]

Good God!
This is extraordinarily boring. Get a grip...on a golf club ..... and play golf!
Cheers Col

Right on!  I bet that there is an inverse relationship between # of rounds played and interest in the WHS.
And if what I've heard from friends overseas is true, if casual rounds aren't posted, we will still be comparing apples and oranges.  I retain my right to bargain strokes in all future Budas.

Lou,
Right on. I will bet that on my upcoming Australia trip most of my playing companions will not post (according to their rules) while I will be posting all of mine (according to USGA rules).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()