New World Handicap System

[davep043]

What a nice (and rather rare) day when we can all agree on something . I admit, I was wavering being the PCC being applied to the CR, so being influenced by the Slope Rating, or being applied to the differential directly as whole number adjustments. I needed to go back to the equation in the rule to be certain.

[DaveLeeNC]

@nsxguy "How else could one explain getting a net score for a PLUS handicapper as Gross PLUS handicap = net ?"'
I believe that this comes from the fact that a better than scratch golfer must ADD strokes (as in 'PLUS') to his gross score to get a net score.
The math itself seems consistent to me.
dave

[nsxguy]

A formula is not a formula if the "operators" (as opposed to the variables) change. Thus, if a PLUS 'cap needs to ADD his strokes to his gross to get a net and the negative other handicappers have to SUBTRACT their strokes from their gross to get their net, there IS NO formula.

So if you're suggesting there IS NO formula, perhaps you are correct. If however, there IS a formula, then the vast majority of us have negative handicaps (and indices).

Either way, no big deal as we know how to deal with it.

[DaveLeeNC]

In this case either 'PLUS' or the use of the symbol "+" is not mathematical, but descriptive (and also confusing )

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

I have always assumed typical course handicaps and handicap indices are by definition negative and plus caps are truly positive numbers. All the formulas work under this assumption I believe.

[Colin L]

Although there have always been subtractions and additions to be done in handicapping, this is the first time I've been confronted by the very confusing introduction of positive and negative numbers. This thread needs to carry a prominent health warning.

[Newby]

Why are Handicap Indexes that are better than 0 referred to as being "plus," when in fact, they are represented with a "minus" numerical value? Simply put, a golfer with a "plus" Index has to add—not subtract—strokes to his gross score to determine a net score. For example: Say a golfer with a minus-2 course handicap (-2.0) shot 72. In a stroke-play competition involving handicaps, his gross socre would be 72, but his net score would be 74 (72 plus the two extra strokes for having a course handicap better than 0).

or

Why is a handicap on the other side of zero, which you would think should be represented as a minus number, actually called a Plus Handicap? Because the lucky player who carries it has to give back, or ADD strokes to their gross score to arrive at a net result. 

[OldFrog75]

Because two negatives equal a positive? e.g., Gross - (-2) = Gross + 2

[nsxguy]

"Why are Handicap Indexes that are better than 0 referred to as being "plus,"

I don't know. Why, when I'm losing the ball right, and I aim further to the left, does the ball go further to the right ? LMAO

 

But you did so well with explaining why medal play was called medal play,,,,,,,,,,,, but you don't know why players better than scratch are called "plus" handicaps ?

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

Hmm, and I was thinking we were told that the PCC was added, or subtracted, from the differential that day. Not really a part of the “calculation” other than to add one whole stroke to the differential on a oddly easy day and to subtract 1, 2 or 3 from the differential on days the course plays very difficulty.

[nsxguy]

That's what I recall reading as well but assuming the calculation dave gave us is correct that is apparently not how it works.

Maybe that was conjecture,,,,,,,,, much earlier in the WHS threads ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I find it interesting that those that think the PCC is a good idea because they think it may make handicaps more accurate, but they don't mind that the WHS abandons a course-rating-based handicap system in favor of a net par which is less accurate.

[davep043]

Calculation of your handicap index has just about nothing to do with par, other than in the Net Double Bogey calculation. There is no loss of accuracy in that calculation at all. In my opinion, Net Double is MORE accurate than allowing gross double on some holes, and gross quadruple bogey on others, which is what the old ESC system did for most players (those with 10 handicap or higher). In addition, your Course Handicap calculation will be MORE accurate, since the the numbers are rounded only once. In the old system, when you played from different tees, your Handicap was calculated (and rounded), and then the difference in CR from the different tees was adjusted, and rounded a second time. I've always been taught that the highest accuracy was maintained by rounding the fewest times possible.

I know Knuth talks about loss of accuracy, but close examination of the system doesn't support that. To me, the new definition of Course Handicap, including (CR-Par), is an improvement, it makes the previous adjustment for competitions different tees into an every-day handicap calculation. And if you're playing against someone from the same tees, the (CR-par) term will make exactly zero difference to strokes given or taken.

[KevCarter]

I agree, the more I study and think about the new system, the more I like it. Time may prove us wrong, but for now I believe it's a positive change.

[DaveLeeNC]

WHS does NOT abandon CR as an important HI parameter. Why is this statement being made (CR not being a factor)?

dave

[davep043]

Because some gentlemen are quoting Dean Knuth's article in GolfWork without really looking at what the WHS actually does. Here's the quote form Knuth's concluding paragraph:

"The way I see it, however, by implementing all of the new WHS elements, we have adopted a World system that is not as accurate as what we have enjoyed. The WHS alters a 40-year-old course-rating-based handicap system in favor of a “net par.” 

Its interesting to me that in the rest of his discussion, Knuth never says anything about the "accuracy" of the WHS.

[Augster]

My mind boggles. Of course we are all “negative” caps. Shoot your score, subtract your cap, you have your net score.

Also, that Knuth article wasn’t very well thought out and absolutely reeked of sour grapes that they’d come up with a better system without consulting him. I hope he got a good paycheck for that article.

[Halebopp]

What? The USGA introduced the Course Rating to their Course Handicap Calculation. In the past a scratch player was supposed to shoot par in the U.S. (or did someone actually use the Target Score, which is essentially the same as your current Course Rating formula?) no matter how difficult the course or the tees were. Now the same player is supposed to hit the Course Rating, which changes from tee to tee and course to course.

 

In short they're implementing it more widely, not moving away from it.

[Mr. Bean]

To be precise, you do not subtract but add. That is the whole point.

Your index is -16 and you shoot 92. Your net score is 92+-16 = 92-16 = 76. Or, your index is +3 and you shoot 67. Your net score is 67 ++3 = 67 + 3 = 70. You always add your index to your gross score.

IMO it should be the other way around, it would make it easier to understand. Club handicaps indexes would be positive and the prime players would have negative handicap indexes. After all, the vast majority of indexes are negative while it would be IMO more logical if they were positive.

But no big deal, the outcome is the same.

[Colin L]

Subtracting one number from another doesn't make it a negative number. Negative numbers are those below zero. Positive numbers are those above zero.

Handicaps above zero are positive numbers. Most of us have handicaps above zero. Handicaps below zero are negative numbers. A minority of players are better than a scratch player and have handicaps below zero. But for all players, the arithmetic is the same: Net score = gross score - handicap. For the better than scratch players that results in their net score being greater than their gross score because x-(-y) = x + y.

We talk about a "plus" handicapper because in practice that rare breed just adds his handicap number to his gross score. I can't imagine the few "plus" players in my club ever come off the course thinking "I must remember my handicap is a negative number and by subtracting it I am actually adding it on! I take my handicap off; they add theirs on. As simple as that. Happy the scratch player who has nothing to do at all.

I expect it's because in practice they just add their strokes on that the convenient expression "plus handicap" has developed. It's convenient and rather more easily understood than the arithmetic of subtracting negative numbers from which it is derived! But there is no point in pursuing the idea that it therefore means that the handicaps above zero are negative numbers.

Don't mix colloquial convenience with the maths: that way lies confusion and quite possibly madness.

 

[b.helts]

“That way lies confusion and quite possibly madness.”

 

agree with everything in your post and if I could “love” it instead of like it I would for the line above!!

 

bravo

[Colin L]

That's kind of you, but I have to acknowledge my debt to Shakespeare who put the words "that way madness lies" into the mouth of King Lear.

[DaveLeeNC]

Regarding the question of properly declaring a provisional, I prefer the "modern/urban approach" to the issue.

"Yo - Bro - It's a Pro"

Kind of rolls smoothly off the tongue.

dave

 

[Augster]

Okay. Went on my golf trip and played 12 rounds in 5 days. (brag). Posting to the new GHIN WHS system was easy. Daily updates to the cap were awesome. I started as a 6.8 at the end of last year. I had some keepers at the end of the list that were going to fall off. First update I went to 7.7. Sunday I played one decent round (differential under my CH) and the next day my cap dropped to 7.5. Played all day Monday and today, Tuesday, it jumped up to an 8.1.

None of those 12 rounds was affected by PCC. On Saturday, me and my friend posted 6 rounds between us on the same course. All horrible rounds. And that still wasn’t enough to skew the PCC to kick in and make an adjustment. I was a 7.7 index with a CH of 10 and my differentials were 8.6, 15.6, and 14.7. My friend was a 17.7 index playing off 15CH and his differentials were 25.8, 27.2, and 32.1.

That’s 6 of the necessary 8 in a day and I thought those horrible scores would certainly kick in a PCC and it didn’t.

I think for the PCC to kick in, it’ll need a lot of scores posted that are “significantly” over playing ability. However they define that.

As I figured, the PCC is an insignificant wrinkle that won’t kick in and modify rounds very often. And even when it does, it likely won’t be on keeper scores anyway. Much ado about nothing really.

BTW, I REALLY loved the new GHIN app and the automatic CR-par adjustment. My friend and I always play different tee boxes. You just pop those into the app and subtract and that’s how many shots you give. No need to worry about rounding or to manually do anything. It was awesome and SO much simpler than in the past when we’d have to figure out all caps from one tee, go back in, figure all caps from the other tee, then make the subtractions between tees manually.

I hope it encourages people to play the tees they want to play. No math involved. If one guy wants to play the tips and the other wants to play the senior tees, just plug the tees for each player in the app. It spits out a number for each player and you just subtract that and play your match.

It was the best, easiest experience I’ve had on one of my golf trips in so far as handicapping matches.

[Newby]

It's not just your scores that affect the PCC. It's everyone elses who played the course on the same day

[davep043]

Its nice to hear positive experiences, with anything, I think its human nature to focus more on complaints than on compliments. I had similar positive experiences on my trip to Palm Springs, with only a slight disappointment that Hole by Hole posting wasn't yet available for California courses at that time.

Just one word of clarification regarding playing from different tees. I agree completely, the use of (CR-Par) makes it much easier, but we should always double-check that par is the same from each set of tees, and make the appropriate adjustment when its not. I don't think that differing pars will be very common, but its a possibility to be aware of.

[nsxguy]

Please refresh my memory. I recall discussions about different par from different tee sets, especially as soon as we saw the new GHIN site.

But the CH formula IS a formula. Why (and how I guess) does it get adjusted when total par is different ?

[davep043]

The Course Handicap now normalizes all of us to Par. As long as par is the same form all tees, the Course Handicap takes care of the differences in Course Rating for difference tees. Section 6.2b in the handicapping rules tells us that when the par is different from different tees, the player from the tees with a higher par has his handicap increased by the difference in par.

 

[Newby]

Quote: The Course Handicap now normalizes all of us to Par. 

Not in CONGUland

[Deceptively Short]

Unfortunately