New World Handicaps 2020

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, if you just dropped SLOPE and any other extraneous parameters just staying with what is actually assessed by the rating committees (Scratch Rating and Bogey Rating), the course handicap formulas become

 

CH = Index * (BR - SR) / 21 (instead of Index * SLOPE/113)

 

And Differential Becomes

 

Diff = (Score - SR) * 21/(BR - SR)

 

dave

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > Dave,

> >

> > Yes I think that just about sums it up.

> >

> > Knuth’s “prank” will now finally be forced onto the rest of the world and things will muddle along worldwide much as they have these past 30 years.

>

> Forced? An emotive word. Perhaps the WHS will actually be embraced by some.

>

 

Yes, I understand it was a negociation with USGA and Rest Of World meeting in the "middle".

 

USGA agreed to replace ESC with Net Double Bogey and to replace 10-of-20 time 0.96 with 8-of-20 (no 0.96).

 

Rest Of World agreed to change their entire handicapping system from the ground up.

 

All very equitable I'm sure, nobody was forced into anything.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"Colin L" said:

> 113 is just the reference point of a scale which extends above and below it. Any scale has to start somewhere and there may be those who like to know why it starts where it does and those, probably more numerous, who just want to know what the measurements mean. The Celsius scale has 0 to 100 as its reference points , using the freezing and boiling points of water. You guys are still using Fahrenheit where the same reference points are 32 and 212. The separation points of one scale are 100 units apart while those of the other are 180 apart. Both the slope rating scale and the Fahrenheit scale have this in common: they look odd because 113, 32 and 212 look eccentric. Numbers ending with a zero like 10, 50, 100 and so on look more "normal". That's all. I assume that since the US still uses Fahrenheit, you are comfortable with its eccentricity (**though I wonder what your scientists, engineers,** meteorologists etc ** use**). Why not be comfortable with the eccentricity of slope as you seem to be with Fahrenheit? Being used to metrical measurements, I would find a slope scale from 0 to 100 more familiar, but maybe for Americans its separation points should be 32 and 212?

>

> Big fuss over very little, I'd say. You quickly learn what things mean. 38C outside tells me it's uncomfortably hot out there while 100.4F tells our American friends the same; -10C outside tells me to get the merino wool undies on while 14F tells them the same. We'll get familiar with what we are getting and soon enough we'll all know that a slope rating of 145 means a ~~rather~~ relatively tough golf course.

>

Kelvin

 

[davep043]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> FWIW, if you just dropped SLOPE and any other extraneous parameters just staying with what is actually assessed by the rating committees (Scratch Rating and Bogey Rating), the course handicap formulas become

>

> CH = Index * (BR - SR) / 21 (instead of Index * SLOPE/113)

>

> And Differential Becomes

>

> Diff = (Score - SR) * 21/(BR - SR)

>

> dave

 

Oy, so many difficult arithmetic processes, we can't possibly do all that!

[Imp]

I'm sure somewhere, someone asked "is there a way to get that 113 down to 0 or 100 (I agree with Colins earlier statement), and then calculate from there? Shift the whole slope. But then you get into negatives. What's harder to the layman? Multiplying the increase of negatives (due to the slope shift) and then having to resolve those? Or, simply accepting 113 as the baseline where everything is calculated off where there will be fewer negative players?

[North Butte]

> @Imp said:

> I'm sure somewhere, someone asked "is there a way to get that 113 down to 0 or 100 (I agree with Colins earlier statement), and then calculate from there? Shift the whole slope. But then you get into negatives. What's harder to the layman? Multiplying the increase of negatives (due to the slope shift) and then having to resolve those? Or, simply accepting 113 as the baseline where everything is calculated off where there will be fewer negative players?

 

No need to shift anything or change the 113 number. Simply publish the "Course Rating divided by 113" and eliminate the whole issue.

 

113 is not a baseline. That would imply it is a baseline value for some kind of meaningful scale. But it's not meaningful at all. It's an arbitrary magic number that's combined with another arbitrary number to produce the actual quantity of interest.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> USGA agreed to replace ESC with Net Double Bogey and to replace 10-of-20 time 0.96 with 8-of-20 (no 0.96).

>

> Rest Of World agreed to change their entire handicapping system from the ground up.

>

> All very equitable I'm sure, nobody was forced into anything.

Before you go too much further down this particular road, you may want to read this:

http://productionggs.s3.amazonaws.com/WHS-whitepaper.pdf

Slope was used in 3 of the 6 jurisdictions, some kind of averaging of the best scores was used in 4, although the numbers of both scores averaged and the number of scores considered varied slightly. Net double bogey was the most popular hole score limit. In 4 of the 6 jurisdictions, handicaps were updated every time a score was posted. Half the jurisdictions had some type of daily adjustment for conditions that influenced scoring.

 

Everyone makes changes, nobody changes every single thing.

 

[Colin L]

CONGU, if I remember correctly, is the last authority to adopt averages.

 

 

[Colin L]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > Dave,

> > >

> > > Yes I think that just about sums it up.

> > >

> > > Knuth’s “prank” will now finally be forced onto the rest of the world and things will muddle along worldwide much as they have these past 30 years.

> >

> > Forced? An emotive word. Perhaps the WHS will actually be embraced by some.

> >

>

> Yes, I understand it was a negociation with USGA and Rest Of World meeting in the "middle".

>

> USGA agreed to replace ESC with Net Double Bogey and to replace 10-of-20 time 0.96 with 8-of-20 (no 0.96).

>

> Rest Of World agreed to change their entire handicapping system from the ground up.

>

> All very equitable I'm sure, nobody was forced into anything.

 

What is your evidence for that? And as you are no doubt aware that the WHS is a joint R&A and USGA development, do you have the same monumental beef against the R&A as you do against the USGA?

 

 

[Colin L]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > Dave,

> > > >

> > > > Yes I think that just about sums it up.

> > > >

> > > > Knuth’s “prank” will now finally be forced onto the rest of the world and things will muddle along worldwide much as they have these past 30 years.

> > >

> > > Forced? An emotive word. Perhaps the WHS will actually be embraced by some.

> > >

> >

> > Yes, I understand it was a negociation with USGA and Rest Of World meeting in the "middle".

> >

> > USGA agreed to replace ESC with Net Double Bogey and to replace 10-of-20 time 0.96 with 8-of-20 (no 0.96).

> >

> > Rest Of World agreed to change their entire handicapping system from the ground up.

> >

> > All very equitable I'm sure, nobody was forced into anything.

>

>

 

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > Dave,

> > > >

> > > > Yes I think that just about sums it up.

> > > >

> > > > Knuth’s “prank” will now finally be forced onto the rest of the world and things will muddle along worldwide much as they have these past 30 years.

> > >

> > > Forced? An emotive word. Perhaps the WHS will actually be embraced by some.

> > >

> >

> > Yes, I understand it was a negociation with USGA and Rest Of World meeting in the "middle".

> >

> > USGA agreed to replace ESC with Net Double Bogey and topmento replace 10-of-20 time 0.96 with 8-of-20 (no 0.96).

> >

> > Rest Of World agreed to change their entire handicapping system from the ground up.

> >

> > All very equitable I'm sure, nobody was forced into anything.

>

>

 

What is your evidence for that? And as you are no doubt aware that the WHS is a joint R&A and USGA development, do you have the same monumental beef against the R&A as you do against the USGA?

 

[North Butte]

All I know is what I read on this forum. As for actual changes, not just speculation, I sure seem to see a lot of change going on in UK. Perhaps you guys have been exaggerating or perhaps I misunderstood the context. At any rate, all of the changes (actual, not speculative) on the USGA seem very minor and cosmetic.

 

If I’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick, then maybe nothing major is meant to change in UK. But I sure as heck have seen course rating teams out on some links courses when I visited the last few years.

[davep043]

> @"Colin L" said:

> CONGU, if I remember correctly, is the last authority to adopt averages.

>

If that paper I linked was right, EGA also use a CONGU-style ratchet calculation method. There was a reasonably complete table at the end showing the current features of each of the 6 systems currently in place around the world.

 

 

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > CONGU, if I remember correctly, is the last authority to adopt averages.

> >

> If that paper I linked was right, EGA also use a CONGU-style ratchet calculation method. There was a reasonably complete table at the end showing the current features of each of the 6 systems currently in place around the world.

>

>

Yes, the EGA uses the same ratchet as CONGU.

England mens's courses were the only ones in all Europe not using the USGA rating system. All will be rated by implementation date. The EGA already use slope but CONGU doesn't

The other major change for CONGU (and the EGA) is the move from the ratchet to averaging. This will involve a change to many players' Index.

 

[Colin L]

> @"North Butte" said:

> All I know is what I read on this forum. As for actual changes, not just speculation, I sure seem to see a lot of change going on in UK. Perhaps you guys have been exaggerating or perhaps I misunderstood the context. At any rate, all of the changes (actual, not speculative) on the USGA seem very minor and cosmetic.

>

> If I’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick, then maybe nothing major is meant to change in UK. But I sure as heck have seen course rating teams out on some links courses when I visited the last few years.

 

It will be a major change in the CONGU jurisdiction (which is not just the UK as Ireland includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland). The two principal differences are using an average system to have handicaps which reflect demonstrated ability as opposed to predicting potential and the use of slope which gives your handicap "portability" and results in your course handicap being related to the course being played, hence leading to better levelling of players of different abilities.

 

By the way, I see it as better for us to have the Course Ratings as they are, but not just because a CR is the same as our current Standard Scratch Score except expressed to one decimal place and is therefore familiar. It is easy to explain that SSS or CR of a course is the score expected of a scratch golfer in normal conditions. If I understand you correctly, you would like the actual rating (ie the score expected .... etc) to be divided by 113 before being "published." That would mean the Course Rating of the white course at my club would be 0.62 rather than 70.0. How meaningful is 0.62 to anyone? And how would I explain without reference to the number 113? I really do not anticipate any difficulty in explaining course and slope ratings to the probably small proportion of players who want to know and understand the detail. I expect most will be content to be told what happens and what they have to do.

 

Major change is not necessarily unwelcome.

[North Butte]

So surely I'm not totally off base in suggesting that a) moving from the ratchet to averaging and b) using slope ratings versus not using slope ratings are both pretty big changes in CONGU land. Right?

 

By comparison, we have a) move from ESC to Net Double Bogey for max scores and b) average 8-of-20 with no 0.96 multiplier instead of 10-of-20 with 0.96 multiplier in USGA land.

 

That comparison is all I'm talking about when saying I don't see the USGA and CONGU meeting in exactly the "middle".

 

For a normal golfer using GHIN the only thing he's going to see visibly is the need to start counting Net Double Bogey instead of Double/7/8/9/10 (assuming he bothers to change). The rest is background computation changes designed not to have much impact on his index.

 

For a club golfer in UK it's going to see like the entire CONGU handicapping procedure is new and different. He has to account for slope, etc. and he no longer see the ratchet.

[Colin L]

> @"North Butte" said:

> So surely I'm not totally off base in suggesting that a) moving from the ratchet to averaging and b) using slope ratings versus not using slope ratings are both pretty big changes in CONGU land. Right?

>

> By comparison, we have a) move from ESC to Net Double Bogey for max scores and b) average 8-of-20 with no 0.96 multiplier instead of 10-of-20 with 0.96 multiplier in USGA land.

>

> That comparison is all I'm talking about when saying I don't see the USGA and CONGU meeting in exactly the "middle".

>

> For a normal golfer using GHIN the only thing he's going to see visibly is the need to start counting Net Double Bogey instead of Double/7/8/9/10 (assuming he bothers to change). The rest is background computation changes designed not to have much impact on his index.

>

> For a club golfer in UK it's going to see like the entire CONGU handicapping procedure is new and different. He has to account for slope, etc. and he no longer see the ratchet.

 

The club golfer will not have to do anything more than he does now which at minimum is to hand in a scorecard, signed by a marker and himself, with a record of the gross score he or she took at each hole. It's not exactly onerous to write down 9 or 18 single (let's hope!) digits and add a signature.

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> By the way, I see it as better for us to have the Course Ratings as they are, but not just because a CR is the same as our current Standard Scratch Score except expressed to one decimal place and is therefore familiar. It is easy to explain that SSS or CR of a course is the score expected of a scratch golfer in normal conditions. If I understand you correctly, you would like the actual rating (ie the score expected .... etc) to be divided by 113 before being "published." That would mean the Course Rating of the white course at my club would be 0.62 rather than 70.0. How meaningful is 0.62 to anyone? And how would I explain without reference to the number 113? I really do not anticipate any difficulty in explaining course and slope ratings to the probably small proportion of players who want to know and understand the detail. I expect most will be content to be told what happens and what they have to do.

 

No, that's not it at all.

 

In the current USGA system the SLOPE RATING is divided by 113 and then the result is multiplied by the Handicap Index to get Course Handicap. Course Rating does not figure into Course Handicap computation in any manner whatsoever.

 

My modest proposal is that (when the system was originally rolled out) instead of a Slope Rating that had to be divided by 113, the published number be the result of dividing that Slope Rating by 113. So for a course with Slope Rating of 130, the published number would be a multiplier of 130/113=1.15 (nothing about the Course Rating would be affected).

 

This produces numerically the same result except the formula is simplified, demystified (i.e. What Does That 113 Mean?) and there's no misunderstanding the Slope Rating number as being "how difficult the course is".

 

P.S. The fact that even the basic of "Course Rating" vs. "Slope Rating" is still confusing you at this late date is emblematic of both the (needless IMO) complexity of the USGA way of doing things and the culture shock that will accompany its arrival in UK. You are plenty smart and plenty motivated to read up and understand all this stuff. Imagine the poor club golfer who is neither of those things...he's going to be very, very confused. As most USA golfers have been for lo these three decades.

[Newby]

I reckon the loss of the ratchet will be a boon. Many don't really know the details and moving from one category to another is tricky.

My strong impression is that (CONGU) players see slope as being sensible in principle and are not concerned about the detail or the maths.

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > So surely I'm not totally off base in suggesting that a) moving from the ratchet to averaging and b) using slope ratings versus not using slope ratings are both pretty big changes in CONGU land. Right?

> >

> > By comparison, we have a) move from ESC to Net Double Bogey for max scores and b) average 8-of-20 with no 0.96 multiplier instead of 10-of-20 with 0.96 multiplier in USGA land.

> >

> > That comparison is all I'm talking about when saying I don't see the USGA and CONGU meeting in exactly the "middle".

> >

> > For a normal golfer using GHIN the only thing he's going to see visibly is the need to start counting Net Double Bogey instead of Double/7/8/9/10 (assuming he bothers to change). The rest is background computation changes designed not to have much impact on his index.

> >

> > For a club golfer in UK it's going to see like the entire CONGU handicapping procedure is new and different. He has to account for slope, etc. and he no longer see the ratchet.

>

> The club golfer will not have to do anything more than he does now which at minimum is to hand in a scorecard, signed by a marker and himself, with a record of the gross score he or she took at each hole. It's not exactly onerous to write down 9 or 18 single (let's hope!) digits and add a signature.

 

When I've visited my friends in UK clubs, they have occasionally talked about the effect of this or that comp result on their handicap. I've heard the "ratchet" mentioned (usually not favorably!) and it has seemed to me they did pretty much keep track of what effect their results have on their handicap. That's the guys I'm saying are going to perceive their entire handicapping world to be changing with the move to averaging.

 

Not to mention (if I understand correctly) they will now have a Handicap Index that must be converted to a Course Handicap. Is that a correct understanding? Or is the Handicap Index/Course Handicap duality one of the things not meant to be adopted in UK?

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> So surely I'm not totally off base in suggesting that a) moving from the ratchet to averaging and b) using slope ratings versus not using slope ratings are both pretty big changes in CONGU land. Right?

>

> By comparison, we have a) move from ESC to Net Double Bogey for max scores and b) average 8-of-20 with no 0.96 multiplier instead of 10-of-20 with 0.96 multiplier in USGA land.

>

> That comparison is all I'm talking about when saying I don't see the USGA and CONGU meeting in exactly the "middle".

I agree, from what I've read, the CONGU and EGA golfers will see the greatest changes. On the other hand, if I understand things correctly, most handicap scores in these regions are entered by the club, so the golfer himself will not need to do anything different. Please correct me if I have that wrong.

As far as "meeting in the middle", that is one reason I have speculated that we may see more changes in the future, and the reason that I've speculated that US golfers may be required to adapt a little more than we have so far. I know any such changes will be opposed by certain groups of players, welcomed by others.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> I reckon the loss of the ratchet will be a boon. Many don't really know the details and moving from one category to another is tricky.

> My strong impression is that (CONGU) players see slope as being sensible in principle and are not concerned about the detail or the maths.

 

From the tiny little subset of UK golfers I've known personally, the day when "ratchet" forever leaves the conversation will be almost universally welcomed!

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > So surely I'm not totally off base in suggesting that a) moving from the ratchet to averaging and b) using slope ratings versus not using slope ratings are both pretty big changes in CONGU land. Right?

> >

> > By comparison, we have a) move from ESC to Net Double Bogey for max scores and b) average 8-of-20 with no 0.96 multiplier instead of 10-of-20 with 0.96 multiplier in USGA land.

> >

> > That comparison is all I'm talking about when saying I don't see the USGA and CONGU meeting in exactly the "middle".

> I agree, from what I've read, the CONGU and EGA golfers will see the greatest changes. On the other hand, if I understand things correctly, most handicap scores in these regions are entered by the club, so the golfer himself will not need to do anything different. Please correct me if I have that wrong.

> As far as "meeting in the middle", that is one reason I have speculated that we may see more changes in the future, and the reason that I've speculated that US golfers may be required to adapt a little more than we have so far. I know any such changes will be opposed by certain groups of players, welcomed by others.

 

And that's the essence of the disconnect you and I have on this topic (unlike many other topics where we are in broad agreement). To me your optimism seems very misplaced. I simply can't imagine any scenario even five or ten years down the road when USGA starts basing handicaps on attested scores from formal rounds on measured courses, etc.

 

To my mind, there's either going to be parallel USGA systems (handicap bifurcation) or else what you're expecting is never going to happen in a million years. But who knows, I may be totally misreading the situation.

[Halebopp]

> @"North Butte" said:

> And the "Slope Rating" number itself implies (to every single golfer who has ever been exposed to it) that it quantifies course difficulty, requiring an elaborate explanation of how it really quantifies something different.

 

I'm willing to bet that assumption is based purely on the USGA system and it not using course rating in determining playing handicaps. Very few people over here bother with any of the CR/Slope stuff, they simply look up their playing handicaps from a table at the club house or some other place, others don't bother themselves at all with the details. They simply go out and play and let the computers do all the math after the round.

 

Also, I've found it odd in this thread that posting hole-by-hole scores would not help with sandbagging. There have been plenty of complaints on this forum about people not applying ESC to their scores (knowingly or unknowingly). To me the two complaints seem to be in contradiction (or maybe the complaints aren't coming from the same people).

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> By the way, I see it as better for us to have the Course Ratings as they are, but not just because a CR is the same as our current Standard Scratch Score except expressed to one decimal place and is therefore familiar. It is easy to explain that SSS or CR of a course is the score expected of a scratch golfer in normal conditions. If I understand you correctly, you would like the actual rating (ie the score expected .... etc) to be divided by 113 before being "published." That would mean the Course Rating of the white course at my club would be 0.62 rather than 70.0. How meaningful is 0.62 to anyone? And how would I explain without reference to the number 113? I really do not anticipate any difficulty in explaining course and slope ratings to the probably small proportion of players who want to know and understand the detail. I expect most will be content to be told what happens and what they have to do.

 

SLOPE is a different number than the Course Rating (or what I understand is your SSS number?). Here are the USGA explanations for each.

 

**USGA Course Rating:** A USGA Course Rating is the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for scratch golfers under normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as the number of strokes taken to one decimal place (72.5), and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring difficulty of the scratch golfer.

 

**Slope Rating®:** A Slope Rating is the USGA® mark that indicates the measurement of the relative playing difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers. It is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating times a constant factor and is expressed as a whole number from 55 to 155.

 

When we play a course the Scorecard should have this information printed on the card. ie.

Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 130

White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 125

 

For a player to get their Course Handicap (strokes) for that round from the Black Tees they would times their USGA Index by the Slope Rating then divide by 113. So someone at a 6.2 index would get 7 Strokes. (6.2 * 130 / 113). However, if the Slope was shown as 1.15 instead (130 slope divided by 113) then it would be a much straighter formula for the end users. All they would need to do is times there current index by the new 'Slope' rating (6.2 * 1.15 = 7) . Further to figure out the differential for the round (which is the number used to calculate a players index, best 10 of 20 scores) they would just need take their score minus out the course rating and divide by the new 'Slope' number. ie. 80 Strokes - 70.0 Course Rating / 1.15 = 8.7 differential).

 

So on the scorecard it would be this instead:

Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 1.15

White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 1.11

 

[North Butte]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > And the "Slope Rating" number itself implies (to every single golfer who has ever been exposed to it) that it quantifies course difficulty, requiring an elaborate explanation of how it really quantifies something different.

>

> I'm willing to bet that assumption is based purely on the USGA system and it not using course rating in determining playing handicaps. Very few people over here bother with any of the CR/Slope stuff, they simply look up their playing handicaps from a table at the club house or some other place, others don't bother themselves at all with the details. They simply go out and play and let the computers do all the math after the round.

 

My USA club does not have a computer or any tables printed and hanging on the wall. It is up to the players to know their Course Handicap using the GHIN app. In order to do that, they go to the screen labeled "C.H. Calculator" which will be pre-filled with their current Handicap Index. Then they use the slider control to set the "Slope Rating" to match the tees they are playing that day. The app gives them their Course Handicap.

 

But they have to refer to the scorecard to get the Slope Rating. Sometimes the GHIN app goes ahead and defaults the slider to the correct Slope Rating, sometimes not. And there is constant grumbling about why the Slope Rating isn't higher or lower from this or that set of tees. It is a matter of frequent discussion.

 

My club does not have just one 18-hole course nor do our players all play the same tees as each other. And for that matter a given player may play different sets of tees on different days or in different events. So it isn't like in UK where daily play is from a fixed set of "member tees" and everyone's Slope Rating is the same.

 

> Also, I've found it odd in this thread that posting hole-by-hole scores would not help with sandbagging. There have been plenty of complaints on this forum about people not applying ESC to their scores (knowingly or unknowingly). To me the two complaints seem to be in contradiction (or maybe the complaints aren't coming from the same people).

 

The guys I play with pick up at (gross) double bogey. Period. Whether their handicap is 3 or 23. Always have, always will. And if you make them enter scores on a hole by hole entry screen, they will absolutely type "6" in on a Par 4 where they picked up. No matter what their course handicap, no matter whether it's a stroke hole, no matter whether you tell them otherwise or not.

 

As for actual sandbaggers, anyone willing to type "83" into GHIN after really shooting 81 is also going to be perfectly willing to type a "6" in instead of "5" on a couple holes to make it add up to two strokes more than he shot.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > And the "Slope Rating" number itself implies (to every single golfer who has ever been exposed to it) that it quantifies course difficulty, requiring an elaborate explanation of how it really quantifies something different.

>

> I'm willing to bet that assumption is based purely on the USGA system and it not using course rating in determining playing handicaps. Very few people over here bother with any of the CR/Slope stuff, they simply look up their playing handicaps from a table at the club house or some other place, others don't bother themselves at all with the details. They simply go out and play and let the computers do all the math after the round.

>

> Also, I've found it odd in this thread that posting hole-by-hole scores would not help with sandbagging. There have been plenty of complaints on this forum about people not applying ESC to their scores (knowingly or unknowingly). To me the two complaints seem to be in contradiction (or maybe the complaints aren't coming from the same people).

 

Baggers will have to work slightly harder to manufacture scores (18 holes vs 1 round score), but it won't slow them down. Attestation would be a bigger deterrent, but even that won't be a panacea since the baggers will simply start playing in packs attesting each other's scores. Cheaters gonna cheat.

[davep043]

> @HatsForBats said:

 

> For a player to get their Course Handicap (strokes) for that round from the Black Tees they would times their USGA Index by the Slope Rating then divide by 113. So someone at a 6.2 index would get 7 Strokes. (6.2 * 130 / 113). However, if the Slope was shown as 1.15 instead (130 slope divided by 113) then it would be a much straighter formula for the end users. All they would need to do is times there current index by the new 'Slope' rating (6.2 * 1.15 = 7) . Further to figure out the differential for the round (which is the number used to calculate a players index, best 10 of 20 scores) they would just need take their score minus out the course rating and divide by the new 'Slope' number. ie. 80 Strokes - 70.0 Course Rating / 1.15 = 8.7 differential).

>

> So on the scorecard it would be this instead:

> Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 1.15

> White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 1.11

>

That's certainly a workable solution, as long as a player doesn't ask where the number 1.15 comes from, and then we're back to Scratch and Bogey Ratings and 113 as a "standard" Slope.

Or, as @Halebopp suggests, the player can just use the App, or the handicap tables posted in the pro shop, and not worry about the guts of the calculations. That's what I do, even though I know exactly how the calculations work.

 

[North Butte]

> @HatsForBats said:

> When we play a course the Scorecard should have this information printed on the card. ie.

> Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 130

> White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 125

>

> For a player to get their Course Handicap (strokes) for that round from the Black Tees they would times their USGA Index by the Slope Rating then divide by 113. So someone at a 6.2 index would get 7 Strokes. (6.2 * 130 / 113). However, if the Slope was shown as 1.15 instead (130 slope divided by 113) then it would be a much straighter formula for the end users. All they would need to do is times there current index by the new 'Slope' rating (6.2 * 1.15 = 7) . Further to figure out the differential for the round (which is the number used to calculate a players index, best 10 of 20 scores) they would just need take their score minus out the course rating and divide by the new 'Slope' number. ie. 80 Strokes - 70.0 Course Rating / 1.15 = 8.7 differential).

>

> So on the scorecard it would be this instead:

> Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 1.15

> White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 1.11

 

HFB,

 

I clicked "Like" four times but it only registered once. Pity.

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

>

> > For a player to get their Course Handicap (strokes) for that round from the Black Tees they would times their USGA Index by the Slope Rating then divide by 113. So someone at a 6.2 index would get 7 Strokes. (6.2 * 130 / 113). However, if the Slope was shown as 1.15 instead (130 slope divided by 113) then it would be a much straighter formula for the end users. All they would need to do is times there current index by the new 'Slope' rating (6.2 * 1.15 = 7) . Further to figure out the differential for the round (which is the number used to calculate a players index, best 10 of 20 scores) they would just need take their score minus out the course rating and divide by the new 'Slope' number. ie. 80 Strokes - 70.0 Course Rating / 1.15 = 8.7 differential).

> >

> > So on the scorecard it would be this instead:

> > Black Tee - Course Rating: 70.0 , Slope: 1.15

> > White Tee - Course Rating: 68.5 , Slope 1.11

> >

> That's certainly a workable solution, as long as a player doesn't ask where the number 1.15 comes from, and then we're back to Scratch and Bogey Ratings and 113 as a "standard" Slope.

> Or, as @Halebopp suggests, the player can just use the App, or the handicap tables posted in the pro shop, and not worry about the guts of the calculations. That's what I do, even though I know exactly how the calculations work.

>

 

As I said upthread, that "1.15" has a perfectly understandable meaning...

 

It means on this course you will actually receive 1.15 strokes for every stroke in your Handicap Index.

 

No reference to the "difficulty" of the course, much less to any "average difficulty 113" nonsense. It hones right in on the thing the golfer wants to know. How many strokes do I get. The answer is you get 1.15 times your Index, rounded off to the nearest stroke.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Imp said:

> I'm sure somewhere, someone asked "is there a way to get that 113 down to 0 or 100 (I agree with Colins earlier statement), and then calculate from there? Shift the whole slope. But then you get into negatives. What's harder to the layman? Multiplying the increase of negatives (due to the slope shift) and then having to resolve those? Or, simply accepting 113 as the baseline where everything is calculated off where there will be fewer negative players?

 

Imp, I don't understand what you are saying here. Is a 'negative player' someone with what today is called a 'Plus Handicapper'? And what is 'SLOPE Shift'. And what are the negatives that you get into? Sorry, I just don't understand.

 

Thanks.

 

dave