New World Handicaps 2020

[North Butte]

I literally answered a question 2-3 weeks ago before we teed off. Nobody had a smartphone with them and a guy said, "My handicap just went up from 8.3 to 8.8, how many strokes do I get if this course is rated 131?". Those were his exact words (so any quibbles with his use of "handicap" versus "index" and "rated" versus "slope rating" is on him, not me!).

 

I can do numbers in my head pretty well so I said, "You're still a 10 handicap on this course". But I think most people would have found it easier, if they were numerate at all, to figure it out if the "multiplier" of 1.16 were what they were starting from instead. Or maybe not but it would sure make it simpler for my aging brain to only do multiplication and not long division...

[Newby]

> @"North Butte" said:

>

> 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?

 

Yes.

Presently (ie currently), they have an Exact Handicap to 1 dec place. Calculated by the ratchet process. They have a Handicap which is the Exact rounded. Then a Playing Handicap which is the Handicap adjusted for the form of play (eg 90% for FourBall)

 

 

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> >

> > 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?

>

> Yes.

> Presently (ie currently), they have an Exact Handicap to 1 dec place. Calculated by the ratchet process. They have a Handicap which is the Exact rounded. Then a Playing Handicap which is the Handicap adjusted for the form of play (eg 90% for FourBall)

 

I can only surmise that long before I started playing golf in the 1990's, there was something close to that in USA. Some of the older members at my club (in their 70's) insist that the "proper" way handicaps ought to work is to take their index, round it off and (as you say) apply a percentage for the format of play. They simply don't like the Course Handicap concept and will tell anyone who will listen that they think it is wrong.

 

Now maybe it never worked that way officially in USA. Maybe that's just they way they used to play back in the day. But some of those guys would read what you wrong and said, "That's how it should be".

 

P.S. As I think of it, most of the guys I'm talking about are no longer playing. It's really a complaint I'd hear more, say, 10 years ago.

[Newby]

I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play.

**I THINK**

This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

 

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

>

 

Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

 

Round and round and round we go...

[Newby]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> > I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

> >

>

> Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

>

> Round and round and round we go...

 

At least one country used 0.93

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> > > I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

> > >

> >

> > Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

> >

> > Round and round and round we go...

>

> At least one country used 0.93

 

So if I track all the proposed changes rightly, in USA we will go...

FROM: 10-of-20 average multiply by 0.96 to get Index, full Course Handicap in individual stroke play

TO: 8-of-20 average no multiplier to get Index, full Course Handicap in individual stroke play

 

In UK you will go...

FROM: Ratchet with rounding, no Slope Rating, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

TO: Slope Rating, 8-of-20 average, no multiplier to get index, 95% Course Handicap in individual stroke play

 

Somewhere else they will go...

FROM: 10-of-20 average multiply by 0.93 to get index, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

TO: 8-of-20 average no multiplier, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

 

The mind boggles under the permutations.

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > >

> > > 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?

> >

> > Yes.

> > Presently (ie currently), they have an Exact Handicap to 1 dec place. Calculated by the ratchet process. They have a Handicap which is the Exact rounded. Then a Playing Handicap which is the Handicap adjusted for the form of play (eg 90% for FourBall)

>

> I can only surmise that long before I started playing golf in the 1990's, there was something close to that in USA. Some of the older members at my club (in their 70's) insist that the "proper" way handicaps ought to work is to take their index, round it off and (as you say) apply a percentage for the format of play. They simply don't like the Course Handicap concept and will tell anyone who will listen that they think it is wrong.

>

> Now maybe it never worked that way officially in USA. Maybe that's just they way they used to play back in the day. But some of those guys would read what you wrong and said, "That's how it should be".

>

> P.S. As I think of it, most of the guys I'm talking about are no longer playing. It's really a complaint I'd hear more, say, 10 years ago.

 

They probably should have called it a Tee Handicap rather than a Course Handicap but that could have it's own issues as well. I much rather like the idea of being able to have players play from mulitple tees and still have the expectation of a fair competition. They can take the 'you have to be XX age to play the closer box' with them when they go... please.

[North Butte]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > >

> > > > 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?

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > > Presently (ie currently), they have an Exact Handicap to 1 dec place. Calculated by the ratchet process. They have a Handicap which is the Exact rounded. Then a Playing Handicap which is the Handicap adjusted for the form of play (eg 90% for FourBall)

> >

> > I can only surmise that long before I started playing golf in the 1990's, there was something close to that in USA. Some of the older members at my club (in their 70's) insist that the "proper" way handicaps ought to work is to take their index, round it off and (as you say) apply a percentage for the format of play. They simply don't like the Course Handicap concept and will tell anyone who will listen that they think it is wrong.

> >

> > Now maybe it never worked that way officially in USA. Maybe that's just they way they used to play back in the day. But some of those guys would read what you wrong and said, "That's how it should be".

> >

> > P.S. As I think of it, most of the guys I'm talking about are no longer playing. It's really a complaint I'd hear more, say, 10 years ago.

>

> They probably should have called it a Tee Handicap rather than a Course Handicap but that could have it's own issues as well. I much rather like the idea of being able to have players play from mulitple tees and still have the expectation of a fair competition. They can take the 'you have to be XX age to play the closer box' with them when they go... please.

 

Oh don't get me started on the guys who want to move up two sets of tees and play off their full handicap against the guys playing the course 800 yards longer. When you tell them they have to factor in the difference in Course Rating they give you the proper Stinkeye!

[Newby]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> > > > I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

> > > >

> > >

> > > Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

> > >

> > > Round and round and round we go...

> >

> > At least one country used 0.93

>

> So if I track all the proposed changes rightly, in USA we will go...

> FROM: 10-of-20 average multiply by 0.96 to get Index, full Course Handicap in individual stroke play

> TO: 8-of-20 average no multiplier to get Index, full Course Handicap in individual stroke play

>

> In UK you will go...

> FROM: Ratchet with rounding, no Slope Rating, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

> TO: Slope Rating, 8-of-20 average, no multiplier to get index, 95% Course Handicap in individual stroke play

>

> Somewhere else they will go...

> FROM: 10-of-20 average multiply by 0.93 to get index, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

> TO: 8-of-20 average no multiplier, ??? Course Handicap in individual stroke play

>

> The mind boggles under the permutations.

 

I did modify my earlier post to say "I THINK".

I haven't got copies if the other National Associations' proposals so can't confirm what you say. Further, it is not clear if the 96% is a replacement for the bonus for excellence. It may simply apply to the result for competition places or prizes.

But if the former I must admit I can't see why it would be variable.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > 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?

> > > >

> > > > Yes.

> > > > Presently (ie currently), they have an Exact Handicap to 1 dec place. Calculated by the ratchet process. They have a Handicap which is the Exact rounded. Then a Playing Handicap which is the Handicap adjusted for the form of play (eg 90% for FourBall)

> > >

> > > I can only surmise that long before I started playing golf in the 1990's, there was something close to that in USA. Some of the older members at my club (in their 70's) insist that the "proper" way handicaps ought to work is to take their index, round it off and (as you say) apply a percentage for the format of play. They simply don't like the Course Handicap concept and will tell anyone who will listen that they think it is wrong.

> > >

> > > Now maybe it never worked that way officially in USA. Maybe that's just they way they used to play back in the day. But some of those guys would read what you wrong and said, "That's how it should be".

> > >

> > > P.S. As I think of it, most of the guys I'm talking about are no longer playing. It's really a complaint I'd hear more, say, 10 years ago.

> >

> > They probably should have called it a Tee Handicap rather than a Course Handicap but that could have it's own issues as well. I much rather like the idea of being able to have players play from mulitple tees and still have the expectation of a fair competition. They can take the 'you have to be XX age to play the closer box' with them when they go... please.

>

> Oh don't get me started on the guys who want to move up two sets of tees and play off their full handicap against the guys playing the course 800 yards longer. When you tell them they have to factor in the difference in Course Rating they give you the proper Stinkeye!

 

That's nothing. Try convincing them that they have to give me an extra stroke when I play the forward tees @ 5425 (72.9/128) while they are playing @ 6464 blue tees (71.7/136). They pretty much go insane.

[Newby]

Crikey! 5425 CR 72.9. It looks to be about 6 over. Is that the ladies rating?

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Newby said:

> Crikey! 5425 CR 72.9. It looks to be about 6 over. Is that the ladies rating?

 

Yes. Actually plays closer to 5700 for me given the forced layups (I took the difference between my driver distance and the club I lay up with off the tee and added it in to get 5700).

[BlackDiamondPar5]

To follow up on a topic from last week.... Per the answer I received from the USGA, hole by hole posting will NOT be a requirement, but is strongly suggested (as I believe it is now). Further when I asked about the smartphone app, they said the posting method should remain the same for users and would still be dependent upon the service used by the club.

 

So with that said, If that's the case, now I wonder how Pre-registration and attestation will work. Not even on the roadmap ? Years down the road?

[CaseyC]

https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news-and-events/tour-news/2019/september/uk-date-confirmed-for-world-handicap-system-roll-out1/

_The governing bodies of amateur golf in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have announced that they have signed the licence for the new World Handicap System, which will come into operation on November 2, 2020._

[North Butte]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> To follow up on a topic from last week.... Per the answer I received from the USGA, hole by hole posting will NOT be a requirement, but is strongly suggested (as I believe it is now). Further when I asked about the smartphone app, they said the posting method should remain the same for users and would still be dependent upon the service used by the club.

>

> So with that said, If that's the case, now I wonder how Pre-registration and attestation will work. Not even on the roadmap ? Years down the road?

 

I believe USGA Headquarters officially has it on the "Pie In The Sky In The Sweet By And By" list.

[Deceptively Short]

If scores are not posted hole by hole, how on earth can they be acceptable for the new WHS? Are the USGA saying that everyone will know where they get their shots and will have already reduced their score accordingly (should they have had a bad hole)? I.E. they are in effect posting a ‘net’ish’ score.

This level of ‘trust’ strikes me as staggering and if suggested here would be laughed out of court.

[North Butte]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> If scores are not posted hole by hole, how on earth can they be acceptable for the new WHS? Are the USGA saying that everyone will know where they get their shots and will have already reduced their score accordingly (should they have had a bad hole)? I.E. they are in effect posting a ‘net’ish’ score.

> This level of ‘trust’ strikes me as staggering and if suggested here would be laughed out of court.

 

Get used to it, I guess. We've been living with that "trust" principle for decades now.

 

To remind you what we're talking about, anyone who is a subscriber to the USGA handicap system can type in any score they like for any round they want. With zero supervision, no attestation, no peer review, no nothing. Just a number, a date and the name of the course in the GHIN database.

 

They are already posting whatever they choose to post when they have blowup or pickup holes. That's nothing new.

 

And, again at the risk of repeating myself, nothing about any of this will change in November, 2020 as far as I can tell from what I've read here.

 

The entire hole-by-hole posting was a complete red herring, made up out of the whole cloth by this discussion on this forum. BDP5 now has confirmed with USGA that they plan no such requirement. Or attestation either. It is what it is.

 

To be blunt, millions of golfers in the USGA system don't give a damn about the finer points of ESC versus Net Double Bogey or any of the other things you guys in CONGU land worry about. And USGA does not give a damn about their subscribers not giving a damn.

[SkiSchoolPro]

@"North Butte" agree that "slope" should have been divided by 113 (and called index multiplier or something similar) from the get go...while it will cause a few short term problems to switch now, probably makes sense to do so with the coming system. Knuth's motives are pure speculation.

 

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> To follow up on a topic from last week.... Per the answer I received from the USGA, hole by hole posting will NOT be a requirement, but is strongly suggested (as I believe it is now). Further when I asked about the smartphone app, they said the posting method should remain the same for users and would still be dependent upon the service used by the club.

>

> So with that said, If that's the case, now I wonder how Pre-registration and attestation will work. Not even on the roadmap ? Years down the road?

 

Thanks for the info!

[North Butte]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> @"North Butte" agree that "slope" should have been divided by 113 (and called index multiplier or something similar) from the get go...while it will cause a few short term problems to switch now, probably makes sense to do so with the coming system. Knuth's motives are pure speculation.

>

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > To follow up on a topic from last week.... Per the answer I received from the USGA, hole by hole posting will NOT be a requirement, but is strongly suggested (as I believe it is now). Further when I asked about the smartphone app, they said the posting method should remain the same for users and would still be dependent upon the service used by the club.

> >

> > So with that said, If that's the case, now I wonder how Pre-registration and attestation will work. Not even on the roadmap ? Years down the road?

>

> Thanks for the info!

 

Absolutely pure speculation. But there are only two possibilities I can see. Either the guy is a total moron (very unlikely) or he was just showing off/messing with us. I'm open to alternative theories, of course.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> If scores are not posted hole by hole, how on earth can they be acceptable for the new WHS? Are the USGA saying that everyone will know where they get their shots and will have already reduced their score accordingly (should they have had a bad hole)? I.E. they are in effect posting a ‘net’ish’ score.

> This level of ‘trust’ strikes me as staggering and if suggested here would be laughed out of court.

 

Not really all that different than now with ESC. Play round, adjust score per ESC, then post ESC adjusted score. Under WHS it will be (apparently), play round, adjust score per NDB limit, then post NDB adjusted score. Granted, getting the NDB adjustment correct requires a bit more thought than ESC, but not ridiculous. Backup plan for anyone not wishing to over exert their neurons would be to post h-b-h and let the computer do the work. Same level of trust as applying the RoG while playing a round of golf.

[Augustok]

Most people who play on a regular basis know where their strokes will be. They know what is the #1 stroke hole and the #18 stroke hole for instance without looking at the score card. How many bad holes do people have in a round that big confusion will occur when picking up and applying maximum amount? Today I have a course handicap of 17. Therefore next year on one par 3 (the 18th stroke hole) the max score will be 5, the par 4s will be 7 and the max on par 5s will be 8. I guess my regulars aren’t out of it much and the gross scores are just fine.

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> Absolutely pure speculation. But there are only two possibilities I can see. Either the guy is a total moron (very unlikely) or he was just showing off/messing with us. I'm open to alternative theories, of course.

 

It's not him, it's you?

[Wendy123]

Using net double bogey for ESC is not new. I have a 1984 Handicap manual. Players with handicaps of 1-18 were limited to two over par on the number of holes equal to their handicap. Limit of one over par on the balance of holes. For 19-36 handicaps it was 3 over par, for 37-40 it was 4 over par. So, a 21 handicap player could record 3 triple bogeys, the rest double bogeys.

[Colin L]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> > I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

> >

>

> Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

>

> Round and round and round we go...

 

I don't know what your "bonus for excellence" was about or what you mean by "after the fact", but the recommended handicap allowances for different formats of play are applied after calculating your course handicap and result in your Playing Handicap i.e . the number of strokes you get on a particular course for a particular format. Their purpose isn't to reward excellence, but to provide equity for all players in a particular format. They are not included in the calculation of your Score Differential and so do not affect your Handicap Index after the event.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> If scores are not posted hole by hole, how on earth can they be acceptable for the new WHS? Are the USGA saying that everyone will know where they get their shots and will have already reduced their score accordingly (should they have had a bad hole)? I.E. they are in effect posting a ‘net’ish’ score.

> This level of ‘trust’ strikes me as staggering and if suggested here would be laughed out of court.

 

Well, the new WHS seems to be quite happy with using only CH to determine ESC. So if a scratch golfer is playing the tournament TIPS at 7500 yards or forward tees at 5000'ish yards, every ESC is the same (vs par).

 

And whether the hole handicaps are established as an ordering of difficulty against par or the relative difficulty of a hole between bogey and scratch golfers - just ignore that difference.

 

This hardly seems a stretch to me.

 

dave

[mark m]

Just an FYI for some of the guys here:

I posted earlier in the thread info regarding posting hole by hole scores in our State Championships. This started last year (2018). Using the Golf Genius / USGA Tournament Management App. This app will show live scoring so fellow competitors, friends, family, and/or media can access it. Today we had a full field of 156 players going off in 3-somes. I asked and no one kept score for just 2 groups. All the others had a volunteer. I kept score again today. Using my thumb print to open the smart phone, it would take less than 2 seconds to post scores for 3 guys and hit save. Now I am 57 years old and use cheaters to read small print. I didn't have my readers and they weren't needed. I asked the official after play - when we signed cards - as he was comparing our official cards to the scores I had posted during play. How did I do? I made no errors. If I did, they would have been corrected by the official. Like I said before, using this app is quick, simple and easy.

It sounds like they are not going to hole by hole for posting scores to GHIN. At least for the first year. But I believe only a very few would have issues if it is adopted down the line.

 

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > I gather in GB&I there will be a reduction to the Course Handicap to the Playing Handicap. 95% for singles play. This to be used for prize allocation etc. CH will be used for all handicap calculations.

> > > I don't know what other National Associations will be doing

> > >

> >

> > Wow, that 95% is basically replacing the to-be-obsolete 0.96 multiplier "bonus for excellence". Except after the fact rather than baked into the index.

> >

> > Round and round and round we go...

>

> I don't know what your "bonus for excellence" was about or what you mean by "after the fact", but the recommended handicap allowances for different formats of play are applied after calculating your course handicap and result in your Playing Handicap i.e . the number of strokes you get on a particular course for a particular format. Their purpose isn't to reward excellence, but to provide equity for all players in a particular format. They are not included in the calculation of your Score Differential and so do not affect your Handicap Index after the event.

 

"Bonus for excellence" is USGA-speak for multiplying your average differentials by 0.96 to give a slight advantage to the lower-handicap players in any given game. That is then built-in to your Handicap Index and therefore to you eventual Course Handicap.

 

What you describe is a system where the Handicap Index and therefore Course Handicap reflects the full difference between players average differentials. Then you take 95% of the difference (which is for all intents equivalent to 96%) to allocate strokes.

 

The end result is the same, just using two different slightly complicated sounding methods for getting to (give or take 1%) exactly the same result.

 

I think that nicely summarizes the vaguely absurd musical-chairs aspects of some of this transition.

[Colin L]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"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

>

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to post this and apologies for having caused you to take that trouble. I know and understand the WHS in detail but a tired brain got totally bemused by North Butte's statement, __Simply publish the 'Course Rating divided by 113' and eliminate the whole issue__ the meaning of which was a mystery and remains a mystery. I shouldn't have responded to it as it just made thing worse.

And please don't anyone spend time trying to explain it. I'm more than content to stick to what the WHS is - and have the R&A/USGA Rules of Handicapping in front of me to tell me that - and don't have any more room in my brain to cope with North Butte's alternative universe.

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"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

> >

>

> Thanks for taking the trouble to post this and apologies for having caused you to take that trouble. I know and understand the WHS in detail but a tired brain got totally bemused by North Butte's statement, __Simply publish the 'Course Rating divided by 113' and eliminate the whole issue__ the meaning of which was a mystery and remains a mystery. I shouldn't have responded to it as it just made thing worse.

> And please don't anyone spend time trying to explain it. I'm more than content to stick to what the WHS is - and have the R&A/USGA Rules of Handicapping in front of me to tell me that - and don't have any more room in my brain to cope with North Butte's alternative universe.

 

There is exactly one number you need to know to convert a USGA Handicap Index plus a Course Rating into a Course Handicap. That number is the Slope Rating divided by 113.

 

The USGA should have published that number (Slope Rating divided by 113) in the first place instead of the Slope Rating which has no independent meaning.

 

If you can't understand that, well then I can't understand why not. It is a very simple thing.

 

IIRC it was you that asked in the first place what to tell people when asked about the 113. I'd suggest you simply say you don't know.