New World Handicaps 2020

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> If your argument is that the difference in the time and convenience to post is too minor to matter, I and others here are strongly disagreeing with you. Fortunately the USGA is not going this route.

 

I'm saying the effort is so small that it SHOULD not matter, based on my personal experience entering scores that way. I'm also suggesting that it may actually be easier and faster to enter hole by hole than it is to dot your card and correct your scores manually after the round, which WILL be required if you are going to follow the new rules.

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > If your argument is that the difference in the time and convenience to post is too minor to matter, I and others here are strongly disagreeing with you. Fortunately the USGA is not going this route.

>

> I'm saying the effort is so small that it SHOULD not matter, based on my personal experience entering scores that way. I'm also suggesting that it may actually be easier and faster to enter hole by hole than it is to dot your card and correct your scores manually after the round, which WILL be required if you are going to follow the new rules.

 

In addition to maybe easier and faster in some situations let's not forget absolutely more accurate. As I said earlier my guess is less players will modify their posting scores for ESC in the new system than did for the old system. It is unfortunate for the competitiveness of the game if that turns out to be true.

[North Butte]

The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:>

> > > If the published number is the result of dividing Slope Rating by 113, we can calculate our Course Handicap. But we need another number to calculate our Score Differential don't we? For that we need the result of dividing 11 3 by the Slope Rating in order to "de-slope". The Score Differential equation is,

> > > Score Differential = (113/Slope Rating) /(Adjusted Gross Score - Course rating - Playing Conditions Calculation)

> > >

> > > Replacing one number, the slope rating as we have it at the moment, with two numbers, slope rating divided by 113 and 113 divided by slope rating seems unhelpfully more complicated.

> > >

> >

> > Hopefully I can post this typo free...

> >

> > I believe you have typed the inverse of the Score Differential calcuation. The part with Score should be in the numerator.

> >

> > Using the example where Slope Rating is 130 and "multiplier" is 1.15 then here is how the differential formula looks under both scenarios:

> >

> > NOW

> > Score Differential = (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation) / (130/113)

> > or equivalently

> > Score Differential = (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation) * 113 / 130

> >

> > MY MODEST PROPOSAL

> > Score Differential = (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation) / 1.15

> >

> > If you'll plug in 90 for Adjusted Gross Score, 70 for Course Rating and 0 for Playing Conditions calculations, you'll see that all three forms above produce a differential of 17.4 (rounded off).

> >

> > The factor of 113 is invariant. It always has the same value no matter if used in differential calculations or to convert Handicap Index to Course Handicap.

>

> Oops, I have indeed mistyped the WHS Score Differential equation. It should be 'times' not 'divided by'.

> Score Differential = (113/slope rating) x (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation)

>

> With that formula you would, as I said, need two numbers. Each of these would hide a calculation i.e slope/113 and 113/slope. It's just a matter of opinion whether that is a good or an undesirable thing. I think it desirable to keep it transparent for those who need or wish to understand the workings. Changing the equation round for the score differential is workable, of course but I think it valuable to make the "sloping" and "de-sloping" processes clear.

 

I'm with @"North Butte" and @HatsForBats "Slope" as currently presented is really an intermediate number, not the [true slope](https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/slope.html "true slope") of the line between the scratch and bogey golfer or the SINGLE number you need to use to convert index to HC. Giving the final number makes it easier for people to comprehend what it means and do the calculation on their own. For transparency sake, the USGA, etc. can still explain how slope is determined (with the inclusion of bogey rating, 113, 5.381 for men, 4.24 for women) https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=24 BUT don't you think it makes more sense to give the final slope number rather than an intermediate number derived when going from bogey rating to slope (of the line between the scratch golfer and bogey golfer)?

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

 

My concern is not with players that stick to current static ESC when ESC switches to the variable NDB but I would want to see significant real world numbers before I would classify that as of no/little meaningful magnitiude.

 

My concern is more with the number of players that may abandon ESC altogether, or never attempt to post with any form of ESC at all, and just post their gross score instead.

[davep043]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

 

> I'm with @"North Butte" and @HatsForBats "Slope" as currently presented is really an intermediate number, not the [true slope](https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/slope.html "true slope") of the line between the scratch and bogey golfer or the SINGLE number you need to use to convert index to HC. Giving the final number makes it easier for people to comprehend what it means and do the calculation on their own.

 

First, In my experience very few players actually calculate their course handicap using a calculator of some kind, I think nearly all of them use an app or the handicap tables. For those who do their own calculations, and who are new to using the Slope system, the use of a single "multiplier" makes sense. For those of us who have been using Slope/113 for the last 30 years, introduction of a new term is as likely to be confusing as it is to be helpful.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

>

> My concern is not with players that stick to current static ESC when ESC switches to the variable NDB but I would want to see significant real world numbers before I would classify that as of no/little meaningful magnitiude.

>

> My concern is more with the number of players that may abandon ESC altogether, or never attempt to post with any form of ESC at all, and just post their gross score instead.

 

I suppose there are people out there who keep hacking for eight or ten strokes on a hole and who might, under such a scenario, post unadjusted scores that include a couple of huge numbers. I've never met anyone who I think would have any tendency to do that. Mostly because their ego always looking for a way out of claiming to have shot 100 or some such.

 

In my experience, far more people pick up before even reaching their ESC limit (or NDB limit) and post double bogey.

 

But you're imagining a bunch who are unwilling to do even a rough approximate to ESC/NDB score adjustment *and* who are going to voluntarily transcribe their hole by hole scores for every round they play. Imagine a Venn diagram and think about the overlap between hole by hole scorekeeping obsessives as one circle with can't quite figure out ESC clueless golfers as the other. The overlap must be tiny.

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

>

> > I'm with @"North Butte" and @HatsForBats "Slope" as currently presented is really an intermediate number, not the [true slope](https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/slope.html "true slope") of the line between the scratch and bogey golfer or the SINGLE number you need to use to convert index to HC. Giving the final number makes it easier for people to comprehend what it means and do the calculation on their own.

>

> First, In my experience very few players actually calculate their course handicap using a calculator of some kind, I think nearly all of them use an app or the handicap tables. For those who do their own calculations, and who are new to using the Slope system, the use of a single "multiplier" makes sense. For those of us who have been using Slope/113 for the last 30 years, introduction of a new term is as likely to be confusing as it is to be helpful.

>

>

 

Having managed a pickup league at my course it would have come in pretty hand on more than one occsasion for me. I don't think it would be hard to explain or understand for 'those of you'.

 

Those of you: 'Hey, what the heck is this new Factor number listed on the scorecard?'

Someone Else: 'Oh, you can multiply that number by your index to get your course (tee) handicap for any given round'.

Those of you: 'I can get that from my Handicap App without any multiplication needed on my part'

Someone Else: 'Yep'

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

> >

> > My concern is not with players that stick to current static ESC when ESC switches to the variable NDB but I would want to see significant real world numbers before I would classify that as of no/little meaningful magnitiude.

> >

> > My concern is more with the number of players that may abandon ESC altogether, or never attempt to post with any form of ESC at all, and just post their gross score instead.

>

> I suppose there are people out there who keep hacking for eight or ten strokes on a hole and who might, under such a scenario, post unadjusted scores that include a couple of huge numbers. I've never met anyone who I think would have any tendency to do that. Mostly because their ego always looking for a way out of claiming to have shot 100 or some such.

>

> In my experience, far more people pick up before even reaching their ESC limit (or NDB limit) and post double bogey.

>

> But you're imagining a bunch who are unwilling to do even a rough approximate to ESC/NDB score adjustment *and* who are going to voluntarily transcribe their hole by hole scores for every round they play. Imagine a Venn diagram and think about the overlap between hole by hole scorekeeping obsessives as one circle with can't quite figure out ESC clueless golfers as the other. The overlap must be tiny.

 

I would **guess** at least 50% of the players in my public course league don't understand or know about ESC. If the posting system forced them to post an overall score followed by hole by hole scores I would bet the number of players applying ESC correctly would go up significantly. You can explain it to them but many either don't understand or don't want to be bothered with it. If we want the system to work more properly they need to be forced into it.

[North Butte]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

> > >

> > > My concern is not with players that stick to current static ESC when ESC switches to the variable NDB but I would want to see significant real world numbers before I would classify that as of no/little meaningful magnitiude.

> > >

> > > My concern is more with the number of players that may abandon ESC altogether, or never attempt to post with any form of ESC at all, and just post their gross score instead.

> >

> > I suppose there are people out there who keep hacking for eight or ten strokes on a hole and who might, under such a scenario, post unadjusted scores that include a couple of huge numbers. I've never met anyone who I think would have any tendency to do that. Mostly because their ego always looking for a way out of claiming to have shot 100 or some such.

> >

> > In my experience, far more people pick up before even reaching their ESC limit (or NDB limit) and post double bogey.

> >

> > But you're imagining a bunch who are unwilling to do even a rough approximate to ESC/NDB score adjustment *and* who are going to voluntarily transcribe their hole by hole scores for every round they play. Imagine a Venn diagram and think about the overlap between hole by hole scorekeeping obsessives as one circle with can't quite figure out ESC clueless golfers as the other. The overlap must be tiny.

>

> I would **guess** at least 50% of the players in my public course league don't understand or know about ESC. If the posting system forced them to post an overall score followed by hole by hole scores I would bet the number of players applying ESC correctly would go up significantly. You can explain it to them but many either don't understand or don't want to be bothered with it. If we want the system to work more properly they need to be forced into it.

 

But the system isn't going to force them. And if the system tried to force them, a lot of them would post fewer if any rounds.

 

We're back now to the laundry list of ways various of us think USGA could build a better system. But no evidence to suggest any of these in their actual plans.

 

Like Dave and some of the others what you really seem to be brainstorming are ways of forcing a few hundred thousand golfers who basically don't give a damn about the finer details of the handicap system into acting as though they do suddenly give a damn. Can't work. They simply aren't interested and USGA most likely understands that.

 

[North Butte]

Here's my bottom line on the hole by hole thing. If you have a system that the majority of users can't be bothered to use properly because they perceive it as too complicated or too much trouble, you are not going to gain anything by making the system more complicated or more trouble to use. And telling someone to start transcribing 18 hole scores per round instead of just typing their score because basically "You've been doing it all wrong and this will make you do it right" is good way to take one satisfied GHIN subscriber into one highly annoyed GHIN subscriber in one easy step.

 

This all falls into the category of "the beatings will continue until morale improves", in terms of understanding human behavior.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > The effect of playing sticking with ESC instead of switching to NBD is unlikely to be of any meaningful magnitude. Maybe it makes somebody’s handicap a stroke too low or something. Trivial.

>

> My concern is not with players that stick to current static ESC when ESC switches to the variable NDB but I would want to see significant real world numbers before I would classify that as of no/little meaningful magnitiude.

>

> My concern is more with the number of players that may abandon ESC altogether, or never attempt to post with any form of ESC at all, and just post their gross score instead.

 

Posting gross score is a favored trick among many sandbaggers...as @"North Butte" said, vanity cappers tend to just pick up after double. While there would need to be some re-learning, net double is a more logical/accurate way to do ESC. As it stands now, if your index changes by 0.1 (or you play a course with a slope of 1 higher), your ESC score can go up by 2 on par 3s and a shot on par 4s. So on a standard par 72, this can mean a max ESC score 18 shots apart for two players whose index is only 0.1 different (one playing as a 9, the other a 10).

 

> @davep043 said:

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

>

> > I'm with @"North Butte" and @HatsForBats "Slope" as currently presented is really an intermediate number, not the [true slope](https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/slope.html "true slope") of the line between the scratch and bogey golfer or the SINGLE number you need to use to convert index to HC. Giving the final number makes it easier for people to comprehend what it means and do the calculation on their own.

>

> First, In my experience very few players actually calculate their course handicap using a calculator of some kind, I think nearly all of them use an app or the handicap tables. For those who do their own calculations, and who are new to using the Slope system, the use of a single "multiplier" makes sense. For those of us who have been using Slope/113 for the last 30 years, introduction of a new term is as likely to be confusing as it is to be helpful.

>

>

ALL A PLAYER WOULD NEED TO KNOW IS: **To calculate your course handicap, multiple your index by the Slope of the tees you are playing (and round to the nearest whole number).**

 

Yes, any change confuses some people at first, but I recall you saying elsewhere that most adapt pretty quickly (particularly when the change is more logical). Yes, most don't compute HC in their head or with a calculator, but more could if true slope (i.e. 1.15) was used and apps and tables could be easily updated, so no change for those who use those.

 

FWIW, You don't necessarily have to rename the term "slope". Rather, just publish actual slope rather than an unnecessarily complicated intermediate calculation.

 

If this change was made, my guess is that most wouldn't notice or wouldn't care. For those that pay more attention, they would eventual wonder why it was done the more complicated way for 30 years. Overall, a higher % of players would actual end up knowing what slope means and how to apply it on their own.

 

For those that wanted to know more...

Here's my mathematical definition of golf "Slope": (Bogey Rating - Course Rating)/Bogey Golfer Divisor

 

The USGA can continue to define their current definitions of Bogey Rating and Course Rating. For Bogey Golfer Divisor, it would be great if they could simply use the current definitions of bogey golfer (20 Handicap for Males, 24 for Females), but it appears to me that the USGA uses ~21 for males & ~26.6 females...I put ~ because I see some inconsistency in how the slopes of some courses I checked were rounded. There would be no need to use 113, 5.381 or 4.24 at all, but they could still discuss the history of the slope rating if they wanted to.

 

Comparing systems: Calculation of slope and course handicap assuming a Course Rating of 72 and Bogey Rating of 96 for male with a 10.0 index

USGA:

1. (96-72) = 24;

2. Multiple by 5.381 and round to get slope of 129;

3. Multiply player index by 129

4. and divide by 113 to get 11.42 which rounds to 11 course handicap.

Alternatively :

1. (95-72) = 24;

2. Divide by 21 and round to get slope of 1.14;

3. Multiply player index by 1.14 to get 11.4 which rounds to 11 course handicap.

 

So, 1 less step AND I can explain that 21 is the standard differential for a bogey golfer on a course with a 1.00 slope (aka a course with a 113 slope in the current system). Can you explain to me where 5.381 comes from or what it relates to? (See spoiler for an answer)

 

@"North Butte" my best guess as to why Knuth (& the USGA) made the system more complicated than necessary is that his baseline of thinking was that 1.13 represented the slope of the line between the scratch and bogey golfer SCORE on an "average" American course INSTEAD of using the slope of the line between the COURSE HANDICAP of a scratch and bogey golfer. The system you propose, where a 113 slope course would become a 1.00 slope course goes to directly how indexes and course handicaps are used rather than getting caught up in the numbers behind the development of the Slope System.

 

>! http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html The USGA coined the term which numerically describes the difference in course rating difficulty between bogey and scratch players as the "Slope Rating," which is a second dimension in handicapping. Slope Rating is the slope of a regession line of total score versus USGA Handicap for a particular golf course. The Y-intercept is the USGA Course Rating which is the better half score average of scratch golfers. The slope of the scores line of an average course has been observed to be 1.13 and USGA Slope Rating is referenced as 113 to deal in whole numbers...A "USGA Slope Rating" is determined by multiplying the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating by 5.381. This constant will produce Slope Ratings of 113 when the differential between the Bogey Rating and Course Rating is 21.0 (The expected difference in score due to "bonus for excellence"). A Slope Rating of 113 also is the empirically derived average value on standard American golf courses.

 

 

[North Butte]

[deleted]

 

Sorry, decided not to repeat myself again.

 

I'm out.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > But why did ESC even need to change? It was easier, didn't require hole by hole decision points - it was universal based on your CH in increments of 10, probably a max 7 for the average male golfer. Sure the new method is not tough but will require an additional step to drop blows on the card and calculate hole by hole.

>

> My theory? It's because they needed to make at least a few cosmetic changes on the USGA side as a sop to the CONGU folks who were revamping their entire system.

>

> There's no actual reason for the change other than as a "compromise" (measly as it is) between the USGA and CONGU previous methods.

 

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > But why did ESC even need to change? It was easier, didn't require hole by hole decision points - it was universal based on your CH in increments of 10, probably a max 7 for the average male golfer. Sure the new method is not tough but will require an additional step to drop blows on the card and calculate hole by hole.

>

> Once you accept the idea of a worldwide system, you realize that the maximum hole score had to change for one or more of the existing systems. Perhaps NDB was selected because around the world more people understand the idea of Stableford scoring, and hence understand net double bogey, than understand the USGA style ESC.

>

 

I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

[James the Hogan Fan]

For mine they should have just said pick up gross triple. No calcs, no catagories, just pick up a gross triple and be done with it. Sometimes thats a net double, sometimes it isn't. But of course it breaks down when people are getting multiple strokes on a hole, so NBD it is.

[CaseyC]

>

 

 

 

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

>

> I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

 

I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @CaseyC said:

> >

>

>

>

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

> >

> > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

>

> I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

>

>

 

I always keep my own card. Too easy for miscommunication so having a backup is prudent. I don't post h-b-h currently, but won't find it onerous except if the GHIN mobile apps continue not offering that option.

[North Butte]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> For mine they should have just said pick up gross triple. No calcs, no catagories, just pick up a gross triple and be done with it. Sometimes thats a net double, sometimes it isn't. But of course it breaks down when people are getting multiple strokes on a hole, so NBD it is.

 

Yes if they had given a moment’s thought to compliance issues it would have been gross double/triple/quad depending on handicap index. It would work out virtually the same in the long run and be trivial for people to understand and use.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> >

> > >

> > > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

> >

> > I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

> >

> >

>

> I always keep my own card. Too easy for miscommunication so having a backup is prudent. I don't post h-b-h currently, but won't find it onerous except if the GHIN mobile apps continue not offering that option.

 

Us> @CaseyC said:

> >

>

>

>

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

> >

> > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

>

> I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

>

>

 

The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

> The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

 

I understand. Just pointing out that for me it wouldn't be a big deal if they required h-b-h posting. I also think it is a bit lame that the mobile versions of GHIN don't provide the option. Of course I think most web and app software is pretty lame, but that is probably just me.

[dlygrisse]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @CaseyC said:

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

> > >

> > > I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I always keep my own card. Too easy for miscommunication so having a backup is prudent. I don't post h-b-h currently, but won't find it onerous except if the GHIN mobile apps continue not offering that option.

>

> Us> @CaseyC said:

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> >

> > >

> > > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

> >

> > I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

> >

> >

>

> The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

 

I used to play at a club that required hole by hole, this was before the app was released and you used the computer in the pro shop. (i remember writing it on the big poster in the hallway before computers as well :) ) They did it for one season to track hole scores and re-calculate the courses hole handicaps. One hole went from being about the 9 handicap to #1 or #2.

To do this you wouldn't need every score, a large sample would do the trick I would think.

[North Butte]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @CaseyC said:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

> > > >

> > > > I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I always keep my own card. Too easy for miscommunication so having a backup is prudent. I don't post h-b-h currently, but won't find it onerous except if the GHIN mobile apps continue not offering that option.

> >

> > Us> @CaseyC said:

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I think both of your answers are good. Probably one or the other or something in between. Yes I get that there was probably a need for compromise with RoW but I don't like introducing something that is even slightly more complicated and error prone and I think we will see those issues. Regardless it's an extra step for me and most I play with-- As example, only about 25% of my rounds are Match Play and the other 75% are either stroke play for low net with the guys on the weekend, or Par points in league. ESC worked for any of those formats. NDB is going to create extra steps, more opportunity to do it wrong, have to keep your own card, add dots. Or the scorer is going to have to pass it around your foursome, and there are going to be times that you'll need to track him down to analyze hole by hole. --- I see way more opportunity for people to do it wrong or simply just post less frequently. Sure NDB is easy if you're a zero, 18 , 36, but anyone in between it's more work, more errors. So other than compromise or selecting the same process as RoW for ESC/NDB, I don't see how it will help indexes be more accurate. May even result in the opposite.

> > >

> > > I think keeping your own card and entering hole by hole is the way to eliminate the most mistakes.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

>

> I used to play at a club that required hole by hole, this was before the app was released and you used the computer in the pro shop. (i remember writing it on the big poster in the hallway before computers as well :) ) They did it for one season to track hole scores and re-calculate the courses hole handicaps. One hole went from being about the 9 handicap to #1 or #2.

> To do this you wouldn't need every score, a large sample would do the trick I would think.

 

I've belonged to a couple different clubs who asked everyone to hand in paper scorecards for a couple months for that purpose. One of them was ages ago, the more recent one I remember everyone was a bit let down with how puny the tweaks to the stroke holes ended up. Everybody had their own favorite theory about what holes out to be higher or lower but at the end of the process very little changed. D'Oh!

[davep043]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> >

> > The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

>

> I understand. Just pointing out that for me it wouldn't be a big deal if they required h-b-h posting. I also think it is a bit lame that the mobile versions of GHIN don't provide the option. Of course I think most web and app software is pretty lame, but that is probably just me.

The package for the club's handicap computer allows the option of hole-by-hole posting, and you can do hole-by-hole if you use the eGolfer feature on the regular Ghin website. In both cases, the system corrects for ESC. I don't think it would take a ton of effort to enable the phone app to do the same thing, but I'm no expert. For those who actually want to get their handicap scores right, considering the change to a different max hole score, enabling the app might allow them to double check their NDB corrections. It would require the clubs to update their course information, input the par and handicap order for each hole if its not already done, but that's easily accomplished too.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @davep043 said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > >

> > > The USGA has already said there won't be a requirement to enter hole by hole. The ghin app doesn't have that option and they also said we'd continue to be able to use the same posting apps as we do today.

> >

> > I understand. Just pointing out that for me it wouldn't be a big deal if they required h-b-h posting. I also think it is a bit lame that the mobile versions of GHIN don't provide the option. Of course I think most web and app software is pretty lame, but that is probably just me.

> The package for the club's handicap computer allows the option of hole-by-hole posting, and you can do hole-by-hole if you use the eGolfer feature on the regular Ghin website. In both cases, the system corrects for ESC. I don't think it would take a ton of effort to enable the phone app to do the same thing, but I'm no expert. For those who actually want to get their handicap scores right, considering the change to a different max hole score, enabling the app might allow them to double check their NDB corrections. It would require the clubs to update their course information, input the par and handicap order for each hole if its not already done, but that's easily accomplished too.

 

Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

[davep043]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @davep043 said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

> I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

>

 

I just tried it, too. Oddly, no matter what high score I enter, the ESC score is always 6. Put in 8 on a par 5, ESC = 6. Put in 6 on a par 3, ESC = 6. My index is +1.1 right now so none of that is correct. I can try asking our handicap chair. See if she has admin privelege.

[North Butte]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

> > I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

> >

>

> I just tried it, too. Oddly, no matter what high score I enter, the ESC score is always 6. Put in 8 on a par 5, ESC = 6. Put in 6 on a par 3, ESC = 6. My index is +1.1 right now so none of that is correct. I can try asking our handicap chair. See if she has admin privelege.

 

Sounds like it thinks the entire course is Par 4's.

 

Does your course show any information in the "Par" box for each hole?

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

> > > I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

> > >

> >

> > I just tried it, too. Oddly, no matter what high score I enter, the ESC score is always 6. Put in 8 on a par 5, ESC = 6. Put in 6 on a par 3, ESC = 6. My index is +1.1 right now so none of that is correct. I can try asking our handicap chair. See if she has admin privelege.

>

> Sounds like it thinks the entire course is Par 4's.

>

> Does your course show any information in the "Par" box for each hole?

 

It shows no information at all. No par, yardage, etc... . It appears that each course is responsible for uploading the proper info into GHIN. If that is true, I am **not** surprised our info is **not** uploaded.

[North Butte]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

> > > > I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I just tried it, too. Oddly, no matter what high score I enter, the ESC score is always 6. Put in 8 on a par 5, ESC = 6. Put in 6 on a par 3, ESC = 6. My index is +1.1 right now so none of that is correct. I can try asking our handicap chair. See if she has admin privelege.

> >

> > Sounds like it thinks the entire course is Par 4's.

> >

> > Does your course show any information in the "Par" box for each hole?

>

> It shows no information at all. No par, yardage, etc... . It appears that each course is responsible for uploading the proper info into GHIN. If that is true, I am **not** surprised our info is **not** uploaded.

 

It must just default to "double bogey equals 6" when it doesn't know a hole's par.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > > Dave, do you have to fill in the course specific information when posting h-b-h using GHIN eGolfer?

> > > > > I just tried it, using a couple of courses I play regularly, and the information is in there already for those. The yardage, par, handicap index don't show up in the appropriate boxes, but when I entered a few high scores the ESC corrections worked the way they should. If they don't work for your course, you can ask someone with admin status to go into GHIN and enter the course data.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I just tried it, too. Oddly, no matter what high score I enter, the ESC score is always 6. Put in 8 on a par 5, ESC = 6. Put in 6 on a par 3, ESC = 6. My index is +1.1 right now so none of that is correct. I can try asking our handicap chair. See if she has admin privelege.

> > >

> > > Sounds like it thinks the entire course is Par 4's.

> > >

> > > Does your course show any information in the "Par" box for each hole?

> >

> > It shows no information at all. No par, yardage, etc... . It appears that each course is responsible for uploading the proper info into GHIN. If that is true, I am **not** surprised our info is **not** uploaded.

>

> It must just default to "double bogey equals 6" when it doesn't know a hole's par.

 

Another reason to be singularly unimpressed with app developers and GHIN specifically. The proper response should be the generation of an error message stating that course information is unavailable and ESC cannot be computed, but I digress.