New World Handicaps 2020

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> >

> > I'm here to tell you, for the vast majority of those paid subscribers, requiring hole by hole entry of scores is going to be infuriating and it's going to cause way more "errors" or omissions than it could ever cure.

> >

>

> I believe you are wrong.

>

>

 

It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

[CaseyC]

> @LICC said:

 

> It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

 

It is not infuriating and won't be a big deal

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> >

> > >

> > > I'm here to tell you, for the vast majority of those paid subscribers, requiring hole by hole entry of scores is going to be infuriating and it's going to cause way more "errors" or omissions than it could ever cure.

> > >

> >

> > I believe you are wrong.

> >

> >

>

> It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

 

Did you try it, like i suggested above? Are you infuriated right now? Yeah, it will cause a few people to opt out. But for people who care about having a handicap, it will become a very minor annoyance very quickly, and after a month it will seem completely natural. Just like the knee-high drop.

[CaseyC]

Does anyone remember how handicaps were handled before computers and smartphones? Where people "infuriated" when they suddenly had to do more than before?

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @LICC said:

>

> > It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

>

> It is not infuriating and won't be a big deal

 

Like I said, tin-eared. Some here seem to think that all golfers go play at their club, hang out after every round and have beers, review their rounds, mosey over to a computer, spend time entering their scores, and la la there is your day. Most golfers don't experience this. Most play, come off the course, punch their score into their GHIN phone app, and move on. Hole-by-hole entering of scores will annoy the hell out of people. It won't happen.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @CaseyC said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm here to tell you, for the vast majority of those paid subscribers, requiring hole by hole entry of scores is going to be infuriating and it's going to cause way more "errors" or omissions than it could ever cure.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I believe you are wrong.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

>

> Did you try it, like i suggested above? Are you infuriated right now? Yeah, it will cause a few people to opt out. But for people who care about having a handicap, it will become a very minor annoyance very quickly, and after a month it will seem completely natural. Just like the knee-high drop.

 

I have not played with one person who cared about the knee-high drop. At most it was looked at as odd but no one opposed it as being burdensome. Apples and oranges.

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @CaseyC said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm here to tell you, for the vast majority of those paid subscribers, requiring hole by hole entry of scores is going to be infuriating and it's going to cause way more "errors" or omissions than it could ever cure.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I believe you are wrong.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

>

> Did you try it, like i suggested above? Are you infuriated right now? Yeah, it will cause a few people to opt out. But for people who care about having a handicap, it will become a very minor annoyance very quickly, and after a month it will seem completely natural. Just like the knee-high drop.

 

The difference is, someone who has no particular interest in the Rules can go ahead dropping just like before. He can totally ignore the "knee high drop" and if they guys he plays with don't care, it's like it doesn't even exist.

 

If they were to require hole-by-hole posting, I would take "require" to mean that one day every golfer on GHIN will see a screen that refuses to accept his score. Instead it's going to give him a list of 18 blanks to be filled in.

 

Lots of people are going to say the heck with that and just not post. It's not something they can continue as before. That's the entire problem. Your just shrugging and writing off some portion of current handicap holders as not being worthy of the system is fine as a signal of your True Believer bona fides. But I don't think USGA's long-term interests are best served by taking such a hard line.

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> Does anyone remember how handicaps were handled before computers and smartphones? Where people "infuriated" when they suddenly had to do more than before?

 

Back in the day, the only people who had handicaps were those belonging to clubs or semi-private courses where they turned in signed scorecards and let staff or volunteers handle the data entry. USGA went away from the club-based approach in search of appealing to many more subscribers. I'd say there are probably 10x as many handicap holders today as there were in 1990.

 

Are you seriously thinking they ought to return to that kind of system?

 

I would be 100% in favor of limiting "Official USGA Handicap" to only those handicap holders and only those scores which are accompanied by a signed scorecard or some electronic equivalent. And actually peer reviewed, not peer reviewed for the 2% of scores posted by someone whose club does peer review, but 100% peer reviewed.

 

The number of handicap holders would be about 1/10th the number of scores in the system would be maybe 1/20th or 1/50th but a USGA Handicap would actually be what it claims to be. But you can't create that out of thin air by simply having all the current subscribers start typing in 18 individual hole scores. That's peeing in the ocean.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> The number of handicap holders would be about 1/10th the number of scores in the system would be maybe 1/20th or 1/50th but a USGA Handicap would actually be what it claims to be. But you can't create that out of thin air by simply having all the current subscribers start typing in 18 individual hole scores. That's peeing in the ocean.

 

Did you read or respond to suggestions that the current change is only the first step in a long process? The USGA going to something like the European model, where only competition and a small number of attested casual scores count for handicap, WOULD turn away a large number of people if it was instituted all at once. But incremental changes just might accomplish the same end while retaining a lot more players in the system. It might not be peeing in the ocean as much as a logical first step in a long process.

 

The coming changes require every golf culture to adapt. CONGU will no longer have the ratchet system, they will move closer to those who use some kind of averaging. Max hole score means those of us in the US will move towards the Europeans, with a hole score that is consistent with those who play a lot of Stableford, and are smart enough to dot their own cards. The logical next step, if it happens, is likely to move us all towards more uniform posting of scores. Perhaps match play will be added in the UK and Europe, perhaps more detailed attestation of casual scores will be required in the US. I'm just speculating, but I think its reasonable for the various golf cultures and handicapping authorities to move towards one another, each one compromising in some way. And each step will be treated as "the sky is falling" by some who dislike the changes.

 

[DLiver]

This is such a guy thread lol. Getting all worked up about something that may not even happen. and exaggerating every point to a ridiculous degree.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> >

> > >

> > > I'm here to tell you, for the vast majority of those paid subscribers, requiring hole by hole entry of scores is going to be infuriating and it's going to cause way more "errors" or omissions than it could ever cure.

> > >

> >

> > I believe you are wrong.

> >

> >

>

> It will definitely be infuriating and will cause people to not bother. There is no way the USGA does this.

 

Even for people like me, that like being precise and follow the posting rules, will likely post less. In my case because I may forget to post later since I won't be able to do it on the spot in less than 15 seconds like I can now when posting a single score. Or because I don't have the card. The less diligent, like most, will simply forget to post later or use it as an excuse. I don't get how some don't understand that posting more numbers to get the same thing we have now isn't an issue. More time or more errors. It's bewildering.

[davep043]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> I don't get how some don't understand that posting more numbers to get the same thing we have now isn't an issue. More time or more errors. It's bewildering.

 

And here is where we simply won't agree. I don't get how some people think that adding 30 seconds to your posting is such a huge imposition. They don't understand that posting hole scores, and letting the computer do the addition, and the corrections for max hole score, has the potential to reduce errors. Its bewildering how avidly they oppose change.

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> Back in the day, the only people who had handicaps were those belonging to clubs or semi-private courses where they turned in signed scorecards and let staff or volunteers handle the data entry. USGA went away from the club-based approach in search of appealing to many more subscribers. I'd say there are probably 10x as many handicap holders today as there were in 1990.

>

 

So by requiring more work, the USGA got more people with handicaps? People weren't infuriated that they had to do more work themselves?

 

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > I don't get how some don't understand that posting more numbers to get the same thing we have now isn't an issue. More time or more errors. It's bewildering.

>

> And here is where we simply won't agree. I don't get how some people think that adding 30 seconds to your posting is such a huge imposition. They don't understand that posting hole scores, and letting the computer do the addition, and the corrections for max hole score, has the potential to reduce errors. Its bewildering how avidly they oppose change.

 

Change that needlessly makes the process more time-consuming- yes, that is change that should be opposed. And please stop with your 30-seconds nonsense.

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > I don't get how some don't understand that posting more numbers to get the same thing we have now isn't an issue. More time or more errors. It's bewildering.

>

> And here is where we simply won't agree. I don't get how some people think that adding 30 seconds to your posting is such a huge imposition. They don't understand that posting hole scores, and letting the computer do the addition, and the corrections for max hole score, has the potential to reduce errors. Its bewildering how avidly they oppose change.

 

And it's bewildering to me that you don't understand the types of "errors" there are in applying max hole scores. The guys I play with pick up, regardless of the course handicap, instead of ever putting for double bogey. If they were to enter hole by hole scores, they are going to write down gross double bogey on all those holes. Regardless of whether they are a 0-9 course handicap, regardless of if the system changes to "net double", regardless of anything. As far as they are concerned, for handicap purposes if it's a Par 4 and you don't make 5 or better, it's just "put me down for 6".

 

That sort of thing is not going to change if you have type in those 6's instead of just including them in their 18-hole "score". The problem isn't addition errors, the problem is the great masses of golfers haven't neither the desire or the inclination to accord with the USGA's picayune and (to them) obscure procedures for creating pseudo-scores for posting.

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> > Back in the day, the only people who had handicaps were those belonging to clubs or semi-private courses where they turned in signed scorecards and let staff or volunteers handle the data entry. USGA went away from the club-based approach in search of appealing to many more subscribers. I'd say there are probably 10x as many handicap holders today as there were in 1990.

> >

>

> So by requiring more work, the USGA got more people with handicaps? People weren't infuriated that they had to do more work themselves?

>

>

 

Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

[North Butte]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> >

> > > Back in the day, the only people who had handicaps were those belonging to clubs or semi-private courses where they turned in signed scorecards and let staff or volunteers handle the data entry. USGA went away from the club-based approach in search of appealing to many more subscribers. I'd say there are probably 10x as many handicap holders today as there were in 1990.

> > >

> >

> > So by requiring more work, the USGA got more people with handicaps? People weren't infuriated that they had to do more work themselves?

> >

> >

>

> Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

 

That was very much the assumption of the system prior to 1990-something. USGA's origin was as an association of private golf clubs. The handicap system in its original form was a service provided to private golf clubs.

 

Now it's simply a hodgepodge of anything and everything that a golfer wants to type into GHIN.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > I don't get how some don't understand that posting more numbers to get the same thing we have now isn't an issue. More time or more errors. It's bewildering.

>

> And here is where we simply won't agree. I don't get how some people think that adding 30 seconds to your posting is such a huge imposition. They don't understand that posting hole scores, and letting the computer do the addition, and the corrections for max hole score, has the potential to reduce errors. Its bewildering how avidly they oppose change.

 

Because it's not just 30 seconds additional (or whatever the real time). It is a big change in scorecard logistics. Now everyone will have to keep their own instead of one per group or they will have to hand the card off to each other. Big deal for guys that key later and don't have the card. It's an Increase in workload for clubs that enter scores for their members or during tournaments. Increase in errors keying more digits.

 

Trivializing this change is akin to shutting down credit card readers and saying "well it's only 16 digits you need to key."

[CaseyC]

@"North Butte" said:

. If they were to enter hole by hole scores, they are going to write down gross double bogey on all those holes. Regardless of whether they are a 0-9 course handicap, regardless of if the system changes to "net double", regardless of anything. As far as they are concerned, for handicap purposes if it's a Par 4 and you don't make 5 or better, it's just "put me down for 6".

>

Then they will end up with a vanity handicap. No biggie

 

 

[CaseyC]

> @LICC said:

 

> Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

The hundred or so members at my club don't find it infuriating and have been doing it for years.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> @"North Butte" said:

> . If they were to enter hole by hole scores, they are going to write down gross double bogey on all those holes. Regardless of whether they are a 0-9 course handicap, regardless of if the system changes to "net double", regardless of anything. As far as they are concerned, for handicap purposes if it's a Par 4 and you don't make 5 or better, it's just "put me down for 6".

> >

> Then they will end up with a vanity handicap. No biggie

 

The same “vanity cap” they get today with just posting one number.

 

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

To me, the players who matter are the ones who do their best to play in accordance with the rules, and who care enough to try to post their scores in accordance with the rules. I don't care where they play, or at what level of skill they play. The job of the Ruling Bodies isn't to make rules for those who aren't going to follow the rules anyway, whether its the rules of golf, or the rules of handicapping.

> @CaseyC said:

> . If they were to enter hole by hole scores, they are going to write down gross double bogey on all those holes. Regardless of whether they are a 0-9 course handicap, regardless of if the system changes to "net double", regardless of anything. As far as they are concerned, for handicap purposes if it's a Par 4 and you don't make 5 or better, it's just "put me down for 6".

> Then they will end up with a vanity handicap. No biggie

I agree with @CaseyC I have no issue with players who choose to cheat themselves out of handicap strokes, whether they do it intentionally, or through ignorance of the rules. Again, if they're not going to follow the handicap rules, why should the handicapping system take their concerns seriously? I'll just make sure I don't select one of these guys as a partner.

 

 

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

>

> The same “vanity cap” they get today with just posting one number.

>

 

Why should we worry about people who don't follow the rules now?

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> >

> > The same “vanity cap” they get today with just posting one number.

> >

>

> Why should we worry about people who don't follow the rules now?

 

Well in that case I'm confused about the whole deal.

 

Your lot already enter their scores hole by hole. And now you say that you're not worried about my bunch who don't follow the rules.

 

So what, exactly, is the supposed improvement supposed to apply to? You already have hole-by-hole entry. And hole-by-hole won't do my guys any good. The whole thing is a "solution" in search of a "problem" then, isn't it?

 

It's always strange to me when people with the option of doing things exactly like they want to do them demands changes to the system. Why do you care that my guys are just typing in one score? It does not affect you in the slightest. Yet you are dead-set on the idea that the total score posting option must be eliminated for them.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> Yet you are dead-set on the idea that the total score posting option must be eliminated for them.

 

That is not even close to being accurate. A few people complained that the new maximum hole score was way too complicated for normal people to understand, "nobody" would be willing to actually "dot" their own card and do the corrections properly. The potential to require hole-by-hole posting was suggested as a method of taking that max hole score correction out of the hands of the normal people and putting it in the hands of the computer. I haven't seen anyone say that h-b-h is the only right way, only that it has the potential to address a potential problem. Of course, the same people who see the change to the maximum hole score as a significant issue also see hole-by-hole posting as a significant issue.

[North Butte]

I wonder how much it would have skewed handicaps in the long run if ESC had originally been simplified down to:

 

If your index is in the single digits (9.9 or less) then your max is double bogey.

 

If your index is double digits (10.0 or more) then your max is triple bogey.

 

I know that would lower handicaps for the guys not breaking 100 but for everyone else I'll be it would have ended up with handicaps give or take a stroke for 99% of the golfers in the world. And no need for dotting cards, figuring course handicaps, remembers five different maxes (double bogey, 7, 8, 9, 10) and all that.

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @LICC said:

>

> > Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

> The hundred or so members at my club don't find it infuriating and have been doing it for years.

>

>

 

Thanks for verifying my point.

[North Butte]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @LICC said:

> >

> > > Do you think that everyone who plays golf plays at a private club? Or that they are the only ones who should matter?

> > The hundred or so members at my club don't find it infuriating and have been doing it for years.

> >

> >

>

> Thanks for verifying my point.

 

There's a lot of things that work perfectly well for 100 guys at a private club that won't work at all for the thousand or so golfers who might show up in any given year at my local muni. A private club with 100 members doesn't need tee times, for example. Try telling the rest of the world that they ought to give up tee times and just let things sort themselves out on the day.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I really have to wonder the compelling and mathematical logic behind changing ESC? It was simple and it wasn't necessary to know how many strokes per hole everyone got unless they were match play. Yes, yes I get it, it's still simple, but not as simple as ESC, so why change?

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> I wonder how much it would have skewed handicaps in the long run if ESC had originally been simplified down to:

>

> If your index is in the single digits (9.9 or less) then your max is double bogey.

>

> If your index is double digits (10.0 or more) then your max is triple bogey.

>

> I know that would lower handicaps for the guys not breaking 100 but for everyone else I'll be it would have ended up with handicaps give or take a stroke for 99% of the golfers in the world. And no need for dotting cards, figuring course handicaps, remembers five different maxes (double bogey, 7, 8, 9, 10) and all that.

 

When first introduced in 1993, the ESC maximum for handicaps 9 or less was 6. That seemed pretty simple, a single number for you, depending on your course handicap. The following year it was changed to double. The introduction of ESC got away from the previous system, which did rely on strokes over par, and on your course handicap. Now the upcoming limits are going back to considering par and handicap strokes on each hole, but will be virtually no change for most golfers around the world. If you play net stableford, this is second-nature to you. Its only those of us in the USGA system who will see a significant change. I don't know how different choice would have influenced handicaps. I do know that when the change occurred in 1993, higher handicaps went up by most of a stroke, mid-caps went up a bit less, and single-digits went down by a tiny bit.

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1790425/new-world-handicaps-2020#latest