New World Handicaps 2020

[North Butte]

That start in 1993 corresponds to my introduction to the game and I know "ESC" was for whatever reason treated as a four-letter word everywhere I went during my early years in the game.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

 

I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

 

dave

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> That start in 1993 corresponds to my introduction to the game and I know "ESC" was for whatever reason treated as a four-letter word everywhere I went during my early years in the game.

 

I imagine it was much the same as it is now, people in general don't like change. I HOPE the upcoming changes are for the best, I hope they're part of a longer process to take the best parts of each system and make them universal, but I do understand that change is difficult. What becomes most amusing is that the changes that affect us in the US, like the change to the max hole score, means we will start to do things the way the folks someplace else have done them forever. Similarly, different parts of the WHS will mean other parts of the world will face something completely new that WE have been doing for decades. Neither of us understand the difficulties that the other side of the world sees as so disturbing.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> I really have no 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?

 

One thing that I would say regarding a change is that a 18 CH golfer taking a 7 on a 600 yard par 5 or taking a 7 on a 120 yard par 3 (both being 'pick up holes') seems strange to my way of thinking.

 

dave

[North Butte]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

>

> I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

>

> dave

 

~~I believe you mean the July roll-out.~~

 

~~Oops, I mean the August roll-out.~~

 

Oops, I meant the September roll-out...

 

P.S. Sorry, I've just been DYING for a chance to use the new Strikethrough markup.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

>

> I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

>

> dave

 

The devil is in the details. Should be interesting to see how badly the USGA flops around this time.

[North Butte]

I believe I'm on record as predicting that, given how much of the supposedly unified World system is optional, the USGA will make a few bits of window-dressing numerical or detail changes (8-of-20 and no 0.96 instead of 10-of-20 times 0.96) and not much else.

 

The only thing I consider still up in the air is whether they go forward with net double bogey replacing ESC.

 

All the important stuff like non-comp rounds, attestation, etc. are obviously being kicked down the road. So Rest-Of-World get slope and course ratings while USA gets 8-of-20. That's a fair exchange, innit? An honest meeting in the middle?

[LICC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > I really have no 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?

>

> One thing that I would say regarding a change is that a 18 CH golfer taking a 7 on a 600 yard par 5 or taking a 7 on a 120 yard par 3 (both being 'pick up holes') seems strange to my way of thinking.

>

> dave

 

The new system for a max score is fine (although could have been even easier if they just went double bogey for 0-9 handicaps, triple max for 10-19, 4 over par for above). It's the entering scores hole-by-hole suggestion that is loopy.

[mark m]

> @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?

 

Hi Casey,

 

Regarding your first question - here is basic timeline and I apologize if it's not 100% accurate. But it's fairly close.

* Prior to 1991 scores were (snail) mailed in. After play you would drop a score card, or record your score on sheet kept in the pro-shop. The courses would mail in the new scores every two weeks. A few days later the Golf Association would do the calculations and mail back these huge rolled print outs which had the new handicap "cards" (paper), with perforations, which would be separated and listed in alpha order in a box for the members to take when they came in next. Included in the mail for the handicap chairman (or pro) was a log of transactions and an alpha list of the members showing their handicaps and another one by Index (low to high). Most courses would post these lists on a bulletin board. Our handicap chairman at this time was a Board member who worked in the pro shop and he handled all of this stuff and really not much else.

* I believe my Men's Club - at a privately owned course opened to the public - purchased our first computer for score posting purposes in 1991. I may be off a year either way. Scores were then transmitted over the internet (dial-up connection). The Golf Association continued to mail the transition logs and handicap cards/labels for about another 10 years (early 2000's?) or so. At that point they created a small printer to allow for handicap labels to be printed from the score posting computer and the Club Administators could print any reports they needed from the computer. So somewhere around this time frame they stopped mailing out any reports or handicap labels.

* I was elected to serve a 3 year term on the Board of Directors in the fall of 1993. The Golf Association asked all clubs to send their Handicap Chair to a handicap seminar in (I think) 1994. I attended this meeting. They asked all club to begin to post 'T' (tournament) scores for a few select tournaments each year, they talked about peer review, and they asked clubs to do a lot more to educate their members on the system. We (the committees) did all of it. We started using TPP (which came with the GHIN software) to run our tournaments and began posting 'T' scores in 1994 or 1995. My club has posted T scores every year since.

The best innovations since the mid 2000's have been the continued improvements to TPP/Golf Genius, the USGA Tournament Management app (Golf Genius again), and the GHIN app for smart phones.

Hope this helps.

[North Butte]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @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?

>

> Hi Casey,

>

> Regarding your first question - here is basic timeline and I apologize if it's not 100% accurate. But it's fairly close.

> * Prior to 1991 scores were (snail) mailed in. After play you would drop a score card, or record your score on sheet kept in the pro-shop. The courses would mail in the new scores every two weeks. A few days later the Golf Association would do the calculations and mail back these huge rolled print outs which had the new handicap "cards" (paper), with perforations, which would be separated and listed in alpha order in a box for the members to take when they came in next. Included in the mail for the handicap chairman (or pro) was a log of transactions and an alpha list of the members showing their handicaps and another one by Index (low to high). Most courses would post these lists on a bulletin board. Our handicap chairman at this time was a Board member who worked in the pro shop and he handled all of this stuff and really not much else.

> * I believe my Men's Club - at a privately owned course opened to the public - purchased our first computer for score posting purposes in 1991. I may be off a year either way. Scores were then transmitted over the internet (dial-up connection). The Golf Association continued to mail the transition logs and handicap cards/labels for about another 10 years (early 2000's?) or so. At that point they created a small printer to allow for handicap labels to be printed from the score posting computer and the Club Administators could print any reports they needed from the computer. So somewhere around this time frame they stopped mailing out any reports or handicap labels.

> * I was elected to serve a 3 year term on the Board of Directors in the fall of 1993. The Golf Association asked all clubs to send their Handicap Chair to a handicap seminar in (I think) 1994. I attended this meeting. They asked all club to begin to post 'T' (tournament) scores for a few select tournaments each year, they talked about peer review, and they asked clubs to do a lot more to educate their members on the system. We (the committees) did all of it. We started using TPP (which came with the GHIN software) to run our tournaments and began posting 'T' scores in 1994 or 1995. My club has posted T scores every year since.

> The best innovations since the mid 2000's have been the continued improvements to TPP/Golf Genius, the USGA Tournament Management app (Golf Genius again), and the GHIN app for smart phones.

> Hope this helps.

 

I remember the monthly or semi-monthly dot matrix printed "handicap list" hanging in the pro shop of the semi-private course where I started out in the mid-90's. I used to think I was very clever getting out my hand calculator and pre-figuring my own index before the new printouts showed up.

[davep043]

> @"mark m" said:

> The best innovations since the mid 2000's have been the continued improvements to TPP/Golf Genius, the USGA Tournament Management app (Golf Genius again), and the GHIN app for smart phones.

Thanks for bringing some of the history. At that time, although I'd been playing for a good while, I was new to competitive golf and the handicap system, so I remember very little of it.

Many people would suggest that the development of the Ghin app for our phones was a double-edged sword. It definitely made things much easier for us to post our scores. At the same time, it substantially decreased the opportunity for oversight of handicaps.

 

 

[mark m]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

>

> I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

>

> dave

 

It does. My golf association has a listing of courses on the website. If you click on a course, the hole handicaps are listed. Here:

https://www.mngolf.org/Courses

The first course listed is Adrian CC. It has hole handicaps for men and women:

https://www.mngolf.org/Course/Adrian_Country_Club

 

Also: if you use TPP/Golf Genius it will calculate net scores (and net skins) by hole.

 

The new NDB system may create more controversy and arguments on the hole rankings at some courses - than hole by hole posting (if that happens).

 

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"mark m" said:

> > The best innovations since the mid 2000's have been the continued improvements to TPP/Golf Genius, the USGA Tournament Management app (Golf Genius again), and the GHIN app for smart phones.

> Thanks for bringing some of the history. At that time, although I'd been playing for a good while, I was new to competitive golf and the handicap system, so I remember very little of it.

> Many people would suggest that the development of the Ghin app for our phones was a double-edged sword. It definitely made things much easier for us to post our scores. At the same time, it substantially decreased the opportunity for oversight of handicaps.

 

That was the Original Sin that the USGA committed in search of more subscribers to their system. The day they decided that peer review was totally optional and that anyone who wanted to sign up for a handicap would be allowed to post whatever numbers they like on a web site (or app) was the point of no return.

 

But they could still prove me wrong and rein the whole thing back in using some sort of technological magic bullet to start vetting scores again. Seems highly doubtful though.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

> >

> > I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

> >

> > dave

>

> It does. My golf association has a listing of courses on the website. If you click on a course, the hole handicaps are listed. Here:

> https://www.mngolf.org/Courses

> The first course listed is Adrian CC. It has hole handicaps for men and women:

> https://www.mngolf.org/Course/Adrian_Country_Club

>

> Also: if you use TPP/Golf Genius it will calculate net scores (and net skins) by hole.

>

> The new NDB system may create more controversy and arguments on the hole rankings at some courses - than hole by hole posting (if that happens).

>

>

 

Does the info show up in GHIN? Tournament stuff doesn't apply very often.

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> But they could still prove me wrong and rein the whole thing back in using some sort of technological magic bullet to start vetting scores again. Seems highly doubtful though.

 

Well, it will take more work to sandbag when entering hole by hole score. No more just adding 5 -10 strokes to your total when you punch in the numbers. When entering hole by hole you have to add strokes to each hole, and by mindful of ESC.

 

[mark m]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @"mark m" said:

> > > The best innovations since the mid 2000's have been the continued improvements to TPP/Golf Genius, the USGA Tournament Management app (Golf Genius again), and the GHIN app for smart phones.

> > Thanks for bringing some of the history. At that time, although I'd been playing for a good while, I was new to competitive golf and the handicap system, so I remember very little of it.

> > Many people would suggest that the development of the Ghin app for our phones was a double-edged sword. It definitely made things much easier for us to post our scores. At the same time, it substantially decreased the opportunity for oversight of handicaps.

>

> That was the Original Sin that the USGA committed in search of more subscribers to their system. The day they decided that peer review was totally optional and that anyone who wanted to sign up for a handicap would be allowed to post whatever numbers they like on a web site (or app) was the point of no return.

>

> But they could still prove me wrong and rein the whole thing back in using some sort of technological magic bullet to start vetting scores again. Seems highly doubtful though.

 

I just disagree with many of your points. It's based on my experiences. From what I've seen, smaller internet based clubs tend to a much better job educating and policing their members than other clubs. I have had friends who have created and run clubs and they are very informed on the handicap system. Same thing goes for many leagues that have a separate system for handicaps. It is often the long established muni courses who are the worst offenders. For starters, many sell handicaps to golfers who are not members of a club (which is not supposed to happen). And a lot of them (not all) do a poor job on education and peer review. That is not the USGA's fault. That is the fault of the muni staff and Boards of the various golf clubs. To succeed, we need strong golf clubs with good leaders and active membership.

[mark m]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @"mark m" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

> > >

> > > I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > It does. My golf association has a listing of courses on the website. If you click on a course, the hole handicaps are listed. Here:

> > https://www.mngolf.org/Courses

> > The first course listed is Adrian CC. It has hole handicaps for men and women:

> > https://www.mngolf.org/Course/Adrian_Country_Club

> >

> > Also: if you use TPP/Golf Genius it will calculate net scores (and net skins) by hole.

> >

> > The new NDB system may create more controversy and arguments on the hole rankings at some courses - than hole by hole posting (if that happens).

> >

> >

>

> Does the info show up in GHIN? Tournament stuff doesn't apply very often.

 

I am sure they can add it to the GHIN app if they want to. If you use TPP/Golf Genius to run your tournament, it automatically adjusts scores using ESC and you can post scores to GHIN for the entire tournament with one click.

Using it cuts down the number of mistakes which can be made in tournament scoring and score posting. For instance, a 4 man team event - say 2 of 4 net - scoreboard (by hand) mistakes can easily be made when calculating team scores per hole and team skins.

 

Think about this scenario: Best 2 of 4 net team format. Could have both men and women competing. And they use the 90% allowance. I would not want to do a manual scoreboard! (Unless I used TPP to confirm the scoring.) When you post scores, you must use full course handicap for adjusting scores. Not the handicap reduced by the allowance or a handicap increased by playing different tees.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

> >

> > I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

> >

> > dave

>

> It does. My golf association has a listing of courses on the website. If you click on a course, the hole handicaps are listed. Here:

> https://www.mngolf.org/Courses

> The first course listed is Adrian CC. It has hole handicaps for men and women:

> https://www.mngolf.org/Course/Adrian_Country_Club

>

> Also: if you use TPP/Golf Genius it will calculate net scores (and net skins) by hole.

>

> The new NDB system may create more controversy and arguments on the hole rankings at some courses - than hole by hole posting (if that happens).

>

>

 

 

That is very interesting, Mark. To me if this (NDB ESC) is going to happen they need to give a heads up to all the clubs that hole handicaps now have an importance that they did not used to have. And they should be providing guidance on how these should be calculated for purposes of ESC, how they suggest that 'Match Play oriented clubs' handle hole handicaps now that the hole handicaps that best serve their match play customers no longer well serve the handicap system, etc. I just don't see any of this happening, but I guess there is no reason that I should.

 

And I agree that the definition (IOW, what are the hole handicaps) of NDB is probably going to be a big deal.

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @"mark m" said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

> > > >

> > > > I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > It does. My golf association has a listing of courses on the website. If you click on a course, the hole handicaps are listed. Here:

> > > https://www.mngolf.org/Courses

> > > The first course listed is Adrian CC. It has hole handicaps for men and women:

> > > https://www.mngolf.org/Course/Adrian_Country_Club

> > >

> > > Also: if you use TPP/Golf Genius it will calculate net scores (and net skins) by hole.

> > >

> > > The new NDB system may create more controversy and arguments on the hole rankings at some courses - than hole by hole posting (if that happens).

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Does the info show up in GHIN? Tournament stuff doesn't apply very often.

>

> I am sure they can add it to the GHIN app if they want to. If you use TPP/Golf Genius to run your tournament, it automatically adjusts scores using ESC and you can post scores to GHIN for the entire tournament with one click.

> Using it cuts down the number of mistakes which can be made in tournament scoring and score posting. For instance, a 4 man team event - say 2 of 4 net - scoreboard (by hand) mistakes can easily be made when calculating team scores per hole and team skins.

 

Only if NDB has all the course information for every course. Not sure it does or why.

[Roadking2003]

> @CaseyC said:

> Well, it will take more work to sandbag when entering hole by hole score. No more just adding 5 -10 strokes to your total when you punch in the numbers. When entering hole by hole you have to add strokes to each hole, and by mindful of ESC.

 

Not at all. There are many ways to sandbag and not all of them involve the scorecard. The new system will have NO impact on sandbagging.

 

[dlygrisse]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > Actually this new system is easier to remember. With the ESC I always forget where the cutoff is for max score on a hole. I’m at double, but I have a buddy who moves back and forth. Ow it will be the same principle for everyone.

> >

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > > That replacement for ESC is going to befuddle about 75% of golfers. I fear it's going to make indexes less accurate.

> > > Are you really suggesting that all American golfers are less intelligent than the golfers in the rest of the world?

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

> But with the new system don't you need to know your handicap strokes on each hole to determine your max? Unless playing match play we don't care because the handicap is just subtracted from the total, so I see room for more mistakes.

 

Probably true...however when I play I almost always have at least one match going with my group. Often times 3 -4 different running bets hole by hole. So to me it made sense since I am constantly aware of what strokes are given each hole. I rarely have any total score bets, unless it's a rare Nassau with a few other guys I occasionally play with.

[Augster]

The USGA will go to net double bogey in the new WHS instead of ESC. That’s a fact.

 

Folks have the rest of the summer. Start comparing your NDB score vs. your ESC and get to know what holes you get shots on.

 

Today I had a 9 on the second hole (par 4) which is the 5 cap. I’m a 5. It’s a stroke hole. I shot 79. In the ESC system, I posted a 76. With NDB, I would have posted 77 as I could take up to a 7 on that hole. (NDB).

 

It’s really not hard. Every scorecard of every place I’ve ever played has had the hole handicaps on it.

 

And you really only need to check for the strokes if you have a bad hole and take worse than a double bogey. If you make a triple or worse, time to check the hole handicap.

[LeoLeo99]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > Quick question. Does the USGA have all the course information to do net double computations in the national course database? Currently in GHIN the handicap holes, par, etc... don't show up for my home course if I try h-b-h posting.

> >

> > I am also curious about this. And going forward I share your thinking regarding implementing hole by hole posting, new mobile apps, who supplies hole handicaps and how are those calculated, etc. I am beginning to believe that a 2020 roll-out is going to be a date much like the June date on this forum for the roll-out of the 'new old forum interface' :-)

> >

> > dave

>

> ~~I believe you mean the July roll-out.~~

>

> ~~Oops, I mean the August roll-out.~~

>

> Oops, I meant the September roll-out...

>

> P.S. Sorry, I've just been DYING for a chance to use the new Strikethrough markup.

 

That's psychology. Tell the malcontents that the old look will be back in June. Then move it back a month at a time until September and then forget all about it. They'll have adapted to the new interface by then.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"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.

>

 

Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

 

And before anyone else says, hole by hole posting would only take a few seconds more, that's akin to shutting down credit card readers and expecting users to key their own card number. Then when they complain, tell them their being lazy because it's only 16 digits and they don't like change.

[Deceptively Short]

If just the thought of hole by hole scoring causes such a furore with some saying it will stop many keeping handicaps then to actually have a truly universal system with a common culture will take many, many decades. The ‘culture gap’ is so vast.

I mentioned this debate on hole by hole scoring to some golfing friends and I really struggled to get them to believe I was not just taking the Mickey. They cannot grasp the concept of ‘most likely score’, the ides of posting rounds that are not competitions and the idea of having a realistic score in matchplay is bizarre to them, as is the ability for anyone to have a vanity handicap.

Not to do with handicapping but I tried to explain the concept of a ‘breakfast ball’ to our head Green Keeper and he just wouldn’t believe that this could be a thing.

It’s not a culture gap it is a chasm.

[CaseyC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

>

> Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

>

 

Your argument that it is more prone to error is an opinion. As pointed out, it also acts as a check to the mental math done by the player.

 

And to argue they way you and your group plays is the way everyone or even the majority plays is similarly just an opinion. As you pointed out, the way "your" group plays doesn't follow the HC rules as currently written. Would you argue the USGA should change the rules to match how "your" group plays?

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

> >

> > Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

> >

>

> Your argument that it is more prone to error is an opinion. As pointed out, it also acts as a check to the mental math done by the player.

>

> And to argue they way you and your group plays is the way everyone or even the majority plays is a bit arrogant. As you pointed out, the way "your" group plays doesn't follow the HC rules as currently written. Would you argue the USGA should change the rules to match how "your" group plays?

>

>

 

It's a know fact that the more digits you key the more chance their is for an error. Certainly for some it would serve as a cross-check, but many may just say, "I'll let the system figure it out" and won't know they've fat fingered a 6 instead of 5 for example. Add on top of that, that golfers will now either need to keep their own card instead of one per group, or now have to hand the card around for their group so they can post hole by hole, and this is not just a trivial ask.

 

You've misrepresented what I said, perhaps by mistake, so let me clarify. First my group plays by USGA rules... where did I say anything to the contrary? As for my claim of how people play in the USA, I have data to back that up. In the GHIN system a random sampling of users the vast majority have no T scores. Even those with T scores have many, many more non-T rounds--- THAT IS A FACT. Most golf courses, even private, only have a handful of formal comps per season. Leagues don't count as T that is also a FACT. No the USGA shouldn't write rules to match my group, but they should be in touch enough with their members to find a system that respects how golf competition is enjoyed by their members--- which are those casually formed comps and leagues I speak of.

[CaseyC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

 

> You've misrepresented what I said, perhaps by mistake, so let me clarify. First my group plays by USGA rules... where did I say anything to the contrary? As for my claim of how people play in the USA, I have data to back that up. In the GHIN system a random sampling of users the vast majority have no T scores. Even those with T scores have many, many more non-T rounds--- THAT IS A FACT. Most golf courses, even private, only have a handful of formal comps per season. Leagues don't count as T that is also a FACT. No the USGA shouldn't write rules to match my group, but they should be in touch enough with their members to find a system that respects how golf competition is enjoyed by their members--- which are those casually formed comps and leagues I speak of.

 

As for mistakes, do you think people who enter just the final score ever go back to see if they mentally added their score wrong?

You have said your group doesn't follow the current ESC rules, resulting in vanity HCs.

I would suggest the USGA is in touch with the majority who care about having real HCs.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

>

> > You've misrepresented what I said, perhaps by mistake, so let me clarify. First my group plays by USGA rules... where did I say anything to the contrary? As for my claim of how people play in the USA, I have data to back that up. In the GHIN system a random sampling of users the vast majority have no T scores. Even those with T scores have many, many more non-T rounds--- THAT IS A FACT. Most golf courses, even private, only have a handful of formal comps per season. Leagues don't count as T that is also a FACT. No the USGA shouldn't write rules to match my group, but they should be in touch enough with their members to find a system that respects how golf competition is enjoyed by their members--- which are those casually formed comps and leagues I speak of.

>

> As for mistakes, do you think people who enter just the final score ever go back to see if they mentally added their score wrong?

> You have said your group doesn't follow the current ESC rules, resulting in vanity HCs.

> I would suggest the USGA is in touch with the majority who care about having real HCs.

 

Where did I say "my group doesn't follow the current ESC rules"... you'd better correct yourself because I don't like being misrepresented.

 

You can claim the USGA is in touch but history say's they are not. A WHS was not requested by even a near majority. As for comps in the US, refute what I say with data. I looked at a sampling of (~20) GHIN holders whom I don't know that post regularly. It's a fact that most don't have T scores and those that do only have a small handful per year compared to non-T scores. To imply that they don't care about having a real handicap is arrogant. Refute with data driven facts.

[LICC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> >

> > >

> > > Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

> > >

> >

> > Your argument that it is more prone to error is an opinion. As pointed out, it also acts as a check to the mental math done by the player.

> >

> > And to argue they way you and your group plays is the way everyone or even the majority plays is a bit arrogant. As you pointed out, the way "your" group plays doesn't follow the HC rules as currently written. Would you argue the USGA should change the rules to match how "your" group plays?

> >

> >

>

> It's a know fact that the more digits you key the more chance their is for an error. Certainly for some it would serve as a cross-check, but many may just say, "I'll let the system figure it out" and won't know they've fat fingered a 6 instead of 5 for example. Add on top of that, that golfers will now either need to keep their own card instead of one per group, or now have to hand the card around for their group so they can post hole by hole, and this is not just a trivial ask.

>

> You've misrepresented what I said, perhaps by mistake, so let me clarify. First my group plays by USGA rules... where did I say anything to the contrary? As for my claim of how people play in the USA, I have data to back that up. In the GHIN system a random sampling of users the vast majority have no T scores. Even those with T scores have many, many more non-T rounds--- THAT IS A FACT. Most golf courses, even private, only have a handful of formal comps per season. Leagues don't count as T that is also a FACT. No the USGA shouldn't write rules to match my group, but they should be in touch enough with their members to find a system that respects how golf competition is enjoyed by their members--- which are those casually formed comps and leagues I speak of.

 

100% agree. If America has a system that works well for American golfers, why the call to change it? Why do we have to align with other countries if doing so doesn't work as well for American golf?