New World Handicap System

[Augster]

Where did all this weather talk come from in regards to PCC? PCC is only affected by weather tangentially. Only if expected scores rise, or fall.

Bad Weather is simply one thing that might trigger a PCC adjustment. Here are a couple others:

Really calm, good weather with firm fairways and soft greens.

Tournaments. You know, where there is pressure and people have to actually putt them all out.

Aerated fairways. Muddy with no roll.

Aerated greens. Can’t make a putt.

Aerated greens and fairways during a stroke play tournament where you have to putt them all out. I guarantee there’d be a PCC adjustment that day.

High school/teen age state qualifier on the course. Lots of variance.

There are others. It’s not JUST weather that can affect posted scores that day.

[HatsForBats]

I believe you are overthinking it. Each individual hole must have a par that is a whole number and is based almost exclusively on distance. One par 4 may play like a 3.5 while another like a 4.4 yet both have a hole/tee par of 4.

 

Consider 2 courses/tees that are par 72's with 4 x Par 3's, 4 x Par 5's and 10 x Par 4's. One course is near the easiest it can possible be for a par 72 and the other is near the hardest it can be for a par 72.

Easy Course:

Par 3's : 2.5 x 4 holes = 10

Par 4's: 3.5 x 10 holes = 35

Par 5's: 4.5 x 4 = 18Total = 63 difficulty, Par 72

Hard Course:

Par 3's : 3.4 x 4 holes = 13.6

Par 4's: 4.4 x 10 holes = 44

Par 5's: 5.4 x 4 = 21.6Total = 79.2 difficulty, Par 72

 

 

[cardia10]

46 pages of discussion to "simplify" the system. No wonder more people are taking up disc golf instead of regular golf. There is a reason we have a USGA, to support US golfers. It is nice to have a worldwide system, but 99.99% of us could care less that someone's handicap in Azerbaijan is calculated the same way as theirs. The USGA continually shows that it has lost its way.

[davep043]

The USGA will never be right, in the minds of some people. They reacted too late to fast-faced drivers and long putters, but if they attempt to plan for the future, those changes aren't wanted.

We have here 46 pages of comments, most of them from people who are trying to be ready for change when it occurs, with a small number complaining that no change is necessary. I've never claimed that change was required, but I think movement towards a common handicap system is a positive thing for the future of golf.

[Shilgy]

Well said. Many of the posts are from those that understand the new system and are trying to explain it to others. Sometimes the wording one post uses is understood and sometimes it is another. But it helps all of us to have this discussion.

We have also learned that many, even those that don't like the new system, really didn't understand the old one after years of use!

[deadsolid...shank]

I admit I’m lost on most of it. But since I don’t play nearly as much, and don’t have a regular game anymore I probably don’t need to know it as well as the old system.

[duffer987]

Really? What does page length have to do with anything? We've got umpteen page threads on everything under the sun.

Insular people who innately feel threatened by change won't like it, nor will people who believe the USGA and R&A is run by a bunch of out of touch blood bloods and toffs. For those folks, so be it.

Heck I think the powers that be are largely blue bloods and toffs, but this is a good thing. Global sports should strive for universality, especially golf which in quarters has maintained a parochial purview that hasn't been particularly helpful in that.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

On the otherside there's those that are like barking seals agreeing with anything the USGA roles out, especially in the rules forum. If they said to quack like a duck when entering scores some of you would do it without asking why.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but many of those that disagree with the whs aren't afraid of change, but don't think the change is making it better. That includes Dean Knuth and you'd actually understand why if you read it with an objective eye.

[davep043]

Actually, I did read Knuth. He dislikes the (CR-Par) stuff, even though it clarifies things for competition from different tees, and helps players who've never understood that par should get their better net scores near the CR instead of near par. He says that golfers moving to shorter tees "won't be happy". Well, when they've lost strokes for competitions, they've been unhappy, and been unhappy several times a season. With the change, they'll be unhappy early on, and then get used to the new system. "But to what end will it serve? Golfers competing from more forward tees will be receiving fewer strokes than is truly equitable." Not true, golfers competing from forward tees will get the same strokes that they got under the old system when competing against golfers from longer tees. And if they're competing against other golfers from the same shorter tees, they'll all be getting the same handicaps relative to one another.  He admits that the old system wasn't always applied properly to competitions, but prefers that one over the new one, because the new one may not be applied properly. Huh? He worries about issues with rounding, ignoring the fact that "whole number handicap" have always required rounding. He doesn't like the idea that Tournament Scores aren't treated the same way, that the method he helped develop will no longer be used. He might have a point there, but there are new safeguards against upward movement of handicaps, and exceptional scores whether in competition or not. He accepts that Net Double is a more appropriate max hole score, but sees problems with people adapting. That's entirely fair. But his big issue, the introduction of (CR-Par) will somehow make the entire handicap system "less precise". It doesn't matter that the calculation of your Handicap Index will be based on Slope and Course Rating, that the ONLY effect of par will be on the Max Hole Score, its still somehow less precise. Its less precise to limit a 20 handicap to 6 on a par 3 when he could have taken 9 in the old system.

I respect what Knuth has done in the past, I think the Slope system was a serious improvement over previous rating and handicapping systems, which is shown by the fact that its been adopted worldwide. But I think his concerns for the WHS are mostly (not entirely) unfounded.

[bladehunter]

True. We Must tell it both ways. Some would absolutely quack like a duck if it was written down as an interpretation to follow lol

 

I say that so far liking what I’m hearing for changes. But only after I question all of it. If it’s just , it will stand up to scrutiny. That goes for anything in life. Only dumb question is the one you don’t ask. Anybody says different is the actual idiot in the room.

 

I appreciate the help I’m given here . But I’m never going to be a USga flag flier until i see some leadership that’s the opposite of mike Davis . A very arrogant little man who’s well out of touch with the game. Real leadership doesn’t have to convince people to follow them . I’ve heard too many sales pitches and “ uncle mike “ instructional talks for one lifetime .

That being said I can’t say enough great things about the USga technicians at the club testing lab. I’ve worked with them 3 times now and it’s been A+ Personalized experience each time.

[nsxguy]

NOBODY is an expert on everything (except maybe for LICC LMAO). Sometimes ya just have to trust the experts.

When you fly do you question the credentials of the pilot ? I mean you're not qualified to fly (or are you ?).

When the USGA, in conjunction with ALL the major golf associations worldwide consider all the factors, crunch all the numbers, and come up with a new system, why would you think the old system is better ? Because ONE guy who was involved many years ago says so ?

I mean discussing things about it and wondering why this and why that, etc. is no problem but basically inferring they don't know what they're doing ? C'mon.

[bladehunter]

if nobody is an expert. How can we trust experts ? Come on ? Try contracting out work for anything , you’ll find that experts both exist and are extremely rare at anything. From ditch diggers to doctors. Somebody always finishes first and last in any class.

[DaveLeeNC]

 

Dave, I think we pretty much agree on this, but one correction. Golfers will NOT be getting the same strokes in the WHS as they used to get in the old system in mixed tee competitions from the forward tees. In the WHS their index is reduced by CR-Par. In the old system it was reduced by CR-CR which might be smaller or it might be larger, depending on where the back tees CR is relative to Par. And there certainly are cases where this inequity that Dean complains about will actually be larger in the system that he seems to prefer.

To me the whole point is 'why should the forward tees folks strokes change at all' just because someone else is playing from other tees in their comp. I would expect a proper handicap system to assign the proper strokes to each golfer without the need for additional adjustments.

dave

[davep043]

Yeah, the actual strokes may differ, you're right, but the handicap stroke differences between different players playing from different tees will remain the same, with an occasional stroke rounding difference. This is of course assuming that the proper correction is applied if the par for the different tees isn't the same. Knuth has concerns about that correction being done, and that's valid since the old correction wasn't done properly at all clubs before the change. That "differing par" correction will be required much less often, I believe, than the old "different tee" correction was. Reducing the occasions which require specific adjustments is an improvement to me.

[Halebopp]

@BlackDiamondPar5 "On the otherside there's those that are like barking seals agreeing with anything the USGA roles out, especially in the rules forum."That's just a straw man argument. I'm willing to bet everything I own there's not a single person who frequents this forum is completely happy with everything about the current set of rules, the WHS, the Course Rating System and whatnot.
While I personally question the need for PCC, I can see it being more important in the U.S. where (I assume) you are required to post almost all rounds so I won't dwell into that. But his complaints about the CR-Par adjustment are simply pointless.

"Let’s start with the fact that par is hardly the most reliable measure of course difficulty (that would be course rating)."He tells us Course Rating is the most reliable measure of course difficulty, yet he is against using it to calculate Course Handicaps. That makes no sense.

Golfers moving to longer tees will think this is a logical change (they’ll be getting more strokes). Golfers playing shorter tees won’t be so happy.That would simply be stupidity on the players' part if they don't understand the changes are the same for everyone. They should also realize that if they get less strokes and thus fail to play to their handicap because of it, their handicaps will go up and in the near future they will be getting the same number of strokes as they did before.

The calculation of Course Rating minus Par comes out to -.5. Based on the way course handicaps are calculated, half the players will have their playing handicap drop one shot lower in the WHS but the other half will not; it all depends on how that -.5 impacts your course handicap number and whether you will get to round up or round down your final number.It is pretty rare the formula you used in the USGA system in the past (CH = Exact Handicap * Slope/113) produced a result that didn't need rounding. So nothing is actually changing.

Golfers competing from more forward tees will be receiving fewer strokes than is truly equitable.He doesn't provide any reasons for why it wouldn't be equitable that you should get fewer strokes on an easier course so we can simply skip that. I thought that's an absolutely essential part of the handicap system. Better players get fewer strokes than worse players and you need to shoot lower scores on easier courses to play to the same handicap than on more difficult courses. Exactly the way it should be.

The other argument USGA officials make supporting the par handicap is that the switch eliminates the need in the old USGA system for an additional adjustment when two players are competing from different tees (Old Section 3-5 for handicap nerds), something many tournaments and leagues neglected to apply. Replacing the misunderstood section is a good idea, so long as it can be done reliably. But that’s not the case because in the WHS, when the pars of the two tees are different, the same correction must be applied to account for par difference. And since players will be told the old correction is already taken care of, there’s a danger that this par difference will not be corrected. The end result will hurt women competing against men, or senior men who compete from more forward tees.Again, he's complaining because someone might forget to do calculations when adjusting for different par numbers while admitting people failed to do the same thing when competing from different sets of tees. Therefore the situation doesn't change according to him and thus the whole paragraph is simply an old man yelling at the clouds, again.

But, I'd argue that people competing from different sets of tees, or women competing with men is far more common than par numbers changing depending on the tees. Thus the number of cases where this mistake could happen will decrease drastically even if the chances of it happening when it needs to be done stays the same. If there are a 100 competitions with both genders/different tees for every 15 competitions in which the par number changes depending on the tees and there's a 25% chance the committee won't handle the calculations properly, you got 25 competitions wrong in the past, now it'll be just 3 or 4. That's a drastic improvement.

[hack2489]

Personally, I think the CR-par inclusion in the calculation of the daily (aka course) handicap is a positive move. The equity it brings for forward (aka easier) tees is IMHO well overdue.

Heck, the equity it brings to course to course is well overdue.

I have mates playing par 71 courses rated at 70. They've all just lost a shot off their daily handicap. While, for me, playing a rated 74 vs par 72 course, I've gained 2 shots in my daily handicap.

Slope adjustment in previous daily (course) handicap only provide so much equity. The CR-par brings in further equity.

So that now, post WHS implementation I have another 2 shots to play to handicap, and with all scores converting to Stableford for handicap calculation, my 36 points vs their 36 points is more accurate assessment of how we played.

 

[hack2489]

It's just dawned on me that the addition of the CR-par to the daily handicap may well reduce the impact of the DSR (Daily Scratch Rating aka PCC).

Here in Oz, we've had the PCC equivalent for some years. It's used to calculate our handicap but not used for competition score or leaderboard (since in theory all players played under the same conditions).

My course rated at slope 138, scratch rated (course rating) of 74, par 72 often comes in with a DSR of 76. Under the WHS that will be a +2 adjustment.

But, I suspect the formula for the DSR / PCC will use the handicapped Stableford score of the field. And, now, since we'll be getting the initial 2 shots (CR-par) scores will have taken up some of the DSR / PCC adjustment.

Will be interesting to see the DSR over the coming year at this particular course.

For those interested, the course is Ocean Shores Country Club. The back markers and course rating I'm referring are the blue tees.

[hack2489]

Ok, another thought as I finished typing that last post... I'm on a roll !!!

With all this WHS and even the rules prior to that, why haven't course tees been standardised?

Some courses here in Oz, the back markers (hardest tees) are black tees, while others like the course I've referred to they are blue tees.

Surely a standard system would help?

Gold (seniors)

Red (ladies)

Yellow (social)

White (members)

Blue (competition)

Black (test yourself)

Are the tees standard anywhere in the world?

[Augster]

What Knuth also didn’t touch on, was the less shots given, the less chance of getting sandbagged. My handicap is legit. I’m a 7 last year. This year I’ll be a 5 as the tee we play most often is 69 and our par is 71. So I’ll be a 5.

A sand bagger I play with is a 10, but he should be about a 4 or maybe 5(last year). This year he’ll be getting 8 because of the CR-par. If we played head to head (we never do) he’d still be getting 3 shots. But for low net, net skins, and stableford, he’s getting less shots. He’s getting the same amount in relation to the other guys, but less shots overall. Which is a good thing when you are trying to limit bagging.

The only way to eliminate bagging entirely is to play everything scratch. The CR-par adjustment gets everyone closer to scratch by taking away shots on the easier tees. In the previous iteration that Knuth longs for, players might have 2 shots difference from way up, to way back. Now there will be much more swing in strokes, which, to me, is a good thing when trying to limit baggers.

When playing the front tees, I’d much rather play off +1 while he’s a 2 when playing net skins and Stableford. He’s only getting shots on the 1 and 2 handicap holes which are tough holes. When he’s getting 9 and I’m getting 6 on the front tees without the (CR-Par) adjustment, he’s going to make more skins and more points. Not just because he’s getting 4-5 shots he shouldn’t get, but because he’d get those extra shots on easier holes. The CR-par adjustment seems more fair to me.

Knuth probably shouldn’t have written that article.

[DaveLeeNC]

How is it that giving everyone 3 (or whatever) fewer strokes limits the effect of sandbagging? I don't see how that helps.

dave

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Why shouldn't he be able to express an opinion just like your right to express an opinion?

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, this was a strange round from a posting perspective.

First I can't calculate a score to post as I cannot be sure of my CH and the NDB thing. Of course there is no way to post anyway, but .

We quickly caught up with the group ahead of us which was clearly a family thing with some beginners. They were really going to be slow. And it was unlikely that we could play through them as there was an identical group (playing just as slowly) ahead of them. So on the 3rd tee we decided to skip two holes (this was pretty casual golf). I started out bogey-bogey (I am not playing well at the moment - although hardly playing at all is more accurate). The 3rd hole is clearly not going to be a stroke hole for me when the WHS indexes come out, so there was my FIRST PAR OF THE YEAR! I was so proud of my fine play :-)

Then when we got to the turn my 2 playing partners decided to bag it as it seemed unlikely that we could finish before the rain moved in. I played the back 9 alone (and quickly as the course was open in front of me). But, of course, I can't post since I played alone. I am pretty sure that, since I played 7 of 9 holes on the front that is postable. So I guess my first post of the year will be probably my first NDB and a 9 hole score when I played 18 (16, anyway). Just felt strange.

dave

ps. Here is an interesting question that does NOT raise an issue in my mind. I wonder how the USGA/Ghin is going to handle the lump of scores that come in. To be strictly correct they should first load all of the Jan. 1 (and earlier) scores and recalculate that day's indexes. Then repeat for Jan. 2, etc. From a max hole score perspective doing it that way could generate different results vs. just doing a single bulk update. Similarly when a golfer, for whatever reason, posts a week old score when there were other intervening scores, will the system go back to that day's index for NDB purposes? Then do they 'ripple that forward' possibly changing indexes for subsequent days which might change the proper posting score that is already posted (for those who posted HbH scores)? I am not raising an issue - just wondered.

[nsxguy]

Oops. Sorry, mistyped it. I meant nobody is an expert on everything. Often we have no choice but to rely on the experts.

[Augustok]

Regarding standard tees. Colors should be eliminated and replaced with numbers. 1, 2,3,4,5 etc. At least one course in Massachusetts does this and it made so much sense to me when I played there. No more senior, women’s, member’s connotation.

[nsxguy]

You're in Australia, yes ?

Don't know about your OLD Handicap Manual but for the U.S. we have should have been doing this for a long time - it just wasn't included in the course handicap calculation. It was done manually. Some comps over here REFUSED to adjust for different tee sets

And it doesn't bring equity to the players from the forward tees. It actually brings equity to those playing further back.

In 2019, here in the USA, if a player had a CH of 14 from the UP tees and another player was a 14 from the next tee set back, the USGA Handicap Manual said that to make a fair game one needed to either subtract the difference in the 2 tees course ratings from the forward tee player OR add the difference in CR to the player further back. Either way results in the player further back getting 3 shots.

Example - Take the 2 players above. If the CR of the 2 sets of tees are 68.5 and 71.3, the difference is 2.8. Rounds to 3. So applying the correction for different tee sets the forward player would get 11 and the back guy his same 14 OR the forward guy would get his same 14 and the guy further back would get 17.

This adjustment is NOW part of the CH calculation, CR-PAR (in the USA anyway). It should be correct +/- a single shot.

[Augster]

The thing I read in the manual, and I can find it again, maybe it was in the highlights, as I understood it only scores posted THAT DAY would determine PCC adjustment. So if you posted later, the score you post may or may not be PCC adjusted, but it won’t add in whether the PCC kicks in or not. That is determined DAY OF with at least 8 posted scores.

That’s how I understand it at least.

[nsxguy]

"First I can't calculate a score to post as I cannot be sure of my CH and the NDB thing. Of course there is no way to post anyway"

Well, you're right about not being able to actually post your score but why can't you calculate it ?

Your CR and slope hasn't changed and neither has your index. Your Course Handicap is HI*slope/113+(CR-PAR). For NDB you use your shots on your CH. The scorecard still has the handicap holes marked on it to know where to apply NDB, no ?

What am I missing ?

[DaveLeeNC]

I don't know what my new HI is going to be under the new system, so I can't do the calculation. I could look up a bunch my last 20 scores calculate it myself, I guess .....

dave

[nsxguy]

"But for low net, net skins, and stableford, he’s getting less shots"

Low net ? Sure,,,,,,,,,, but everyone else is getting the same reduction so no net effect.

Net skins ? Yup, but I don't think the ruling bodies care. LOL

Stableford - well, that's actually a net game as well except that players get to throw away some shots LOL - depending on where NDB kicks in (IF it kicks in).

[DaveLeeNC]

This wasn't about PCC. It is about a situation where I shoot a really good round that is going to lower my CH a full stroke. For whatever reason (nefarious or otherwise) I fail to post that day and then I play again the next day (and post that score - HbH). The system is going to use the HI without that good round to determine NDB scores by hole. THen the day after that I remember and post that good score (HbH). THe system has enough info to backtrack and recalculate all the CH for rounds already posted and fix NDB's, if they want to do that. I doubt they will, but...

The other question is how are they going to process five days worth of posted scores on 1/6 when the system goes back online. Will it be just treat them all as one day or will they do it a day at a time so that each day has (potentially) a different HI with use to determine CH (and therefore max hole score) values. I am guessing that they will do that one.

dave