"Net Double Bogey" How stupid is this?

[rogolf]

Of course, you then apply the appropriate handicap allowance (which is not always 100% of course handicap):https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

[ChaosTheory]

Dave,

I've belonged to three small town clubs in Illinois. For daily type play, not leagues or events, we enter scores at the terminal in pro shop, or online on the CDGA website. These would be ESC total scores, not hole by hole. While I think it would be great if we turned our cards into the desk and they entered the scores, I don't think that is going to happen for daily play. The staff is too busy for that. So I guess we will be entering hole by hole on our own now. Presumably still with an online option.

And, there is no peer or committee review at the clubs I've been at. It's totally up to the golfers. So a lot of indexes are garbage anyway.

[ThinkingPlus]

I think if you had baselined your 2019 comp on the blue tees rather than the white tees your course handicaps will match the 2020 WHS derived course handicaps in your example I think.

[bladehunter]

Going to be fun to watch. The squawking officially started this morning before the New Years dog fight. Somebody noticed the GHIn app is dead and asked why. Then google searches ensued and in 20 minutes the room was buzzing with gripe. Lol. Chief among them is the automatic CH reduction for tee box for the front tee players. Seems that a lot of them will have to give shots to people playing the middle tees now per their readings ( I have no idea the process to guess that ). And they “ aren’t giving able bodied men shots “. Will need popcorn for the next month.

[Sawgrass]

Blade, you've gotten several detailed and accurate responses to this, but let me add a simple, non-technical "explanation."

Last year a player playing from tee A calculated his handicap from that tee's slope, and the handicap was designed to get him down to that tee's rating on a good day. A player playing from tee B did the same, and his handicap was designed to get him down to that different tee's different rating on a good day. Since the two tee's ratings were different, one had to make an adjustment based on the difference in rating to get the players down the the same goal.

This year, with "rating minus par" added to the handicap, each player's handicap is designed to get him down to PAR on a good day (not down to rating). As long as both tees sport the same par, no further adjustment is necessary because both players are already supposed to shoot the same number (par) on a good day.

Don't know if that works for you and your group, but it might.

[nsxguy]

"And I don’t have the patience , or brain power to be that guy."
LOL - THIS is the problem, but I'm gonna help you out (even though @Roadking2003 did a good job - I took a while to do it so I'm posting it LOL).
Here is a REAL example from my “club”
GOLD TEES 5405 67.1/126 71
WHITE TEES 6051 69.5/130 71
PRE WHS HI * SLOPE/113 Adj. for white tees = 2 (69.5-67.1 rounded)
Gold player 18.5 index 20.6 21
White player  4.9 index  5.6  6 + 2 (tee adj.) = 8
Gold player gets 13 shots.
POST WHS  HI * SLOPE/113 +CR-PAR
Gold player 18.5 index 16.6 17
White player  4.9 index  4.1   4
Gold player gets 13 shots.

Since ALL players on a given day will be calculated the same way the RELATIVE differences in handicaps, INCLUDING the former "tee adjustment", is accounted for with the new course handicap calculation. There MAY be single stroke difference one way or the other due to rounding, etc. but that should be the extent of the RELATIVE difference between ANY 2 players.
Haven't looked in a long time since I don't have any input into the handicaps anymore but a lot of courses I've seen in the past HAVE a poster up somewhere in the Pro Shop that has ALL the index ranges and all the course handicaps for all sets of tee right there on the wall.
I would hope that with the new system this would also be the case (I'm going to look next time I go to the courses I play), especially since the OLD charts will now be WRONG (and hopefully no longer displayed of course).

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Wow...Even The Pope of Slope said the USGA compromises have made our handicap system less precise and that loss wasn't worth serving the needs of a small minority. He didn't call it stupid but said NDB is problematic. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth/amp

[Mudguard]

I just read that. I think the issues the US have vs ROW could be described in a couple of different ways.

RoW (to be honest I'm basing this on New Zealand, Australia and the UK.

Most golfers are member of clubs, handicaps are important, are a source of bragging rights, very low handicaps are needed to contest things like National and Provincial amateur competitions and a valid handicap is required to play any form of club competition (however social). Scorecards are marked on every hole, our national computer system prints your strokes where they fall on the card, you never mark your own card, you keep yours and one other, check at the end of the round, sign and submit. Any anomalies are checked by either the club professional/committee/etc.

If you play on your own, no card can be submitted,

As far as I can tell, in the US, the bulk of golfers aren't members of clubs, don't worry about handicaps so much, and are happy to be provided one with the GHIN system. I guess why some of the RoW folk are enthusiastic is that attested scorecards generally make for a more accurate handicap, it means I can say I'm a six handicap with pride, and it's because someone else has counted my strokes.

Obviously it's not perfect, one example is someone I know who plays nine holes most days by himself and eighteen holes rarely. It means his game stays in very good condition, but rarely plays eighteen (he gets tired) but can often have very good scores, so his handicap is creeping down more slowly than it would (twelve cards per year versus one hundred). And people can tear up their cards in disgust and not hand them in, however this is also recorded, cards printed versus cards submitted.

I would say here we have more of an issue with vanity caps than with sandbaggers.

[duffer987]

Actually he said this, but then why include anything that doesn't agree with your POV:

"And the use of net double bogey as a maximum hole score is better than what that it replaces but also has faults."

[CR McDivot]

My casual group plays Stableford straight up - NO Handicaps. All are within 5 strokes handicap so it works since we play against the course rather than giving or taking strokes from one another. Makes for an enjoyable game. 'Course if one is hung up on beating each in your group our system would not suffice.

[Colin L]

You play scratch Stableford and so "play against the course" . You play handicap Stableford and so "play against the course". Getting or giving strokes makes no difference to that or to the enjoyment of it: it's just an arithmetical adjustment made to even out the outcome of that battle against the course for players of different ability.

[tx33]

Yup, yet another 'us vs them' gripe by someone who sees the new WHS as imperfect and therefore 'bad'. PG Woodhouse' oldest member seems appropriate? The faux to-the-decimal-point-accurate charade is similar to the old system(s), it just moves an index a little one way or another. A player might get one or a few more/less strokes than before, but within 8-20 rounds that will be corrected to reflect/fit his or her playing ability again. Once the dust settles everyone will have just as an (in)accurate cap as before. Provides he/she plays regularly and keeps accurate scores, which of course is the real underlying problem a new system won't fix. Too bad it is in mans nature to be averse to change and dig in rather than focus how to make changes work (out).

EDIT: NDB is IMHO no more problematic than before and even if so easily fixed using an app/portal to enter scores. Where stableford was used systems and players are already used to this. Just enter 0 or too high a gross score and the system will take care of it. Same with the daily calculation: we don;t live in the stone age anymore, we have computers for that.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

He ended the article by saying... "The WHS alters a 40-year-old course-rating-based handicap system in favor of a “net par.” Maybe that might level the playing field when American golfers compete against golfers from other countries. But honestly, how often does that happen? Enough to justify degrading the U.S. system? I think not."

[davep043]

This seems to be his biggest complaint, the USGA decision to utilize (CR-Par) in the Course Handicap calculation. To me, this simply makes the standard adjustment for tournaments into the standard every-day procedure. I don't share his concern, I believe this will make the appropriate adjustment more common, as he mentions that at many clubs the handicaps weren't being adjusted for play from different tees. He has a concern about rounding differences, but rounding is necessary no matter how the system is designed, there will always be some kind of "ratchet" effect. He specifically says that he thinks NDB is an improvement, but with its own problems for many of us getting adjusted to it, and I don't think anyone in the US would disagree with that. Its not all that complicated, but its a change, and it IS a little more complicated. While I respect the work he's done, he hasn't brought up any issues that make me reconsider my opinions about the WHS.

[Newby]

Oddly, England Golf has decided to omit the (CR-Par) adjustment now that virtually everyone else has opted for it.

The argument being that it is 'easier' and will make virtually no difference to the resultant handicap index calculations. It seems that an analysis of Par vs CR during our recent major USGA rating process shows very little variance between them.

[Halebopp]

The little variance is most probably due to the stringent use of different par numbers for different sets of tees? What I do find interesting about your case, unless I'm mistaken of your current system, is that you are moving from basing your Playing Handicaps only on the CR (SSS) to a formula which only considers Slope.

[Sawgrass]

I must say that for many people, I don’t agree that NDB is, on the whole, more complicated than ESC.

For those whose indexes resided on the cusp of delivering either a 9 or 10 course handicap, or on the cusp of a 19 or 20, last year one had to be sure to figure out whether you were a 9 or less or 10 or more, or 19 or less or 20 or more given your current index and the slope from the particular tees you chose that day. Failing to do so would change your max from a double to a 7, or a 7 to an 8, on every single hole.

Now, as long as your handicap doesn’t change dramatically, failing to make the new calculation for the day is only going to change your maximum score from what you are used to on just one or two holes instead of every hole. IMO it’s a similar calculation with less potential to provide an incorrect result for the day.

[Newby]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'only considers slope'. Both formulae only consider slope*. The Course Rating element is only relevant in calculating the differential which is where the Handicap Index comes from

CONGU 6.1 Course Handicap Calculation.

CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)

USGA 6.1a

CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113) + (Course Rating - Par). The last bracket only to catch large variances*

 

 

 

[Halebopp]

I was referring to what you have currently with the CONGU system. My understanding is that you used your exact handicap and adjusted it with the difference between SSS and Par? Or was SSS/CSS only considered after the round?

[Newby]

No. The exact handicap is rounded to produce the playing handicap. In effect you play against the Standard Scratch Score (CR rounded). However, after a competition the scores are examined (by computer of course) and the SSS may be modified (by the the equivalent to a PCC) to produce the Competition Scratch Score. Your net score is measured against this CSS to produce the differential.

I though it was basically the same as EGA without slope.

Hole Par is only used to calculate NDB. Course Par is not used except in the complicated calculations involving Par/Bogey competitions

[Halebopp]

The EGA method is and will be: Playing Handicap = Exact Handicap x Slope/113 + (CR-Par)

 

Net Stroke play score is Gross Score - PH and the score for handicap purposes is your net Stableford score. In competitions the CBA (PCC) could adjust the buffer zone 2 points either way for handicapping purposes, if the conditions were supposedly difficult, 34 or 35 points could've been your par instead of the normal 36. In such cases scoring 36 points would've led to a reduction. If the conditions were easy, the par could've been 38 points and an actual score of 37 points would've been in the buffer zone as opposed to leading to a reduction under normal conditions.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Does the roughly one or two strokes really make that much difference?

Seems like giving players on much harder tracks an extra stroke(s) is worth it?

Conversely, taking away strokes for easier ones seems reasonable as well?

I don’t understand why England doesn’t want to adopt it especially for easier tracks?

[Newby]

I don't know. EG seem to think it is not necessary. Interestingly there is another thread with comments by the 'pope of slope'. They seem to agree. But I'm not bothered either way.

It makes no difference if everyone is playing from the same tee or CR v Par is the same 90% of the time

[duffer987]

Yes he did, he certainly isn't keen on parts of the WHS but his overriding concern and what he bangs on about for the majority of the article is CR-Par, not NDB - which this thread was about, although, like most threads nominally so 6 pages in. NDB could not have even been part of the new WHS and 95% of that article would have been exactly the same. He pretty much divorces it from his main argument and just throws in a reference near the end.

In the context of this thread, the accurate statement is: Pope of Slope is in favour of switch from ESC to NDB; with concerns about how introducing something new will be taken up. Not your disingenuous snippet above.

[nsxguy]

How do you previously adjust for players playing from different tee sets ?

[Newby]

For competition results only, the differences in CR (SSS) is added to the handicap of the players playing from the higher rated tees.

For handicap index adjustment all players' differentials are calculated against the CR of the tees they played

From the current manualAs an example consider the situation where Ladies play from the Red Tee which has a SSS of 75 and Men play from the White Tee which has a SSS of 73. If both play to a score which represents the relative difficulty of each course (i.e. the SSS) then the Man would score 73 and the Lady would score 75. From a Scratch Result point of view, the Man would always win. Accordingly an adjustment equal to the difference between the two SSS’s needs to be applied to the scores of those playing from the tee with the higher SSS.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Actually you're displaying a strong bias for how you want to interpret. If you actually wanted to be objective you'd also consider that the USGA abandoned a par plus handicap strokes for ESC in 1993. It was determined then that 75% of handicap holders didn't understand it and didn't use it properly. So here we go and we will repeat that problem just for the whs and appeasing the RoW. Sure computers and forcing hole by hole posting would help reduce issues, but at the end of the day they've just made keeping a handicap more complicated. The contrived nonsense for needing a whs will benefit only a fractional percentage of all golfers.

[Sawgrass]

A better handicap system benefits everyone, not a fractional percent.

If I decide to play on a tough weather day, one where I’ll be losing a good score from 20 rounds ago, and I need to keep my current index to qualify for an upcoming event, I’ll be very pleased to have my score adjusted for conditions. Even if I never, ever compete with someone from another country.

[nsxguy]

OK, so you do make the adjustment.

The new CH formula used here in the U.S. accounts for that in ALL cases by adding the (CR-PAR).

Do you know why the UK chose NOT to add the CR-PAR in the formula itself and just keep doing it "manually" ?

[Newby]

EG have not made any formal statement but as I have said in this or another thread, I understand that in England, the evidence from all of our courses being rated in the last two years is that par and CR are the same virtually all the time, so there will be no noticeable difference in handicap indices. You may have noticed the current system only makes adjustments for competition result purposes not for determining the differential. The manual is only concerned with handicapping calculations not competition results.

When multiple tees are in use, those playing from tees with higher CR must receive additional strokes equal to the difference in CRs.

I can't see why, if CR is the objective measure of difficulty, Par which tells us nothing about difficulty, has to be introduced. The object of the exercise is to get a handicap index which is measured against Rating and Slope - no mention of Par.