Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

If you shoot under a course rating, you get a higher negative differential the easier the course is.  Makes no sense.  Am I missing something?  I can’t find any explanation for this.

 

Example:  

Shoot 72 on a course with a 75 rating and 150 slope.  Differential: -2.26

 

Shoot 72 on a course with a 75 rating but a 120 slope.   Differential: -2.82

 

You are judged to have a better round with the same score on an easier course.  I know the slope is meant for normal handicaps, but which is why it makes no sense.  The course with the 120 rating shouldn’t be considered more difficult for the scratch or plus golfer than a course with a 150 rating.   At worst they should be considered equally difficult.  

 

The whole logic of the formula fails once a player breaks the course rating.

Edited October 7, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Colin L]

It's a matter of direction, is it not?   A better score differential moves the HI of your "normal" player closer to scratch.  My HI is 16.7  which shows by how much I score more than a scratch player on the standard course.  Say I put in a good score my HI will be reduced as I have shown that  I now need slightly fewer handicap strokes to be level with the scratch player.   Better scores for the likes of most of us bring us nearer the scratch player.

 

The "plus handicapper" on the other hand is already better than the scratch player. A  handicap index of  -2.3, for example, shows by how many strokes fewer he takes on the standard course than the scratch player.  If he puts in a really good score he shows that he can go round in even fewer strokes and so his handicap index has to move him further away from the scratch player.   

 

Think of it in match play terms.  The "normal" handicapper receives strokes from the scratch player and so the better he plays the fewer strokes he gets.  The "plus" handicapper gives strokes to the scratch player and so the better he plays the more strokes he gives.

[Mr. Bean]

Years ago I wondered the same issue regarding 3/4 handicaps. An (-)8 capper gets 6 strokes while a +4 capper gets 'only' 3 strokes, i.e. less strokes to 'give' to the course. Sounded completely illogical! Then I was explained that when the handicap index is being cut the difference between players is also cut. So both players' index moves towards zero. And that makes sense.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Years ago I wondered the same issue regarding 3/4 handicaps. An (-)8 capper gets 6 strokes while a +4 capper gets 'only' 3 strokes, i.e. less strokes to 'give' to the course. Sounded completely illogical! Then I was explained that when the handicap index is being cut the difference between players is also cut. So both players' index moves towards zero. And that makes sense.

I think that's a different matter.

 

The difficulty with so-called "plus" handicaps is that In arithmetical terms they are minus numbers. 

[smoky25]

I'm sure there's a "good" reason for it but +/- sign for handicaps has always been counterintuitive for me. 

[larrybud]

It's completely illogical, and the USGA knows it, but frankly, how many + caps are playing in net events? That's why it's a non-issue, generally. I suppose a + might be playing match play against a buddy with a few strokes, but to adjust it properly would add some complexity to the system which they were trying to eliminate with the Course Handicap calculation change in the World Handicap System.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

I think what is being missed is that Slope and Rating are somewhat tied together. Maybe a course rater will chime in but is it even possible to have a course with a 75 Rating and only 120 slope? Perhaps a course with 3 par 6's and only 1 par 5? Seems unlikely. My guess is the course with a 120 slope would have a significantly lower course rating which would result in a differential closer to zero rather than further away from it.

 

Ie. roughly using the example given for a score of 72 on a 150 slope/75 rating course the differential would be -2.26. For the same score of 72 on a 120 slope/73 rating course the differential would be -0.9

 

 

 

 

[HatsForBats]

Because I am curious and wanted to see if there was anyway to adjust for a negative differential 'appropriately' if there were such a thing as a 75 Rating/120 Slope course.... What I came up with is if the differential is negative then an adjustment to be made might be:

 

(Score - Rating) * ((Slope * Rating)/12000)

(72 - 75) * ((150*75)/12000)

(-3) * 0.9375

-------------

-2.8

 

(Score - Rating) * ((Slope * Rating)/12000)

(72 - 75) * ((120*75)/12000)

(-3) * 0.75

-------------

-2.3

 

 

 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

7 hours ago, Colin L said:

It's a matter of direction, is it not?   A better score differential moves the HI of your "normal" player closer to scratch.  My HI is 16.7  which shows by how much I score more than a scratch player on the standard course.  Say I put in a good score my HI will be reduced as I have shown that  I now need slightly fewer handicap strokes to be level with the scratch player.   Better scores for the likes of most of us bring us nearer the scratch player.

 

The "plus handicapper" on the other hand is already better than the scratch player. A  handicap index of  -2.3, for example, shows by how many strokes fewer he takes on the standard course than the scratch player.  If he puts in a really good score he shows that he can go round in even fewer strokes and so his handicap index has to move him further away from the scratch player.   

 

Think of it in match play terms.  The "normal" handicapper receives strokes from the scratch player and so the better he plays the fewer strokes he gets.  The "plus" handicapper gives strokes to the scratch player and so the better he plays the more strokes he gives.

I don’t think you are completely getting it.  Look at my example.  The plus handicapper is considered closer to a scratch player the better he does.  It should be the opposite.

Edited October 7, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

1 hour ago, HatsForBats said:

I think what is being missed is that Slope and Rating are somewhat tied together. Maybe a course rater will chime in but is it even possible to have a course with a 75 Rating and only 120 slope? Perhaps a course with 3 par 6's and only 1 par 5? Seems unlikely. My guess is the course with a 120 slope would have a significantly lower course rating which would result in a differential closer to zero rather than further away from it.

 

Ie. roughly using the example given for a score of 72 on a 150 slope/75 rating course the differential would be -2.26. For the same score of 72 on a 120 slope/73 rating course the differential would be -0.9

 

 

 

 

Rating and slope aren’t necessarily tied together like that.  There are definitely courses with the same rating but different slopes.  I used a dramatic example to help illustrate the point but it works no matter the difference in slope.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

1 hour ago, HatsForBats said:

Because I am curious and wanted to see if there was anyway to adjust for a negative differential 'appropriately' if there were such a thing as a 75 Rating/120 Slope course.... What I came up with is if the differential is negative then an adjustment to be made might be:

 

(Score - Rating) * ((Slope * Rating)/12000)

(72 - 75) * ((150*75)/12000)

(-3) * 0.9375

-------------

-2.8

 

(Score - Rating) * ((Slope * Rating)/12000)

(72 - 75) * ((120*75)/12000)

(-3) * 0.75

-------------

-2.3

 

 

 

Nice.  Send this to the USGA.

[Mr. Bean]

6 hours ago, Colin L said:

The difficulty with so-called "plus" handicaps is that In arithmetical terms they are minus numbers. 

 

No, they are not. Normal handicaps are negative numbers but for simplicity the sign has been omitted from the handicap tables.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

Since a scratch golfer is supposed to be unaffected by a course’s slope, seems like the easy and logical solution is for the differential formula to ignore slope for rounds under the course rating.  

 

I wonder why they haven’t done this? 

Anytime you play a plus handicap you aren’t getting as many strokes as you should be.

Edited October 7, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No, they are not. Normal handicaps are negative numbers but for simplicity the sign has been omitted from the handicap tables.

 

Why are Handicap Indexes that are better than 0 referred to as being "plus," when in fact, they are represented with a "minus" numerical value? Simply put, a golfer with a "plus" Index has to add—not subtract—strokes to his gross score to determine a net score. For example: Say a golfer with a minus-2 course handicap (-2.0) shot 72. In a stroke-play competition involving handicaps, his gross socre would be 72, but his net score would be 74 (72 plus the two extra strokes for having a course handicap better than 0).

Dean Knuth

Edited October 7, 2020 by Colin L

[Colin L]

3 hours ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

I don’t think you are completely getting it.  Look at my example.  The plus handicapper is considered closer to a scratch player the better he does.  It should be the opposite.

What I think I am getting  is that you agree that what I outlined above is what should be what happens  but that you're saying that isn't what happens, resulting in an unfair benefit to the "plus" golfer.  What I am not at the moment getting is how that comes about and why.

 

The better than scratch player who improves should move further from zero (from -1 to -2 and so on) but in WHS terms moves closer to zero thereby gaining an unfair advantage over every player form scratch upwards?  That I certainly don't get.😠

Edited October 7, 2020 by Colin L

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

What I think I am getting  is that you agree that what I outlined above is what should be what happens  but that you're saying that isn't what happens, resulting in an unfair benefit to the "plus" golfer.  What I am not at the moment getting is how that comes about and why.

 

The better than scratch player who improves should move further from zero (from -1 to -2 and so on) but in WHS terms moves closer to zero thereby gaining an unfair advantage over every player form scratch upwards?  That I certainly don't get.😠

 

I guess I misread your post.

 

It comes about because of a flawed system.  
 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

Why are Handicap Indexes that are better than 0 referred to as being "plus," when in fact, they are represented with a "minus" numerical value? Simply put, a golfer with a "plus" Index has to add—not subtract—strokes to his gross score to determine a net score. For example: Say a golfer with a minus-2 course handicap (-2.0) shot 72. In a stroke-play competition involving handicaps, his gross socre would be 72, but his net score would be 74 (72 plus the two extra strokes for having a course handicap better than 0).

Dean Knuth

Exactly. + means adding and - means subtracting. What seems to be the problem?

 

In fact, Knuth is talking absolute nonsense there and mixing the signs as a 10-year old kid.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[nsxguy]

15 hours ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

 

 

Example:  

Shoot 72 on a course with a 75 rating and 150 slope.  Differential: -2.26

 

Shoot 72 on a course with a 75 rating but a 120 slope.   Differential: -2.82

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

What I think I am getting  is that you agree that what I outlined above is what should be what happens  but that you're saying that isn't what happens, resulting in an unfair benefit to the "plus" golfer.  What I am not at the moment getting is how that comes about and why.

 

The better than scratch player who improves should move further from zero (from -1 to -2 and so on) but in WHS terms moves closer to zero thereby gaining an unfair advantage over every player form scratch upwards?  That I certainly don't get.😠

 

Check out the results of his differential calcs.

 

The player's differential from the EASIER course is "better", i.e. taking his 'cap down/improving his 'cap/further from zero, than the same score for the more difficult course.

 

-2.8 is a better differential/round than -2.2 yet that was on the EASIER golf course.

 

It should be the other way 'round.

[nsxguy]

32 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Exactly. + means adding and - means subtracting. What seems to be the problem?

 

In fact, Knuth is talking absolute nonsense there and mixing the signs as a 10-year old kid.

 

Wellllllll, I don't know.

 

Is a net score calc "Gross + CH" ? Or is it "Gross - CH" ? Has to be one or the other, no ?

 

The USGA's Course handicap Calculator would seem to indicate there's no real (math) formula. You need to know which to do.

 

If you plug in 6 as a Handicap Index it'll tell you your CH is 6.

 

If you plug in -6 as a Handicap Index it'll tell you your CH is +6

 

So you have to KNOW which to do, add or subtract.

 

https://www.usga.org/course-handicap-calculator.html

[Krt22]

57 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Check out the results of his differential calcs.

 

The player's differential from the EASIER course is "better", i.e. taking his 'cap down/improving his 'cap/further from zero, than the same score for the more difficult course.

 

-2.8 is a better differential/round than -2.2 yet that was on the EASIER golf course.

 

It should be the other way 'round.

Yes indeed, the fundamental issue is the 113/Slope should flip once the differential is negative. Realistically speaking most courses slope and rating scale together, so it's largely in the noise in the grand scheme of things IMHO. Most courses with really high slope values also have high CRs. I have never a seen a 75/120 course (or a 69/150 course). 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Krt22

[Colin L]

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Exactly. + means adding and - means subtracting. What seems to be the problem?

It's a matter of "directed numbers".  As Knuth says,   "plus"  Handicap Indexes are represented by a minus numerical value.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Colin L

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Check out the results of his differential calcs.

 

The player's differential from the EASIER course is "better", i.e. taking his 'cap down/improving his 'cap/further from zero, than the same score for the more difficult course.

 

-2.8 is a better differential/round than -2.2 yet that was on the EASIER golf course.

 

It should be the other way 'round.

Thanks,  I will, because I have to get my head round this before someone asks my advice!  It won't happen instantly.  I can manage the maths but  it takes a little time. 🙂

Edited October 7, 2020 by Colin L

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Yes indeed, the fundamental issue is the 113/Slope should flip once the differential is negative. Realistically speaking most courses slope and rating scale together, so it's largely in the noise in the grand scheme of things IMHO. Most courses with really high slope values also have high CRs. I have never a seen a 75/120 course (or a 69/150 course). 

This isn’t true though.  Or else there would be no need for the slope metric.  
 

A 72 rating can easily have anywhere from a 130 to a 145 slope.

 

Sheep Ranch has a 72.1 rating and 122 slope.  Tobacco Road has a 71.3/143.  

I’m not saying it’s a huge deal, it’s just bizarre how a rules-focused organization such as the USGA would allow for such widespread illogical outcomes that are easily fixable.

Edited October 7, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Krt22]

I agree that it isn't hard to correct, all they need to do is flip the slope multiplier.  72/122 isn't that abnormal, the 75/150 and 75/120 scenario just isn't realistic. What course is rated 72/145?

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

I agree that it isn't hard to correct, all they need to do is flip the slope multiplier.  72/122 isn't that abnormal, the 75/150 and 75/120 scenario just isn't realistic. What course is rated 72/145?

Tobacco Road is 71.3 and 143.  Plenty of 71.3’s are less than 125.

 

They don’t even need to flip it.  Just eliminate it at scratch scores and better 

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Tobacco Road is 71.3 and 143.  Plenty of 71.3’s are less than 125.

 

They don’t even need to flip it.  Just eliminate it at scratch scores and better 

Why, contrary to popular believe, there are in fact plenty of + players who play net games (I asked the same question on here awhile back, was given the same answer). There is a huge difference between a +1 and a +4, if they all played at scratch in net games it would not be equitable. They literally just need to flip the slope equation and it makes perfect sense. 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Why, contrary to popular believe, there are in fact plenty of + players who play net games (I asked the same question on here awhile back, was given the same answer). There is a huge difference between a +1 and a +4, if they all played at scratch in net games it would not be equitable. They literally just need to flip the slope equation and it makes perfect sense. 

Eliminate the slope, not plus handicaps altogether. 

 

My reasoning is the course difficulty (as measured by slope) theoretically under the handicap system has no effect on a score that’s even with the course rating.  This is because the slope difficulty measurement isn’t supposed to affect a scratch player.  Only the difficulty as measured by the course rating is.  
 

It makes sense then that the course difficulty as measured by slope would have no effect on a plus handicap’s score, since they are better than scratch.  So while flipping the 113 to the denominator would make more sense than having it as the numerator, it makes more sense to just eliminate slope from the equation for scores under the course rating.

 

In other words, just like a scratch handicap has the potential (as measured by USGA handicap) to shoot a 73 on a 73.0/150 course, a +3 handicap should be considered to have the potential to shoot a 70.  Definitely not the 69 as they do now.  

That example is probably the most illustrative of my point.  Their potential would be 69.5 if the course was an easier 130 slope.  So illogical.

Edited October 8, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Mudguard]

I thought slope was simply to help demonstrate the difficulty of a course between your scratch golfer and bogey golfer? Not as an outright measure of difficulty? 

I've seen some oddities in ratings where a hybrid course had the same rating as the longer version, despite being shorter, and the logic was on some holes bunkers that were previously out of reach of the longer tee, now come into play, making the hole more difficult despite being shorter. 

 

In your first post I would think the higher differential with the low slope rating is because against a bogey golfer on an easy course the plus golfer is going to have to play better. 

I mean who would you back to play to their handicap on a course at 75/150? An 18 or 0?

[HatsForBats]

15 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Yes indeed, the fundamental issue is the 113/Slope should flip once the differential is negative. Realistically speaking most courses slope and rating scale together, so it's largely in the noise in the grand scheme of things IMHO. Most courses with really high slope values also have high CRs. I have never a seen a 75/120 course (or a 69/150 course). 

 

Reversing the 113/Slope to Slope/113 would produce a better/lower differential for the higher slope course and a higher differential for the lower sloped course. However, the differentials would be 'better' than they should be IMO.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by HatsForBats

[davep043]

8 hours ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

My reasoning is the course difficulty (as measured by slope) theoretically under the handicap system has no effect on a score that’s even with the course rating.  

Slope measures the DIFFERENCE in difficulty for a "bogey golfer" as compared to a "scratch golfer".  The impact of slope becomes much less as you approach scratch, because the raw number (Score - CR) becomes smaller.  I won't argue that the system makes a lot of sense for negative differentials, but the impact is REALLY small because negative differentials tend to be small (few players go -10) and because so few players ever have scores under the CR.  But the calculations make sense because they work twice, once in calculating differential, and so in calculations of HI, but the effect is reversed in calculating Course Handicap from HI.

 

You would like to treat negative differentials differently from positive differentials, which would produce HI that is lower for players good enough to shoot those good scores.  How would you calculate Course Handicap?  As it is now, the (Slope/113) part of the calculation moves everyone further from zero (assuming slope >113) by the same percentage.  So if we remove the effect of slope in those situations for Plus HI players, the Plus handicap player gives fewer strokes to the typical player, and that effect becomes greater on courses with a higher Slope.  Is that also part of what you'd propose?

 

It seems to me that because the Slope part of the equation applies twice, in opposite directions (one way to get the differentials to calculate the HI, the opposite way to get the CH), the magnitude of the effect should be the same all the time.