Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[DaveLeeNC]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Your example of what is harder-swapping out a par 3 for a par 5 is valid....but....the course may not be “harder” with the par 5 but the scores will be higher. Which is what is actually being measured. Not “difficulty “.

 

"pure score" (just a number where higher is higher) is a rational measure of harder/better. I think most golfers think in terms of scoring vs. par (or possibly differentials). But maybe not. 

 

dave

Edited November 4, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Shilgy]

55 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

"pure score" (just a number where higher is higher) is a rational measure of harder/better. I think most golfers think in terms of scoring vs. par (or possibly differentials). But maybe not. 

 

dave

I would agree, normally. But a course of all short par 5’s is not harder than a long difficult par 3 course. Rating would be much higher but an easier course. That is where I was going. 
I suppose the real test of difficulty is the relationship of par to CR. 
 

edited to add....we are saying the same thing, I think🤔

Edited November 4, 2020 by Shilgy

[Rincewindwiz]

23 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I'm kind of with you. I haven't looked at all of them, but a good number of the courses in England that I know well have slope ratings lower than I would have expected. Certainly relative to courses in the US I would consider as broadly similar.

I think one of the initial problems moving rating to the UK was that the features rated were very American. So on a typical links course you have no trees, no water hazards, No chutes, bunkers so deep you need steps to get out and wind.  At my course, a 3 club wind is one where you take out a driver a 1 iron and a putter (= 3 clubs!). So 2 or 3 key rating features dont exist and another 2 are off the Richter scale

[dhc1]

On 11/4/2020 at 11:50 AM, Shilgy said:

Your example of what is harder-swapping out a par 3 for a par 5 is valid....but....the course may not be “harder” with the par 5 but the scores will be higher. Which is what is actually being measured. Not “difficulty “.

My point is that slope is intended to account for the difference between players on “harder” (ie, higher sloped) courses and those who play on “easier” lower sloped ones. In other words, identical scores relative to the course rating on higher sloped course are viewed as “better” than identical scores relative to course ratings on lower sloped courses. 
 

this of course is reversed when scores get below the CR and that make no sense other than formulaically.  Yet we still have people whose argument often rests on looking at courses with different CRs. sigh. 

[Rincewindwiz]

9 hours ago, dhc1 said:

My point is that slope is intended to account for the difference between players on “harder” (ie, higher sloped) courses and those who play on “easier” lower sloped ones. In other words,

Hhhmmm - I didn't think it was quite that. Rather slope was intended to account for the fact that the better golfer finds 'difficult' courses relatively less difficult that the lesser golfer. A course can be more difficult because it is longer or has more 'features' (bunkers, water, rough, trees etc) or both  Slope is proportional to the difference between Scratch and Bogey CR from the same set of tees.

 

So longer courses will tend to have higher slopes but, at least in theory, a long course in a large flat field with no bunkers, trees long grass or water could easily have a lower slope than a shorter course with 'features'. One of the (many) anomalies in the UK course ratings demonstrates this well.

Wildernesse (County = Kent) 6500 yards, CR 73.4, slope 146.

Royal St Georges (County = Kent & host to the 2021 Open) 7070 yards CR = 75.2, Slope = 138.

 

The fact that both courses are in Kent means they were rated by the same teams and should be consistent. The large discrepancy is, I suspect, related to the fact that Wildernesse is a tight tree-lined course whereas RSG is a wide open links course - there is only one tree on the entire course!

 

The 'Average' course slope is supposed to be 113 (in the UK it is alleged to be 125) and that makes the typical bogey golfer is actually a 21 handicap golfer. Why? Well to obtain the slope from a difference in scratch and bogey course ratings you multiply that difference by 5.381 (Men) 4.24 (Women) and  113/5.381 = 21

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Rincewindwiz

[dhc1]

On 10/19/2020 at 3:50 PM, dhc1 said:

 

 

Right now, the higher the slope (which was intended to identify the “more difficult” course as expressly stated by both the USGA chairman and the person who developed the slope system - Dean Knuth), actually makes a the better (plus) player closer to a scratch than if she had played at an easier course and posted the same scores. 
 

This is the fundamentally illogical part of the system. One can argue that it’s not worth changing as it’s a small population but it is nevertheless illogical that a below rating score on a “harder” course is viewed as a worse score than one at an easier course. 
 

heres the USGA President explicitly citing the tie between slope and difficulty. 

 

http://popeofslope.com/history/slope.html

 

knuth also has several corroborating statements at the site.
 

Sorry about the context issue in your post, btw (which I agree with).  Interestingly, Knuth also points out that his system has another “deficiency” with respect to round played between Steady Eddy and Wild Bill - he originally hoped to add another permutation to the system to take account of it. 

 

@Rincewindwiz the USGA explicitly stated why they came up with slope - in recognition that the same score relative to CR isn’t the same and that handicaps based on scores on “harder” courses need to be adjusted downwards relative to scores on “easier” courses. 

Edited November 6, 2020 by dhc1

[Rincewindwiz]

14 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

@Rincewindwiz the USGA explicitly stated why they came up with slope - in recognition that the same score relative to CR isn’t the same and that handicaps based on scores on “harder” courses need to be adjusted downwards relative to scores on “easier” courses. 

Not sure what the first bit ("same score relative to CR isn't the same") means but certainly players of handicap x on a 'hard' course are better than players of the same handicap on an easy course - really quite hard to see how it could be otherwise !!

 

And while slope is an improvement, it is not (IMHO of course 🙂) the panacea that some make it out to be as different course design challenges affect different styles of golfer (eg short and straight v long and messy) to different degrees.

[dhc1]

2 hours ago, Rincewindwiz said:

Not sure what the first bit ("same score relative to CR isn't the same") means but certainly players of handicap x on a 'hard' course are better than players of the same handicap on an easy course - really quite hard to see how it could be otherwise !!

 

And while slope is an improvement, it is not (IMHO of course 🙂) the panacea that some make it out to be as different course design challenges affect different styles of golfer (eg short and straight v long and messy) to different degrees.

I certainly agree with the second paragraph but the point of the slope system is that handicaps should be transferable so that a 10 built on a hard course is equal to a 10 built on an easier one. 
 

however, 10 over the CR at a harder course is better than a 10 over at an easier course such that the first player would likely be giving strokes to the latter in a match. 
 

this is reverse for plus golfers who score well below the CR - thus, it’s illogical. 

[davep043]

The positive aspect of the system is that a 10-stroke difference in raw score results in an identical difference in Differential for a given course and set of tees, whether the two scores are 65 and 75, or if they're 88 and 98.  THAT seems pretty logical to me.  To change the system for sub-CR scores would alter that, strokes under the Course Rating would be assigned a different "value" than strokes above the Course Rating.  That strikes me as illogical, a stroke should be a stroke.

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

The positive aspect of the system is that a 10-stroke difference in raw score results in an identical difference in Differential for a given course and set of tees, whether the two scores are 65 and 75, or if they're 88 and 98.  THAT seems pretty logical to me.  To change the system for sub-CR scores would alter that, strokes under the Course Rating would be assigned a different "value" than strokes above the Course Rating.  That strikes me as illogical, a stroke should be a stroke.

I get it - you like that the formula is simple. 
 

doesn’t make it fair, of course. 
 

Where’s the logic in penalizing plus scores (relative to course rating) for good performance on harder courses other than the formula? www know the rationale for golfers worse than scratch....

[davep043]

26 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

Where’s the logic in penalizing plus scores (relative to course rating) for good performance on harder courses other than the formula?

I thought that most of the concern was that a "good" score, one well below the course rating, was moved HIGHER (closer to zero) on a high slope course than on a low slope course.  Moving a score higher, for handicap purposes, isn't what I'd call "penalizing".  

But again, the logic behind the formula is that a single stroke difference has the same impact on handicap, whether its above the CR or below it.

Edited November 6, 2020 by davep043

[Rincewindwiz]

30 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

Where’s the logic in penalizing plus scores (relative to course rating) for good performance on harder courses other than the formula? www know the rationale for golfers worse than scratch....

Absolutely none. Only way you might make it work 'fairly' is to add a quantity (say 10) to a players handicap before doing the slope adjustment and then take it off again afterwards. (so +4 becomes 6. Slope adjustment for a harder course makes it 7 which adjusts back to +3).

Of course you would have to change all the slope tables but that is just (relatively) simple math. At least all handicaps would move in the same direction.

[DaveLeeNC]

3 hours ago, dhc1 said:

however, 10 over the CR at a harder course is better than a 10 over at an easier course such that the first player would likely be giving strokes to the latter in a match. 
 

this is reverse for plus golfers who score well below the CR - thus, it’s illogical

So how about the golfer who shoots 10 over the BR  on a high slope course and gets a "better" differential than 10 over BR on a low slope course. But 10 under the BR on a low slope course yields a better diff vs 10 under on a high slope course. Is this also "illogical"? 

 

dave

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

So how about the golfer who shoots 10 over the BR  on a high slope course and gets a "better" differential than 10 over BR on a low slope course. But 10 under the BR on a low slope course yields a better diff vs 10 under on a high slope course. Is this also "illogical"? 

 

dave

I'm assuming that BR is Course Rating. 

 

But a person who shoots an 82 (vs. 72 CR) on a very difficult course should be giving shots to someone who shoots an 82 (vs. 72 CR) on a very easy course. That's exactly what slope was explicitly intended to adjust for.

 

However, it's backwards when a person who shoots an 62 (vs. 72 CR) on a very difficult course actually gets shots from someone who shoots an 62 (vs. 72 CR) on a very easy course. This is illogical to me.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

I'm assuming that BR is Course Rating. 

 

But a person who shoots an 82 (vs. 72 CR) on a very difficult course should be giving shots to someone who shoots an 82 (vs. 72 CR) on a very easy course. That's exactly what slope was explicitly intended to adjust for.

 

However, it's backwards when a person who shoots an 62 (vs. 72 CR) on a very difficult course actually gets shots from someone who shoots an 62 (vs. 72 CR) on a very easy course. This is illogical to me.

BR is bogey rating.

[dhc1]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

I thought that most of the concern was that a "good" score, one well below the course rating, was moved HIGHER (closer to zero) on a high slope course than on a low slope course.  Moving a score higher, for handicap purposes, isn't what I'd call "penalizing".  

But again, the logic behind the formula is that a single stroke difference has the same impact on handicap, whether its above the CR or below it.

 

fair enough, the phrasing is off. See the post above for why it doesn't make sense where someone who shoots 10 under the CR on an easy (low slope) course has to give shots to another players who shoots 10 under the CR on a hard (high slope) course. 

 

It's antithetical to the stated purpose of slope rating: fair portability of handicaps that take into account differences in course difficulty.

[davep043]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

BR is bogey rating.

Yeah, if we're going to discuss (and complain about) the handicap system, its a good idea to at least understand the terminology.

[davep043]

1 minute ago, dhc1 said:

 

fair enough, the phrasing is off. See the post above for why it doesn't make sense where someone who shoots 10 under the CR on an easy (low slope) course has to give shots to another players who shoots 10 under the CR on a hard (high slope) course. 

 

It's antithetical to the stated purpose of slope rating: fair portability of handicaps that take into account differences in course difficulty.

So what's your proposal, develop another theoretical golfer, the Kim Jung Il rating for the best possible score on a given course, and use that as a baseline instead of the Scratch Golfer rating??

[dhc1]

1 minute ago, davep043 said:

Yeah, if we're going to discuss (and complain about) the handicap system, its a good idea to at least understand the terminology.

LOL - I didn't realize that understanding short hand BR was obviously bogey rating.

 

@DaveLeeNC can you provide specific examples of the 10 over BR scores (easiest if the CR is the same)? what are the strokes between the two golfers that are given in each example? Thanks. 

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

LOL - I didn't realize that understanding short hand BR was obviously bogey rating.

Thanks for understanding that I was poking a little good-natured fun.

[dhc1]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

So what's your proposal, develop another theoretical golfer, the Kim Jung Il rating for the best possible score on a given course, and use that as a baseline instead of the Scratch Golfer rating??

Putting aside the distasteful snark that is so common among the younger generation, we could eliminate course rating for scores below par. It would be more "fair" in my mind to not have each stroke differential mean the same when under par as it does when over (the "it's the formula" argument) rather than one where the person who scores the same under CR differential on an easier course has to give strokes to the one who plays on a harder course.

 

Or shockingly, we could use the average PGA player as the baseline for CR and then the linear nature would actually work. 

[dhc1]

Just now, davep043 said:

Thanks for understanding that I was poking a little good-natured fun.

well, i got a little annoyed with the next one - apologies if it was just for fun.

[davep043]

1 minute ago, dhc1 said:

Putting aside the distasteful snark that is so common among the younger generation

Wow, thanks again, at 64 years old I'm not often put in with the "younger" generation. 

But if we're trying to make things better all around, the idea of a theoretical lowest possible score makes better sense to me than using a single standard number like CR-10.  It makes better sense (to me) than using an average PGA Tour pro, as there will always be scores lower than that, so the same issue would remain.  You'd have to use a score that could absolutely not be improved on.  And what better theoretical lowest possible score than Mr. Kim's?  

 

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, dhc1 said:

LOL - I didn't realize that understanding short hand BR was obviously bogey rating.

 

@DaveLeeNC can you provide specific examples of the 10 over BR scores (easiest if the CR is the same)? what are the strokes between the two golfers that are given in each example? Thanks. 

 

I am not sure exactly what you are asking for here. The scenario that I described is a one golfer scenario that addresses the following statement from you. 

 

 

7 hours ago, dhc1 said:

however, 10 over the CR at a harder course is better than a 10 over at an easier course such that the first player would likely be giving strokes to the latter in a match. 
 

this is reverse for plus golfers who score well below the CR - thus, it’s illogical. 

 

All I did was take your statement and replace CR with BR and ask if you found it still to be illogical. 

 

Take the case of the 72/110 vs 72/140 courses that we have hypothesized. The 72/110 would have a BR of 92.4 and the 72/140 would have a BR of 98.0. 

 

A 10 over BR on the 110 slope course yields a 'worse differential' of 31.2 vs. a 10 over BR on the high slope course (differential of 29.1). I think that you will approve of this one. 

 

A 10 UNDER BR on the 110 slope course yields a better differential/score (diff=10.7) than the 10 sunder BR on the high slope course (diff = 12.9). When the scores were over/under CR you did not like the comparative result, finding it 'illogical'. 

 

And I asked if you found this (the over/under BR case) to be 'illogical' (it is how the system works with or without PLUS indexes/scores thrown in). There were certainly no below CR scores or PLUS indexes in that one. 

 

dave

 

ps. When I did the calculation of '10 over BR' for a BR of 92.4, I used a score of 102.4 just because that is what I did. It avoided roundoff complications in viewing the results. It doesn't change much but I don't feel like fixing it.  

 

 

[dhc1]

25 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am not sure exactly what you are asking for here. The scenario that I described is a one golfer scenario that addresses the following statement from you. 

 

 

 

All I did was take your statement and replace CR with BR and ask if you found it still to be illogical. 

 

Take the case of the 72/110 vs 72/140 courses that we have hypothesized. The 72/110 would have a BR of 92.4 and the 72/140 would have a BR of 98.0. 

 

A 10 over BR on the 110 slope course yields a 'worse differential' of 31.2 vs. a 10 over BR on the high slope course (differential of 29.1). I think that you will approve of this one. 

 

A 10 UNDER BR on the 110 slope course yields a better differential/score (diff=10.7) than the 10 sunder BR on the high slope course (diff = 12.9). When the scores were over/under CR you did not like the comparative result, finding it 'illogical'. 

 

And I asked if you found this (the over/under BR case) to be 'illogical' (it is how the system works with or without PLUS indexes/scores thrown in). There were certainly no below CR scores or PLUS indexes in that one. 

 

dave

 

ps. When I did the calculation of '10 over BR' for a BR of 92.4, I used a score of 102.4 just because that is what I did. It avoided roundoff complications in viewing the results. It doesn't change much but I don't feel like fixing it.  

 

 

You’ve changed the concept by switching from CR to BR as the BR inherently is adjusted for slope.
 

The player who shot 10 over BR on the 72/110 shot a 102 (30 over CR) while the player on the 72/140 shot a 108 (36 over CR). 
 

the player who shot 10 under BR on 72/110 shot an 82 while the 72/140 player shot an 88. 
 

these are both apples to oranges and not at all the example I used. We are talking about players who shot the same amount relative to CR, not BR. It’s effectively the same as the formulaic argument. 
 

the reason a player who shot a much higher 88 on 72/140 is equivalent to an 82 on 72/110 is because her course is harder. (Higher score on harder course equivalent to lower score on easier course) That logic doesn’t work when you say a lower score on a harder course is equivalent to a higher score on a easier course (lower score on harder course equivalent to higher score on easier course). 

[DaveLeeNC]

10 hours ago, dhc1 said:

You’ve changed the concept by switching from CR to BR as the BR inherently is adjusted for slope.

 

I will leave it up to you to correct that pretty gross mis-statement (in bold). 

 

So you don't like that one. So try this. 

 

Joe Steady shoots as close to a diff of 15 as round off will allow no matter where he plays. So on the same as before 110 course he shoots 82 and on the 140 slope course he shoots 86. Day in, day out, same scores. 

 

So he has a shocking bad day on the 110 course shooting 82+5 yielding a diff of 20.6. Then he has another shocking bad day on the 140 course and shoots a 86+5 yielding a diff of 19.4, so the same +5 strokes on the higher sloped course yields a 'better score. You should like that. 

 

Then he has a career day on on the 110 course shooting 82-5 yielding a differential of 10.3. He then has another career day on the 140 course shooting 86-5 yielding a differential of 11.3.

 

So in the latter case the 'better' score was on the lower sloped course. 

 

If you don't like that example then how about YOU showing an example of where it works like you want it to work. 

 

dave

Edited November 7, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Ty_Webb]

I'm wondering if this would be clearer if we looked at it like this:

 

- If you play all your golf on one course...

- let's suppose that you have a variation in your game, how you play day to day

- on a high slope course that variability will be wider if you play well vs if you play badly

- on a low slope couse, that variability will be tighter if you play well vs if you play badly

- either a: that variability remains the same whether your handicap is 20, 15, 10, 5, 0, +5 or b: it magically changes at 0, such that below 0, that variability suddenly flips upside down and if your handicap is below scratch, then you have tighter scores on the high slope course than on the low slope course.

- if you agree with b, as certain people seem to, then you need to explain what is special about a 0 handicap that means that suddenly your range of scores tightens on a "harder" course while it spreads out on a "easy" course

- alternatively, you could concede that you're wrong...

- dhc1 - you were so close when you said "fair point" a few weeks ago. Extrapolate from that - there's only one conclusion that doesn't throw up massive anomalies...

[Newby]

7 hours ago, dhc1 said:

 

 because her course is harder. 

No it isn't.  72 is 72. That is how 'hard' they both are.

But 140 indicates that it is relatively harder than 110 for a higher handicapper.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Newby

[Shilgy]

21 hours ago, Rincewindwiz said:

Absolutely none. Only way you might make it work 'fairly' is to add a quantity (say 10) to a players handicap before doing the slope adjustment and then take it off again afterwards. (so +4 becomes 6. Slope adjustment for a harder course makes it 7 which adjusts back to +3).

Of course you would have to change all the slope tables but that is just (relatively) simple math. At least all handicaps would move in the same direction.

You just wound up at the same as it is now. So it does make sense.

[Rincewindwiz]

14 hours ago, Shilgy said:

You just wound up at the same as it is now. So it does make sense.

I wouldn't know. The UK has never before had to put up with slope. If that is the (sensible) way it worked previously, I wonder why they changed it? i would like to think those in charge knew what they were doing but sometimes I do wonder . . . . .