Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, davep043 said:

Slope measures the DIFFERENCE in difficulty for a "bogey golfer" as compared to a "scratch golfer". 

 

This.

[dmecca2]

Following this topic because this happens to me regularly and doesn't seem logical... 

[davep043]

35 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Following this topic because this happens to me regularly and doesn't seem logical... 

Just wondering, how often do you play courses with widely varying slope ratings?  The OP compared a course with a Slope of 120 against another course with a Slope of 150, which is a pretty dang dramatic difference. Most really good players seem to play relatively long tees, with relatively high Course Ratings, and these all seem (in my experience only) to have relatively high Slope Ratings.  Not always, of course, but that's what I see.

Edited October 8, 2020 by davep043

[Newby]

)

On 10/7/2020 at 8:04 AM, 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.

Exactly.

Except - fewer strokes to 'give' to the course 😉

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

9 hours ago, davep043 said:

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.

your 2nd two paragraphs are incorrect.  It seems like it makes sense but it doesn’t when you dig deeper.  An incorrect handicap is an incorrect handicap.  Just because it incorrectly measures golfers twice in opposite ways doesn’t mean it comes out correct.  Just compare 2 plus golfers playing on the same course all the time for simplification. It doesn’t cancel out like you suggest it will. The logic of the handicap system fails.

 

And it doesn’t address my examples at all.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

This.

the point is it’s not meant to be applied to scratch and below unless it’s the opposite....

 

You don’t think the handicap system means to say that a course with a 150 slope rating is relatively more easy than a course with a 120 rating for plus handicaps, do you?

Edited October 8, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[davep043]

18 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

your 2nd two paragraphs are incorrect.  It seems like it makes sense but it doesn’t when you dig deeper.  An incorrect handicap is an incorrect handicap.  Just because it incorrectly measures golfers twice in opposite ways doesn’t mean it comes out correct.  Just compare 2 plus golfers playing on the same course all the time for simplification. It doesn’t cancel out like you suggest it will. The logic of the handicap system fails.

 

And it doesn’t address my examples at all.  

The handicap system "measures" golfers when they post a score.  That "measurement" forms the basis for a Handicap Index.  Calculating a Course Handicap, however, is NOT a measurement.  And for the extremely small minority of players who are Plus Handicaps, the "problem" is reversed. 

 

As I said, I won't defend the logic of of the Differential Calculation, other than to say (again) that the issue is relatively small, based on magnitude of the score's difference from CR, and on the numbers of players who shoot scores that low.  You used a VERY extreme variation, and it resulted in about a half-stroke difference in the resulting differential.  How often do YOU shoot negative differentials?  There are lots of ways in which its impossible to develop a "perfect" handicap system, this one seems like its a pretty small issue, both in terms of the number of scores it effects, and in the magnitude of its influence.

[DaveLeeNC]

For those who believe that there is a problem WRT to + vs. - indexes and stroke allocation .....

 

In the current system assume that there 3 golfers who play regularly against each other and A has a 10 index, B a 5,  and C is 0. The only  course that any of them play  is par 72, rating is 72, and slope is 136. If A play's B then A gets 6 strokes. If a plays C then A gets 12 strokes. I doubt that there is an issue in most people's mind in this case. 

 

Now assume that each of them improve by 5 strokes (on this same course). They all suddenly just start shooting every round such that the score  5 strokes better than before (every round is suddenly 5 strokes better than its corresponding previous round). So each golfer's index will improve by 6 strokes (assuming that ALL rounds for these golfers are played on this same course). 

 

It would seem pretty obvious that if 6 strokes (A vs. B) and 12 (A vs C) was right before, then 6 strokes is right after this change has settled in (even though one of them is now a plus index golfer). And that is exactly how the current system works and any other mucking around with 'no slope below scratch' or change the slope calculation will yield a different (and illogical) result. 

 

dave

Edited October 8, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Shilgy]

12 hours ago, HatsForBats said:

 

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.

 

 

If I recall correctly the answer is because everyone is getting too caught up in the +/- factor.

In Hats’s fine example above the plus and the minus are 4.52 apart on the 150 slope and are 5.65 apart on the 120 slope. Why should it make a difference if they are both negative? Meaning add 4 strokes to both scores and do the math. Have them shoot 82 and 76 versus the 78 and 72 in the above example. Shouldn’t the differentials be the same distance apart no matter this +/- nonsense? And guess what? They are. Raise both score by 4 and the differentials are still 4.52 and 5.65 apart. 
 

Which shows the USGA math is correct.

[Shilgy]

PS it’s the same as the debate about the events with a percentage of handicaps being used. If it is 20% reduction both plus and minus caps move TOWARDS zero. It keeps players the same distance apart whether they are plus or minus.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

The handicap system "measures" golfers when they post a score.  That "measurement" forms the basis for a Handicap Index.  Calculating a Course Handicap, however, is NOT a measurement.  And for the extremely small minority of players who are Plus Handicaps, the "problem" is reversed. 

 

As I said, I won't defend the logic of of the Differential Calculation, other than to say (again) that the issue is relatively small, based on magnitude of the score's difference from CR, and on the numbers of players who shoot scores that low.  You used a VERY extreme variation, and it resulted in about a half-stroke difference in the resulting differential.  How often do YOU shoot negative differentials?  There are lots of ways in which its impossible to develop a "perfect" handicap system, this one seems like its a pretty small issue, both in terms of the number of scores it effects, and in the magnitude of its influence.

Ok so you are only saying “it’s not a big deal”.   Maybe not to you but it certainly matters to plus handicaps, whether they know it or not.
 

At first you were trying to defend it as being logical.  Glad you admit it’s not.

 

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Ok so you are only saying “it’s not a big deal”.   Maybe not to you but it certainly matters to plus handicaps, whether they know it or not.
 

At first you were trying to defend it as being logical.  Glad you admit it’s not.

 

But it is logical. See the post above yours.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

59 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

For those who believe that there is a problem WRT to + vs. - indexes and stroke allocation .....

 

In the current system assume that there 3 golfers who play regularly against each other and A has a 10 index, B a 5,  and C is 0. The only  course that any of them play  is par 72, rating is 72, and slope is 136. If A play's B then A gets 6 strokes. If a plays C then A gets 12 strokes. I doubt that there is an issue in most people's mind in this case. 

 

Now assume that each of them improve by 5 strokes (on this same course). They all suddenly just start shooting every round such that the score  5 strokes better than before (every round is suddenly 5 strokes better than its corresponding previous round). So each golfer's index will improve by 6 strokes (assuming that ALL rounds for these golfers are played on this same course). 

 

It would seem pretty obvious that if 6 strokes (A vs. B) and 12 (A vs C) was right before, then 6 strokes is right after this change has settled in (even though one of them is now a plus index golfer). And that is exactly how the current system works and any other mucking around with 'no slope below scratch' or change the slope calculation will yield a different (and illogical) result. 

 

dave

You just completely ignored the entire issue...

 

the scratch golfers handicap wouldn’t approve by 6 strokes...

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

10 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

But it is logical. See the post above yours.

No it’s not and it’s been explained why many times.  
 

Just compare plus golfers to plus golfers using same course rating.  Some of you just don’t seem to get it.  It only seems logical to you when you compare a plus to a minus.

 

Start just comparing pluses.  Using the negatives creates a red herring.

 

see:

 

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

 

Why should a negative handicap be getting less strokes in the future vs golfer 1 than vs golfer 2?

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Shilgy]

11 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

You just completely ignored the entire issue...

 

9 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

No it’s not and it’s been explained why many times.  
 

Just compare plus golfers to plus golfers using same course rating.  Some of you just don’t seem to get it.

Then try this...instead of my example where they both shot four strokes higher have them shoot four strokes less than Hat’s example. Have one shoot 74 at both the 75.0 150 and 75.0 120 courses.. Have the other shoot 68. Same two courses. With me so far? The differentials will still be the same distance apart. As they should be.

 

Edited to add...it may be illogical but the math works.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Shilgy

[Shilgy]

15 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

No it’s not and it’s been explained why many times.  
 

Just compare plus golfers to plus golfers using same course rating.  Some of you just don’t seem to get it.  It only seems logical to you when you compare a plus to a minus.

 

Start just comparing pluses.  Using the negatives creates a red herring.

 

see:

 

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

 

Why should a negative handicap be getting less strokes in the future vs golfer 1 than vs golfer 2?

 

 

Would you agree that the differentials shooting a 82 to 76 at the two courses should be the same distance apart as shooting a 74 or a 68? Because they are with the current math.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Shilgy

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

6 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

 

Then try this...instead of my example where they both shot four strokes higher have them shoot four strokes less than Hat’s example. Have one shoot 74 at both the 75.0 150 and 75.0 120 courses.. Have the other shoot 68. Same two courses. With me so far? The differentials will still be the same distance apart. As they should be.

 

Edited to add...it may be illogical but the math works.

Sorry I don’t follow.  It seems like it requires very shoddy examples involving both plus and minus players in order for it to seem like it might make sense.  
 

Can you answer my very simple question above?  It’s a very straightforward example of why it doesn’t make sense.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Would you agree that the differential shooting a 82 to 76 at the two courses should be the same distance apart as shooting a 74 or a 68. Because they are with the current math.

No they shouldn’t be.... thats the entire point 

[Shilgy]

Just now, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Sorry I don’t follow.  Can you answer my very simple question above?

 

 

I tried to explain to you that the current system is correct. In this example scores 6 strokes apart have the same variance between each other whether they are plus or minus caps. Seems fair no? Could be a score 30 over the rating on each course-105 in his example-  versus his buddy shooting six strokes better at 99 or it could be the guy shooting 74 versus his buddy at 68. Six strokes apart yields the same difference in differentials.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

4 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I tried to explain to you that the current system is correct. In this example scores 6 strokes apart have the same variance between each other whether they are plus or minus caps. Seems fair no? Could be a score 30 over the rating on each course-105 in his example-  versus his buddy shooting six strokes better at 99 or it could be the guy shooting 74 versus his buddy at 68. Six strokes apart yields the same difference in differentials.

So you can’t answer the very simple and direct question.  Does that not give you pause?

 

your examples are very long and convoluted and I’m not even sure all the math is all orrect. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[DaveLeeNC]

24 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

You just completely ignored the entire issue...

 

the scratch golfers handicap wouldn’t approve by 6 strokes...

 

I do not understand what you are saying. If a scratch golfer improves his score by FIVE strokes (my example) then their index (slope = 136) goes down 6 strokes. What are you saying? 

 

dave

[Shilgy]

TrueBle...one more example for you. I am sure you do not think it logical in a handicapped event using 80% of handicap for a 8 handicap to lose 1.6 strokes to a 6.4 while the +2 moves to +1.6.  Am I right in you think the +2 should move the other way? Those two players are 10 handicap strokes apart and move to 8.(6.4 vs +1.6) in the event.  Take a 20 handicap and a 10. The 20 moves to 16 and the 10 moves to an 8. Guess what? Same 8 strokes apart in the 80% handicapped event .

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I do not understand what you are saying. If a scratch golfer improves his score by FIVE strokes (my example) then their index (slope = 136) goes down 6 strokes. What are you saying? 

 

dave

it doesn’t though.  It goes down by 4.15.  You are reversing the numerator which is what I’m proposing.

that’s my entire issue!!

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

So you can’t answer the very simple and direct question.  Does that not give you pause?

 

your examples are very long and convoluted and I’m not even sure all the math is all orrect. 

Then do the math yourself. It is easy to do and I did it so I could explain it to you

Take the score minus the course rating times (113/ slope) .

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

So you can’t answer the very simple and direct question.  Does that not give you pause?

 

your examples are very long and convoluted and I’m not even sure all the math is all orrect. 

Yes, it gave me pause...until I did the math for you.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

TrueBle...one more example for you. I am sure you do not think it logical in a handicapped event using 80% of handicap for a 8 handicap to lose 1.6 strokes to a 6.4 while the +2 moves to +1.6.  Am I right in you think the +2 should move the other way? Those two players are 10 handicap strokes apart and move to 8.(6.4 vs +1.6) in the event.  Take a 20 handicap and a 10. The 20 moves to 16 and the 10 moves to an 8. Guess what? Same 8 strokes apart in the 80% handicapped event .

This isn’t the same issue at all. Somewhat similar but not the same.

 

You think a round of 68 on a 72.0/120 is better than a 68 on a 72.0/135.  That’s fine.  I think that makes no sense.  
 

Now before you move on to a convoluted tournament example, think about how that affects plus handicaps before the tourney.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[Shilgy]

10 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

This isn’t the same issue at all. Somewhat similar but not the same.

 

You think a round of 68 on a 72.0/120 is better than a 68 on a 72.0/135.  That’s fine.  I think that makes no sense.  
 

Now before you move on to a convoluted tournament example, think about how that affects plus handicaps before the tourney.

Of course it is the same. I am done explaining it if you refuse to heed the logic. It may not seem correct to you but every single example given to you shows it is correct. 
 

Have a good evening.

[DaveLeeNC]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

it doesn’t though.  It goes down by 4.15.  You are reversing the numerator which is what I’m proposing.

that’s my entire issue!!

 

 

My error here. I was arguing CH and using the term index (not sure how/why I did that). The argument still stands. If a scratch golfer and 5 index golfer both improve 5 strokes in all scores on the same course, then the current calculation will keep their relative CH differences the same. Other changes will not do that. 

 

If a golfer is shooting nothing but 78's on a par 72, rating 72, slope 136 course his index is 5 and  he gets 6 strokes from a scratch golfer. If he improves his scoring 5 strokes, then his index goes to 0.8 and his CH goes to 1. If the scratch golfer also improves by 5 strokes his index goes to 4.2 better than par and his CH goes to -5 and he loses the SAME 6 strokes to the other golfer. 

 

Reversing the numerator/denominator would change that relationship. 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

On 10/6/2020 at 11:01 PM, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

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

 

Some of you gentlemen seem to be missing True's point.

 

The math above is correct.

 

But the same score at a lower sloped course should not produce a lower differential than the same score on the 150 sloped course.

 

Take a normal handicap, say a "5".

 

He shoots 80 on the 150 sloped course and his diff is 3.8.

 

He shoots 80 on the 120 sloped course and his diff is 4.7

 

As we would expect this player's differential is lower/better for the 150 sloped course.

 

That's NOT what's happening to the PLUS player above. His diff is lower/better for the 120 sloped course.

[Thayneil]

On 10/7/2020 at 8:38 PM, 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.

I have seen that here in Thailand.guy plays on Asian tour and when he plays at his club the higher the slope the less well he scores as a differential.limits the increase in his plus index