Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

27 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

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

This is a good justification but it assumes that it makes sense for the stroke loss to be the same once someone goes under scratch, which is kind of a circular argument because that uses the same slope issue as justification.

 

But that may be why they keep it despite the logic not working in the actual handicap calculation of the plus golfer.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[ThinkingPlus]

The issue here is that the USGA Handicap System's purpose is to allow players of differing ability to play a somewhat equitable match.  The math as it is defined makes that possible no matter if the players are plus, scratch, bogey, or worse.  The purpose of the handicap system is not to identify, in an absolute sense, who is the best golfer based on their index.

[Thayneil]

On 10/8/2020 at 2:51 AM, 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). 

Correct simple change required

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The issue here is that the USGA Handicap System's purpose is to allow players of differing ability to play a somewhat equitable match.  The math as it is defined makes that possible no matter if the players are plus, scratch, bogey, or worse.  The purpose of the handicap system is not to identify, in an absolute sense, who is the best golfer based on their index.

Im saying the ability of a plus golfer isn’t being accurately measured, so it’s not exactly equitable.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Im saying the ability of a plus golfer isn’t being accurately measured.

Yes.  That’s not the purpose of the handicap system.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes.  That’s not the purpose of the handicap system.

I added. 
 

Someone matched against a plus golfer isn’t getting as many strokes as they should be.

 

Or in a match between 2 plus players they may be giving the better player a stroke or 2.

 

A plus player that plays on a course with a much lower slope will be at a disadvantage against a plus player that plays on a course with a much higher slope when using handicaps.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

I added. 
 

Someone matched against a plus golfer isn’t getting as many strokes as they should be.

 

Or in a match between 2 plus players they may be giving the better player a stroke or 2.

 

A plus player that plays on a course with a much lower slope will be at a disadvantage against a plus player that plays on a course with a much higher slope when using handicaps.

 

 

Basically, the definition and implementation of slope created this issue.  Recall that slope does not negatively or positively impact a scratch player by definition.  A bogey player is negatively impacted by slope by definition.  In order to create a self consistent system, a plus handicap must somehow be positively impacted by slope.  We all know that isn't really true, but that is the way the system is defined.  Another way to think of this is that "scratch" should really be +8.  A +8 is typically a pro golfer who truly isn't impacted by slope.  If the system was shifted by 8 strokes, there would be no plus golfers, the calculations would all pass the sniff test, and this thread would not exist.

[Shilgy]

For all of those that are still in disbelief....

do you all agree that, for example, six shots difference in score should yield the same margin difference in differential no matter the scores? Meaning if on the 150 slope course used earlier there will be the same difference in differential whether the two scores are 105-99  or 80-74  or 76-70. Or 73 to 67? Does everyone agree with that? Six strokes should create the same margin of differentials no matter the exact scores? 
Then I suggest you all do the math and you will see the system is correct.

@nsxguy I know you are a bright guy. Do the math and get back to me whether it is still incorrect.

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Basically, the definition and implementation of slope created this issue.  Recall that slope does not negatively or positively impact a scratch player by definition.  A bogey player is negatively impacted by slope by definition.  In order to create a self consistent system, a plus handicap must somehow be positively impacted by slope.  We all know that isn't really true, but that is the way the system is defined.  Another way to think of this is that "scratch" should really be +8.  A +8 is typically a pro golfer who truly isn't impacted by slope.  If the system was shifted by 8 strokes, there would be no plus golfers, the calculations would all pass the sniff test, and this thread would not exist.

Which is another way of explaining what I have been saying. Thank you!

 

ps everyone that thinks it is wrong compare the various range of scores-please!

Edited October 9, 2020 by Shilgy

[DaveLeeNC]

31 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

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.

 

Every pair of courses with unequal slopes and unequal ratings exhibit this phenomenon at some point. Take a pair of courses, one with slope 139, rating 70 (probably a par 70 course) and another with slope 125 rating 71 (probably a par 72 course). A golfer shooting 80 on each of these courses ends up with the same differential. 

 

Shooting 83's gives you a 'better' differential on the high slope course. Shooting 77's gives you a 'better' differential on the low slope course. Every pair of courses with differing slopes and ratings do this somewhere. 

 

Folks arguing against the USGA system do NOT have an issue with how scores/handicaps below the CR are handled. They have an issue with the fact that things are being expressed as a single straight line (because two lines of different slope cross somewhere always). 

 

dave

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

45 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

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

 

I figured out the problem with this example.  

What if the plus 4.2 moves to a 120 slope course and continues shooting 67.   Golfer A will now be getting more strokes vs him, even though Golfer B hasn’t improved.  If anything Golfer B has gotten worse.  More likely he’d begin shooting better and lower his handicap on the easier sloped course, without any actual improvement. 
 

It seems like these differences are small but it’s obvious the slope rating is misapplied to plus golfers and long term a golfer playing a higher sloped course will be at an advantage in matches.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

10 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Basically, the definition and implementation of slope created this issue.  Recall that slope does not negatively or positively impact a scratch player by definition.  A bogey player is negatively impacted by slope by definition.  In order to create a self consistent system, a plus handicap must somehow be positively impacted by slope.  We all know that isn't really true, but that is the way the system is defined.  Another way to think of this is that "scratch" should really be +8.  A +8 is typically a pro golfer who truly isn't impacted by slope.  If the system was shifted by 8 strokes, there would be no plus golfers, the calculations would all pass the sniff test, and this thread would not exist.

Yup well put

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

16 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

For all of those that are still in disbelief....

do you all agree that, for example, six shots difference in score should yield the same margin difference in differential no matter the scores? Meaning if on the 150 slope course used earlier there will be the same difference in differential whether the two scores are 105-99  or 80-74  or 76-70. Or 73 to 67? Does everyone agree with that? Six strokes should create the same margin of differentials no matter the exact scores? 
Then I suggest you all do the math and you will see the system is correct.

@nsxguy I know you are a bright guy. Do the math and get back to me whether it is still incorrect.

That is true.

 

That doesn’t mean the system doesn’t fail in the way I’ve described.  I just had the wrong solution.
 

Looks like we agree that it’s flawed and the only solution that would be perfectly logical for every example given is the one posted above.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[jvincent]

I'm going to revisit this thread when I get to a +4.

 

[Shilgy]

55 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

That is true.

 

That doesn’t mean the system doesn’t fail in the way I’ve described.  I just had the wrong solution.
 

Looks like we agree that it’s flawed and the only solution that would be perfectly logical for every example given is the one posted above.

Flawed but correct then? As long as it is correct it’s all good to me!

 

edited to add...it is illogical but it is also mathematically correct. Good work USGA!

Edited October 9, 2020 by Shilgy

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

34 minutes ago, jvincent said:

I'm going to revisit this thread when I get to a +4.

 

You say that in jest but it actually is unfair for those guys.

 

You have to remember that their scores will adjust based on course rating.  So if you ignore slope a true 4 will be a 4 and a true 5 will be a 5 no matter the course rating they play on.

 

But if the 5 plays on a 150/75 and the 4 plays on a 120/70, they will both be 4’s.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Flawed but correct then? As long as it is correct it’s all good to me!

 

edited to add...it is illogical but it is also mathematically correct. Good work USGA!

It mathematically works but it doesn’t accurately measure the skill (absolute or relatively) of plus golfers.

 

I wouldn’t call that correct.

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

It mathematically works but it doesn’t accurately measure the skill (absolute or relatively) of plus golfers.

 

I wouldn’t call that correct.

Relatively is what matters in the handicap system. It is not truly a  barometer of “how good you are” it is a measure to determine how many strokes you give another golfer. And relatively it does work...as I showed...and as @ThinkingPlus showed. All that matters is the variance between scores stays the same...and it does with the current system.

 Yes, it “seems” illogical as everyone else seems to have their handicap lowered by the slope adjustment but as @davep043 pointed out the idea is they both move towards zero. As illogical as it sounds it keeps the margins between two scores equal.

[Nels55]

37 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Relatively is what matters in the handicap system. It is not truly a  barometer of “how good you are” it is a measure to determine how many strokes you give another golfer. And relatively it does work...as I showed...and as @ThinkingPlus showed. All that matters is the variance between scores stays the same...and it does with the current system.

 Yes, it “seems” illogical as everyone else seems to have their handicap lowered by the slope adjustment but as @davep043 pointed out the idea is they both move towards zero. As illogical as it sounds it keeps the margins between two scores equal.

Correct!  It was useful for me to realize that the calculations are linear.  

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Nels55

[DaveLeeNC]

9 hours ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

 

I figured out the problem with this example.  

What if the plus 4.2 moves to a 120 slope course and continues shooting 67.   Golfer A will now be getting more strokes vs him, even though Golfer B hasn’t improved.  If anything Golfer B has gotten worse.  More likely he’d begin shooting better and lower his handicap on the easier sloped course, without any actual improvement. 
 

It seems like these differences are small but it’s obvious the slope rating is misapplied to plus golfers and long term a golfer playing a higher sloped course will be at an advantage in matches.

 

Slope does not define the difficulty of a course. No valid analysis can be done without both slope and CR when 2 different courses are involved. Higher slope is not synonymous with harder. 

 

dave

[dmecca2]

17 hours ago, davep043 said:

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.

Here are some course ratings/slope in my area that I play often: 72.3/127, 73.7/141, 74.7/140, 72.3/130, 72.4 135, 68.1/113. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the main issue addressed. A lot of people are saying that the math corrects itself or the system is actually correct. But I don't think that's the case. If I shoot a 67 on a 72/125, and a friend shoots 67 on a 72/145, I did not play the better round, but it goes into the system saying I did. If we then match up in a handicapped event later on based on the same scores shot at these courses, I should be receiving a shot, not giving a shot. To me, that's a huge difference. 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Relatively is what matters in the handicap system. It is not truly a  barometer of “how good you are” it is a measure to determine how many strokes you give another golfer. And relatively it does work...as I showed...and as @ThinkingPlus showed. All that matters is the variance between scores stays the same...and it does with the current system.

 Yes, it “seems” illogical as everyone else seems to have their handicap lowered by the slope adjustment but as @davep043 pointed out the idea is they both move towards zero. As illogical as it sounds it keeps the margins between two scores equal.

yes, the relativity isn’t correct.  At this point you are just being obtuse because you want to “win” this discussion. 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

22 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Slope does not define the difficulty of a course. No valid analysis can be done without both slope and CR when 2 different courses are involved. Higher slope is not synonymous with harder. 

 

dave

In my case it’s actually associated with easier.  Do you think that’s correct?

I don’t know why you can’t just admit it’s not the correct outcome.

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

In my case it’s actually associated with easier.  Do you think that’s correct?

 

 

 

I do not know how to know the answer to that (which is my point). 

 

dave

 

 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

Just now, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I do not know how to know the answer to that (which is my point). 

 

dave

 

 

The answer is obvious.  It doesn’t make sense.

[DaveLeeNC]

4 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

The answer is obvious.  It doesn’t make sense.

 

The answer is not obvious to me. dave

[Newby]

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

Here are some course ratings/slope in my area that I play often: 72.3/127, 73.7/141, 74.7/140, 72.3/130, 72.4 135, 68.1/113. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the main issue addressed. A lot of people are saying that the math corrects itself or the system is actually correct. But I don't think that's the case. If I shoot a 67 on a 72/125, and a friend shoots 67 on a 72/145, I did not play the better round, but it goes into the system saying I did. If we then match up in a handicapped event later on based on the same scores shot at these courses, I should be receiving a shot, not giving a shot. To me, that's a huge difference. 

If I shoot a 67 on a 72/125, and a friend shoots 67 on a 72/145, I did not play the better round, but it goes into the system saying I did.

 

No it doesn't. 

Do the following calculation for each score.

 

(113 / Slope) x (Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC if applicable) 

 

They are figures that are in the system

 

But it would make more sense if you provided your handicaps and gross and net scores. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Newby

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

7 minutes ago, Newby said:

If I shoot a 67 on a 72/125, and a friend shoots 67 on a 72/145, I did not play the better round, but it goes into the system saying I did.

 

No it doesn't. 

Do the following calculation for each score.

 

(113 / Slope) x (Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC if applicable) 

 

They are figures that are in the system

you may want to do that calculation yourself. 
 

He gets a -4.52 differential and his friend gets a -3.89 differential.  The -4.52 is considered the better round.

Edited October 9, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[DaveLeeNC]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

you may want to do that calculation yourself. 
 

He gets a -4.52 differential and his friend gets a -3.89 differential.  The -4.52 is considered the better round.

 

This is in response to one of several examples and I don't know which one it is. What are the relevant CR, Slope, Scores, and indexes all in one place? I cannot tell primarily because the current system only supplies a single quote source. 

 

dave

[dmecca2]

12 minutes ago, Newby said:

If I shoot a 67 on a 72/125, and a friend shoots 67 on a 72/145, I did not play the better round, but it goes into the system saying I did.

 

No it doesn't. 

Do the following calculation for each score.

 

(113 / Slope) x (Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC if applicable) 

 

They are figures that are in the system

 

But it would make more sense if you provided your handicaps and gross and net scores. 

See the calculation above. This is the entire point of the post. While it may not happen often and only affects a very small portion of the golf community, it doesn't make sense, and is weird for a worldwide system to be so simply flawed.