Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[Habitual Flipper]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Habitual Flipper...except for the case where the two courses have the same CR). 

 

dave

 

Which is why my the example in point #3 the courses both have the same CR. That is the only case that I'm arguing where it doesn't completely make sense, when dealing with same CRs, different slopes and plus handicaps.

 

Found someone who has basically done a thesis on this. USGA is aware it seems but stick to the idea that for plus handicaps, higher slope courses are easier than lower slope courses. I'm not sure I buy it, especially given some of the arguments in the article.

 

Check it out: 

http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/2012/08/why-slope-handicap-system-doesnt-work.html?m=1

[DaveLeeNC]

In your example #3 you have picked a pair of courses where the relevant scores are below the 'crossing point' and another pair of scores are above the crossing point and observed (correctly) how they behave vs. slope. The crossing point in this case happens to be equal CR's. But every pair of courses with differing CR/Slope ratings show this same phenomenon at some point and it has nothing to do with Plus handicaps.

 

If you were to follow @Nels55 suggestion and redefine a zero handicap to a different (higher skill level) golfer, all that changes is that everybody's index is suddenly 10 (or whatever) strokes higher than before. It does not change your example (just add 10 to all the #'s). 

 

But there is a crucial assumption being made here and that is that when you draw a straight line between the new CR (based on a Plus 10 index player's expected score) and a Bogey Golfer's expected score, that for scores above the old CR, you get roughly the same line. THIS MIGHT NOT BE TRUE and this is the question at hand that data could answer, but no one interested in the question has the data. 

 

The author of the link in your post is suggesting that this relationship is not a straight line and further suggests what this shape should be (two straight lines with the breakpoint at CR). Maybe this is a better solution, but this is not a Plus Handicap problem. 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

22 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Habitual Flipper"I'm unable to download your files, can you explain how there isn't an issue? My example 3 in the post below shows that the handicap calculation is flawed when dealing with 2 plus handicaps playing at different courses."

 

Your example happens with EVERY pair of courses of unequal Slope and Rating and often Plus handicaps are not involved. For the case of the same CR, this point is scores at the CR. But take a pair of courses at CR/Slope of 70/139 and 71/125. If you shoot scores above 80, then you will get a lower index on the high slope course. If you shoot scores only below 80 your will get the lower index on the lower slope course (and scores of 80 yield the same index on both courses). It has nothing to do with Plus vs not Plus handicaps (except for the case where the two courses have the same CR). 

 

dave

I’ve already explained to you why this “issue” isn’t the same thing at all.

 

Leads me to think that you still don’t get the actual issue.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

22 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Sorry about the attachments maybe there is some reason why they are not allowed to be opened.  You can write to the USGA and they will explain it and probably send you the same docs I tried to post.  LOL I believed as you do before I wrote to the USGA and posted such on another forum.   

 

It is a linear fit and the zero point is arbitrarily set to 'par'.  If it was set to -18 instead then everything would come out the same and you would not notice anything other than your handicap being 18 strokes higher...

I couldn’t open the documents either but it sounds like their explanation is that it actually is easier to shoot 5 below CR on a 150 slope than a 120 slope, which we all know isn’t true.

 

They know they designed it incorrectly from the beginning but rather than admit to any kind of shortcoming they treat everyone like they’re idiots.

Edited October 12, 2020 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[DaveLeeNC]

48 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

I’ve already explained to you why this “issue” isn’t the same thing at all.

 

Leads me to think that you still don’t get the actual issue.

 

Why don't we just agree to leave this at the point at which we have agreement (that one of us does not understand this issue). 

 

dave

[dubbelbogey]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

I couldn’t open the documents either but it sounds like their explanation is that it actually is easier to shoot 5 below CR on a 150 slope than a 120 slope, which we all know isn’t true.

 

They know they designed it incorrectly from the beginning but rather than admit to any kind of shortcoming they treat everyone like they’re idiots.

I'd state it more strongly - not only do we all know it isn't true, it's a patently ridiculous assertion. If you look at the USGA's own course rating guide, it absolutely shows that all course obstacles (which go into slope rating) negatively affect all golfers - just less strongly for the most skilled than the lesser skilled players.

 

This would be equivalent to something in baseball where a ballpark with home run fences at 450ft would somehow be easier than a park with them at 400ft fences for the best long ball hitters. Makes zero sense.

[Mudguard]

5 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

This would be equivalent to something in baseball where a ballpark with home run fences at 450ft would somehow be easier than a park with them at 400ft fences for the best long ball hitters. Makes zero sense.

I'd say the slope analogy is closer to having a 450ft fence for the best hitters when they're playing the worst pitchers. Or 400ft fence when the poor hitters play best pitchers. If everyone is the same then it (slope) doesn't matter. 

[davep043]

I read the article, and it actually does make sense to me.  For a "high slope" course (say 136), the expected average difference between a scratch and a 5 is expected to be 6 strokes.  The difference between a scratch and a +5 should also be about 6 strokes.  For a low slope (say 113). the difference should be 5 strokes, for either pair of players.  To be consistent, the determination of differentials SHOULD work exactly the same, in the opposite direction, which it does.  Say the +5 shoots a score equal to -6 based on the course rating, and slope = 136.  That results in a differential of 5, exactly as it should.  The scratch shoots even (=CR) on the same course, the differential is 0.  The 5 shoots 6 over, his differential is 5.  Each differential is correct, based on the differences between them.

In essence, the higher the slope, the more the scores move towards zero, but the difference between the differentials stays exactly as it should, no matter if the differential is positive or negative.

It IS counterintuitive, but its absolutely logical within the system.

[dmecca2]

On 10/11/2020 at 1:25 AM, Habitual Flipper said:

 

Which is why my the example in point #3 the courses both have the same CR. That is the only case that I'm arguing where it doesn't completely make sense, when dealing with same CRs, different slopes and plus handicaps.

 

Found someone who has basically done a thesis on this. USGA is aware it seems but stick to the idea that for plus handicaps, higher slope courses are easier than lower slope courses. I'm not sure I buy it, especially given some of the arguments in the article.

 

Check it out: 

http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/2012/08/why-slope-handicap-system-doesnt-work.html?m=1

What a great article that hits on exactly this thread's topic. From what I gather, their first claim is just plain wrong and is easily disproven (which is sad that they stick by that), but their second point has some validity and actual math backing up their point until the author provides his dissenting argument. 

 

The examples that the author provides CLEARLY show that there is an issue in the system and he also provides distinct examples that are even more drastic than what we were fictionally coming up with ourselves. The problem exists and the author even shows a simple equation that would fix the problem. 

[dmecca2]

4 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I read the article, and it actually does make sense to me.  For a "high slope" course (say 136), the expected average difference between a scratch and a 5 is expected to be 6 strokes.  The difference between a scratch and a +5 should also be about 6 strokes.  For a low slope (say 113). the difference should be 5 strokes, for either pair of players.  To be consistent, the determination of differentials SHOULD work exactly the same, in the opposite direction, which it does.  Say the +5 shoots a score equal to -6 based on the course rating, and slope = 136.  That results in a differential of 5, exactly as it should.  The scratch shoots even (=CR) on the same course, the differential is 0.  The 5 shoots 6 over, his differential is 5.  Each differential is correct, based on the differences between them.

In essence, the higher the slope, the more the scores move towards zero, but the difference between the differentials stays exactly as it should, no matter if the differential is positive or negative.

It IS counterintuitive, but its absolutely logical within the system.

I agree with your statement, but that's not the actual issue. The issue arises when two plus handicaps play each other with indices derived from playing different courses with the same CR, but different slope. The author's examples clearly show the issue. 

[HatsForBats]

On 10/9/2020 at 3:27 PM, davep043 said:

The only way to make things work is to move the "zero point" far enough below the Course Rating that you virtually never have to deal with a score that low.  But that system would be dang hard to explain to just about everyone, and when you tell the golfing world that its important because of all the scores shot under par, imagine the reactions.

 

Couldn't they just do something like -5 from the course rating when performing the (113/Slope) calc and then -5 again at the end of the formula? Basically get the posted score above the rating adjustment before multiplying by (113/Slope) and then adjusting that back out at the end. This way maybe avoiding the issue when you have scores lower than the course rating.

 

I'm not saying 5 is the magic number but it does seem like they could come up with a formula that would work the same for scores above and below the course rating. ie. For scores above and below the course rating a lower score on a higher slope course would produce a 'better/lower' differential than the same score on a course with a lower slope but same course rating.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

@Hats4Bats I'm not saying 5 is the magic number but it does seem like they could come up with a formula that would work the same for scores above and below the course rating. ie. 

 

FWIW, it is the fact that the system is consistent that is generating this discussion. The system says that (to pick an example) playing 4 strokes better on a 150 slope course is worth a 3.0 better index (within round-off). And playing 4 strokes better on a 120 course is worth 3.8 strokes in better index. This is true consistently for all scoring ranges, including below CR (the straight line assumption). If it takes 4 strokes in scoring to get from 3.0 to scratch, it takes 4 strokes in scoring to get from scratch to Plus 3.0 (on the 150 course). Fewer on a slope 120 course (always).

 

And if your index improves by 3.0 on a slope 150 course you get 4 less strokes (again - consistently). If your index improves by 3.8 you get 4 less strokes on a 120 course - consistently (above and below the CR). 

 

The consistency is the "problem" (if there is one). 

 

dave

[dmecca2]

7 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Hats4Bats I'm not saying 5 is the magic number but it does seem like they could come up with a formula that would work the same for scores above and below the course rating. ie. 

 

FWIW, it is the fact that the system is consistent that is generating this discussion. The system says that (to pick an example) playing 4 strokes better on a 150 slope course is worth a 3.0 better index (within round-off). And playing 4 strokes better on a 120 course is worth 3.8 strokes in better index. This is true consistently for all scoring ranges, including below CR (the straight line assumption). If it takes 4 strokes in scoring to get from 3.0 to scratch, it takes 4 strokes in scoring to get from scratch to Plus 3.0 (on the 150 course). Fewer on a slope 120 course (always).

 

And if your index improves by 3.0 on a slope 150 course you get 4 less strokes (again - consistently). If your index improves by 3.8 you get 4 less strokes on a 120 course - consistently (above and below the CR). 

 

The consistency is the "problem" (if there is one). 

 

dave

I'm still unsure as to how you don't think there is a problem in the system when comparing 2 plus handicap golfers that play at different courses with the same CR but different slopes. Look at the examples the author gave in that article, particularly example #5.

[DaveLeeNC]

43 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

I'm still unsure as to how you don't think there is a problem in the system when comparing 2 plus handicap golfers that play at different courses with the same CR but different slopes. Look at the examples the author gave in that article, particularly example #5.

 

This argument seems to revolve around the concept that shooting a score of 68 on a 72/150 is not as good (as measured in diff) as a score of 68 on a 72/120 course. Some feel that it is "obvious" that this is wrong. I am not one of those people. OTOH, the idea that the 'difficulty vs skill level curve' is should not be linear across a index range of say Plus 8 to 40-something - I can understand that argument. That is a BIG range.

 

So what does a pair of courses at 72/150 and 72/120 look like? The 72/150 is probably a par 70 that is pretty long (on a par adjusted basis) and not easy. The 72/120 is probably more like a par 73 of moderate length (low 6K yards). 

 

So is a 2 under par on the 150 course really that much better than a 5 under par on the 120 course? Some folks think this is obvious - again, I am not one of those folks. 

 

And finally SLOPE IS NOT DIFFICULTY. You can easily increase the slope of a course by making it easier. Take a course with some doglegs that neither a scratch or bogey golfer can cross and shorten them such that a scratch golfer can now cut the dogleg and a bogey golfer cannot. Clearly THIS is an easier course now. The Bogey Rating will not change much, the Scratch Rating will go down, and this easier course will now have a higher slope. 

 

And none of this has anything to do with Plus handicaps.

 

dave

[davep043]

 

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

The examples that the author provides CLEARLY show that there is an issue in the system and he also provides distinct examples that are even more drastic than what we were fictionally coming up with ourselves.

The author (I'm talking about the reference provided by @Habitual Flipper above) needed to compare play on courses with Slope Ratings of 87 and 150 to make the issue appear drastic.  I've never played on a course anywhere near that low, and extremely few with a slope above 140.  When you compare scores made on more realistic sets of courses, say 120 v. 140, the "problem" becomes MUCH smaller.  

[dmecca2]

Just now, davep043 said:

 

The author (I'm talking about the reference provided by @Habitual Flipper above) needed to compare play on courses with Slope Ratings of 87 and 150 to make the issue appear drastic.  I've never played on a course anywhere near that low, and extremely few with a slope above 140.  When you compare scores made on more realistic sets of courses, say 120 v. 140, the "problem" becomes MUCH smaller.  

I definitely agree. My point was that we were initially using "drastic" fictional examples of 120 to 140. This author found real life examples of 87 and 150, so the problem does exist. What I'm concerned about is the smaller, very realistic example of 120 to 140, or 120 to 130 even, that I come across pretty regularly. When shooting the same scores at those courses, you can come up with differentials of, say, -2.3 to -2.6. When matched up in a handicapped round, one of those plays to a +2 the other rounds up to a +3. Thus the player that is playing on a more difficult (yes I say difficult because it is quite obvious that a higher sloped course is the tougher course) course and shooting the same scores will be getting a stroke instead of it being either an even match or him giving a stroke. 

 

To me, it doesn't make sense that the handicap differentials flip after passing the CR. Why doesn't the linear graph shown a couple times above switch to a v graph like this? Would this not work?

 

[dmecca2]

25 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

This argument seems to revolve around the concept that shooting a score of 68 on a 72/150 is not as good (as measured in diff) as a score of 68 on a 72/120 course. Some feel that it is "obvious" that this is wrong. I am not one of those people. OTOH, the idea that the 'difficulty vs skill level curve' is should not be linear across a index range of say Plus 8 to 40-something - I can understand that argument. That is a BIG range.

 

So what does a pair of courses at 72/150 and 72/120 look like? The 72/150 is probably a par 70 that is pretty long (on a par adjusted basis) and not easy. The 72/120 is probably more like a par 73 of moderate length (low 6K yards). 

 

So is a 2 under par on the 150 course really that much better than a 5 under par on the 120 course? Some folks think this is obvious - again, I am not one of those folks. 

 

And finally SLOPE IS NOT DIFFICULTY. You can easily increase the slope of a course by making it easier. Take a course with some doglegs that neither a scratch or bogey golfer can cross and shorten them such that a scratch golfer can now cut the dogleg and a bogey golfer cannot. Clearly THIS is an easier course now. The Bogey Rating will not change much, the Scratch Rating will go down, and this easier course will now have a higher slope. 

 

And none of this has anything to do with Plus handicaps.

 

dave

I don't know how the slope of a course is calculated or changed based on your example, so I cannot argue your last point. 

 

But your example for courses with differing slopes is something that I just disagree with and I guess will be nothing more than your opinion vs the opinion of many. But, if those two players formed handicaps based on those rounds and played a match where player B was giving strokes, I would bet on player A and I would win more times that I would lose. 

[dmecca2]

49 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

This argument seems to revolve around the concept that shooting a score of 68 on a 72/150 is not as good (as measured in diff) as a score of 68 on a 72/120 course. Some feel that it is "obvious" that this is wrong. I am not one of those people. OTOH, the idea that the 'difficulty vs skill level curve' is should not be linear across a index range of say Plus 8 to 40-something - I can understand that argument. That is a BIG range.

 

So what does a pair of courses at 72/150 and 72/120 look like? The 72/150 is probably a par 70 that is pretty long (on a par adjusted basis) and not easy. The 72/120 is probably more like a par 73 of moderate length (low 6K yards). 

 

So is a 2 under par on the 150 course really that much better than a 5 under par on the 120 course? Some folks think this is obvious - again, I am not one of those folks. 

 

And finally SLOPE IS NOT DIFFICULTY. You can easily increase the slope of a course by making it easier. Take a course with some doglegs that neither a scratch or bogey golfer can cross and shorten them such that a scratch golfer can now cut the dogleg and a bogey golfer cannot. Clearly THIS is an easier course now. The Bogey Rating will not change much, the Scratch Rating will go down, and this easier course will now have a higher slope. 

 

And none of this has anything to do with Plus handicaps.

 

dave

I've also just realized this.... for those two courses that you described. If those scores had been 4 over on the 72/150, and 1 over on the 72/120 (so two 74's), would you still say that the round on the lower sloped course is better? Because the handicap system says otherwise. 

 

So based on that, I would say that your defense of the system based on which round you think is better is illogical. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by dmecca2

[Ty_Webb]

On 10/8/2020 at 8:31 PM, 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?

 

 

 

Not sure if anyone has given you an answer yet, but the reason that is the case is this:

 

You're asking yourself the question which course is harder? the 75/150 or the 75/120. The answer to that question is it depends. A scratch player is expected to shoot the same score on both courses. 75 and 75. The courses are equally difficult for a scratch. For a bogey golfer, the 75/150 course is far harder. For a plus golfer, the 72/150 course is harder. It's that last bit I think you're struggling with. 

 

Slope refers to how hard it is to differentiate yourself from other players. If you're a 10 and playing a 15, then it's easier to put more distance between yourself and the 15 on a high slope course than a low slope course. The same is true of a scratch vs a 5 and a +5 vs a scratch.

 

Effectively you want to look at what sort of course would be a 75/150 and a 75/120. A 75/150 is likely around 7k yards long and has trouble all over the place. A 75/120 is a stretch, but would likely be something like 7,500 yards long and with not a lot of trouble on it. Course rating is largely a function of length, while slope rating is more a function of the hazards affecting play. It's harder for a plus to shoot well under the course rating on a longer course, so if he succeeds in doing so he gets a lower differential.

 

The other thing to do is look at how it all pans out. High slope increases the difference between indexes. So if you're a 0 and you're playing against a 10, on a high slope course, you might wind up with 13 strokes difference, while on a low slope course you have a 10 stroke difference. 10 x 150/113 is 13, while 10 x 115/113 is 10. Now let's suppose you're a scratch and you're playing a match against DJ and let's further assume that his index is a +8. On which of the 115 course or the 150 course do you think you need more shots? Under your suggestion you either get the same number on both courses or if you reverse things, you get more on the low slope course. Does that really sound right to you? With the system as it is, you get 11 shots on the 150 slope course and 8 shots on the 115 slope course. 

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

Thus the player that is playing on a more difficult (yes I say difficult because it is quite obvious that a higher sloped course is the tougher course)

 

It is not obvious at all. Both are 72 course rating, so for a scratch golfer, they're equally difficult. 

[DaveLeeNC]

40 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

I've also just realized this.... for those two courses that you described. If those scores had been 4 over on the 72/150, and 1 over on the 72/120 (so two 74's), would you still say that the round on the lower sloped course is better? Because the handicap system says otherwise. 

 

So based on that, I would say that your defense of the system based on which round you think is better is illogical. 

 

If you have an issue with the concept that a pair of golfers (A and B) can both shoot 'X' on a pair of courses (each playing a different course) and the system will say that A is 'the better golfer' ...  then they can both shoot 'Y' on these same pair of courses (each playing the same different course) and the system will say that B is the better golfer, then you have a bigger issue  than you recognize. This happens routinely with all pairs of courses - often well away from scores around the CR. See https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1771621-plus-handicap-formula-is-illogical/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-23201446 . 

 

 

dave

 

ps. For the case where the CR's are equal this happens with scores on either side of the CR. Some feel that this makes this phenomenon 'more wrong' (or maybe more obviously wrong) than the other cases, if I understand.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

I definitely agree. My point was that we were initially using "drastic" fictional examples of 120 to 140. This author found real life examples of 87 and 150, so the problem does exist. What I'm concerned about is the smaller, very realistic example of 120 to 140, or 120 to 130 even, that I come across pretty regularly. When shooting the same scores at those courses, you can come up with differentials of, say, -2.3 to -2.6. When matched up in a handicapped round, one of those plays to a +2 the other rounds up to a +3. Thus the player that is playing on a more difficult (yes I say difficult because it is quite obvious that a higher sloped course is the tougher course) course and shooting the same scores will be getting a stroke instead of it being either an even match or him giving a stroke. 

 

To me, it doesn't make sense that the handicap differentials flip after passing the CR. Why doesn't the linear graph shown a couple times above switch to a v graph like this? Would this not work?

 

 

Assuming that this is a graph of differential vs. score, then that is not a rational shape. It would say that once you hit the minimum (base of the V) then scoring better is a 'worse' differential'. 

 

But this kind of shape would be rational. 

 

dave

 

 

[dmecca2]

10 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Not sure if anyone has given you an answer yet, but the reason that is the case is this:

 

You're asking yourself the question which course is harder? the 75/150 or the 75/120. The answer to that question is it depends. A scratch player is expected to shoot the same score on both courses. 75 and 75. The courses are equally difficult for a scratch. For a bogey golfer, the 75/150 course is far harder. For a plus golfer, the 72/150 course is harder. It's that last bit I think you're struggling with. 

 

Slope refers to how hard it is to differentiate yourself from other players. If you're a 10 and playing a 15, then it's easier to put more distance between yourself and the 15 on a high slope course than a low slope course. The same is true of a scratch vs a 5 and a +5 vs a scratch.

 

Effectively you want to look at what sort of course would be a 75/150 and a 75/120. A 75/150 is likely around 7k yards long and has trouble all over the place. A 75/120 is a stretch, but would likely be something like 7,500 yards long and with not a lot of trouble on it. Course rating is largely a function of length, while slope rating is more a function of the hazards affecting play. It's harder for a plus to shoot well under the course rating on a longer course, so if he succeeds in doing so he gets a lower differential.

 

The other thing to do is look at how it all pans out. High slope increases the difference between indexes. So if you're a 0 and you're playing against a 10, on a high slope course, you might wind up with 13 strokes difference, while on a low slope course you have a 10 stroke difference. 10 x 150/113 is 13, while 10 x 115/113 is 10. Now let's suppose you're a scratch and you're playing a match against DJ and let's further assume that his index is a +8. On which of the 115 course or the 150 course do you think you need more shots? Under your suggestion you either get the same number on both courses or if you reverse things, you get more on the low slope course. Does that really sound right to you? With the system as it is, you get 11 shots on the 150 slope course and 8 shots on the 115 slope course. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

If you have an issue with the concept that a pair of golfers (A and B) can both shoot 'X' on a pair of courses (each playing a different course) and the system will say that A is 'the better golfer' ...  then they can both shoot 'Y' on these same pair of courses (each playing the same different course) and the system will say that B is the better golfer, then you have a bigger issue  than you recognize. This happens routinely with all pairs of courses - often well away from scores around the CR. See https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1771621-plus-handicap-formula-is-illogical/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-23201446 . 

 

 

dave

 

ps. For the case where the CR's are equal this happens with scores on either side of the CR. Some feel that this makes this phenomenon 'more wrong' (or maybe more obviously wrong) than the other cases, if I understand.

I guess I don't understand how you can argue a course is harder if you shoot under the CR, and easier if you shoot over the CR. It seems illogical to me, and I guess that means I have an issue. 

[dmecca2]

3 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Assuming that this is a graph of differential vs. score, then that is not a rational shape. It would say that once you hit the minimum (base of the V) then scoring better is a 'worse' differential'. 

 

But this kind of shape would be rational. 

 

dave

 

 

Ah I see my error now. Got it

[DaveLeeNC]

14 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

I guess I don't understand how you can argue a course is harder if you shoot under the CR, and easier if you shoot over the CR. It seems illogical to me, and I guess that means I have an issue.

 

It happens just like it happens with a pair of courses at 70/139 and 71/125. Scores over 80 on both courses will yield a higher diff on the low slope course. Scores under 80 on both courses will yield a lower diff on the low slope course.

 

This is true somewhere for all pairs of courses (unless they have the same slope).   There is no reason to think that a pair of courses with the same CR and different slope would be somehow unique. 

 

dave

[TourSpoon]

In essence, the CR is what scratch is expected to shoot and the slope factors in the difficulty for the bogey player. The bogey rating is really not applicable to a scratch performance at zero so why should it apply below zero?  Without another factor (like the +8 example which seems like a lot of trouble) it would be easier to not factor slope below a zero performance.  

 

Any takers? 

[dmecca2]

1 minute ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

It happens just like it happens with a pair of courses at 70/139 and 71/125. Scores over 80 on both courses will yield a higher diff on the low slope course. Scores under 80 on both courses will yield a lower diff on the low slope course.

 

This is true somewhere for all pairs of courses (unless they have the same slope).   There is no reason to think that a pair of courses with the same CR and different slope would be somehow unique. 

 

dave

Ok, so, you're pointing out another flaw in the system, and then using it to justify the flaw we are discussing in this thread. A course cannot be more difficult and less difficult than another course at the same time. 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, dmecca2 said:

Ok, so, you're pointing out another flaw in the system, and then using it to justify the flaw we are discussing in this thread. A course cannot be more difficult and less difficult than another course at the same time. 

 

Actually I was pointing out that the supposed 'flaw' has nothing to do with Plus Handicaps - it is inherent in the model (for better or worse). 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

2 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

In essence, the CR is what scratch is expected to shoot and the slope factors in the difficulty for the bogey player. The bogey rating is really not applicable to a scratch performance at zero so why should it apply below zero?  Without another factor (like the +8 example which seems like a lot of trouble) it would be easier to not factor slope below a zero performance.  

 

Any takers? 

 

I would be interested in an analysis of the existing Ghin database (staying US centric here, of course 🙂 ) to see if this is an issue. 

 

But if it is an issue below CR, then there is every reason to believe that there is an issue above the Bogey Rating. Given that far more handicap play happens above BR vs. below CR, that is where I would start. 

 

dave

[dmecca2]

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Actually I was pointing out that the supposed 'flaw' has nothing to do with Plus Handicaps - it is inherent in the model (for better or worse). 

 

dave

Ok, so we agree that the system says a course can be both difficult and easier at the same time, but the difference is, I say that's illogical and you say that's... intended?

Edited October 12, 2020 by dmecca2