Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical


Recommended Posts

40 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. 


Two golfer have their indexes determined by the following typical round (for best 8/20). The each shoot 65 on courses with a 72.0 rating but one does it at club with a 120 slope and the other at 150. 
 

Why does the player who plays at the 120 course have to give a stroke to the other player in a match at either course?

 

More specifically, why do you assume that the difference between 72.0/120 and 72.0/150 is distance - I think it’s hazards/ forced carries that shouldn’t bother scratch or better golfers. I’m thinking of a lot of forced carries to about 200 yards which would raise the slope but not affect the rating much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

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?

 

I don't know how to judge intended. I do know that given the structure of the system (straight line representation of diff vs score), this result is inevitable unless significant constraints are placed what is a valid CR and BR for a course (those #'s determine the straight line we are talking about).  

 

But pairs of courses where A has a lower CR than B (i.e., A is easier) yet A has a higher BR than A (A is harder) abound across the country and these #'s are based on pretty detailed analysis (but not directly on performance data). 

 

I believe that at one point in time in the US there was no slope, and (I assume) that adding slope was viewed as an improvement. But I do not know.

 

dave

Edited by DaveLeeNC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

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

I didn't think of that but I can see your point. If it is an issue below CR (which we have an absence of data to suggest that bogey rating is a great indicator, while the anecdotal observations make sense) then at some point the above bogey rating performances would also have implications, which are beyond the scope of this topic.

 

I am getting on the eliminate the bogey golfer factor for anything below zero as this factor was never intended to rate a plus performance. 

Cobra LTDx 10.5* Tour AD HD 5X, Big Tour 15.5*, Rad Tour 18.5* Even Flow White 6.0

Titleist U500 4 23* Hzdrus Smoke Black 6.0 

Titleist 718 AP2 5-P DG AMT White S300 

Vokey SM7 50/8* F, 54/10* S, SM8 58/10* S, DG S200

Scotty Cameron Squareback No. 1, Vice Pro Plus, Foresight GC3 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I believe that at one point in time in the US there was no slope, and (I assume) that adding slope was viewed as an improvement. But I do not know.

I think the CR/Slope system was introduced in the early to mid-1980's, thought to be an improvement over the previous system which used only Course Rating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to 😉 when I saw 75 and 120 slope.  Could the manufacturing of a problem to hypothesize a solution to test change; a + index to -, and - index to plus.  Can't wait... 😋

 

I won't say who that sounds like.

  • Like 1
  • TSR2 10° Ventus Velo TR Blue 58S
  • TSR2 15° Talamonti PD80R
  • T200 17' 2i Tensei AV Raw White Hybrid 95S
  • T100 3i & 4i MMT 85S
  • T100 5i to 9i MMT 105S
  • T100 PW, SM9 F52/12, M58/8, PX Wedge 120S
  • SC/CA Monterey
  • DASH -ProV1x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm regretting wading into this before I even start typing. This is, to me, a very simple math problem. These are, obviously, hypothetical ratings and slopes etc. simply to prove that slope is applied incorrectly for players posting a score below the course rating.

 

When a differential is calculated (Differential = (113/Slope) * (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC))

from: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/5 1 Calculation of a Score Differential.htm

 

There is a modifier included for slope for ALL calculations. That modifier is intended to lower a bogey golfer's index based on increasing slope. so...

                                      Rating       Slope       Score                         113/Slope                   Rating - Par               Score - Rating      Differential

High Slope 72.7 155 90   0.72903225 0.7 17.3 12.61225806
Low Slope 72.7 100 90   1.13 0.7 17.3 19.549

 

Works great, if these two golfers met on a neutral course, the golfer playing the harder course would give ~7 shots to the golfer who plays the easier course.

 

Once you apply the "133/Slope" modifier to a negative number you get expected results... in the wrong direction.

 

Course   Rating Slope Score   113/slope        CR-Par          Score - CR          Differential
High Slope 72.7 155 67   0.72903225 0.7 -5.7 -4.155483871
Low Slope 72.7 100 67   1.13 0.7 -5.7 -6.441

 

The golfer who plays at the lower slope course now carries a +6 while the golfer at the higher slope track plays to a +4. This is the defining question... Who would you bet on in a match between these golfers with the +6 giving a pop a side? No sidetracking, no "what ifs," who are you taking at a random course?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

I'm regretting wading into this before I even start typing. This is, to me, a very simple math problem. These are, obviously, hypothetical ratings and slopes etc. simply to prove that slope is applied incorrectly for players posting a score below the course rating.

 

When a differential is calculated (Differential = (113/Slope) * (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC))

from: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/5 1 Calculation of a Score Differential.htm

 

There is a modifier included for slope for ALL calculations. That modifier is intended to lower a bogey golfer's index based on increasing slope. so...

                                      Rating       Slope       Score                         113/Slope                   Rating - Par               Score - Rating      Differential

High Slope 72.7 155 90   0.72903225 0.7 17.3 12.61225806
Low Slope 72.7 100 90   1.13 0.7 17.3 19.549

 

Works great, if these two golfers met on a neutral course, the golfer playing the harder course would give ~7 shots to the golfer who plays the easier course.

 

Once you apply the "133/Slope" modifier to a negative number you get expected results... in the wrong direction.

 

Course   Rating Slope Score   113/slope        CR-Par          Score - CR          Differential
High Slope 72.7 155 67   0.72903225 0.7 -5.7 -4.155483871
Low Slope 72.7 100 67   1.13 0.7 -5.7 -6.441

 

The golfer who plays at the lower slope course now carries a +6 while the golfer at the higher slope track plays to a +4. This is the defining question... Who would you bet on in a match between these golfers with the +6 giving a pop a side? No sidetracking, no "what ifs," who are you taking at a random course?

 

 

 

Probably the +6 by a hair, but in theory it should be a pretty close game. As noted earlier it's a lot harder to shoot 67 on the 72.7/100 course than it is on the 72.7/155 course.

 

But here we go - if you want it to work the other way, which you clearly do, then let's expand on my earlier example. If you're a scratch and you play a match against DJ, do you think you need more shots on the 72.7/155 course or the 72.7/100 course? One course you get 7 shots, the other you get 11. Which one is which. Once you've decided that, work it through. What happens?

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dhc1 said:


Two golfer have their indexes determined by the following typical round (for best 8/20). The each shoot 65 on courses with a 72.0 rating but one does it at club with a 120 slope and the other at 150. 
 

Why does the player who plays at the 120 course have to give a stroke to the other player in a match at either course?

 

More specifically, why do you assume that the difference between 72.0/120 and 72.0/150 is distance - I think it’s hazards/ forced carries that shouldn’t bother scratch or better golfers. I’m thinking of a lot of forced carries to about 200 yards which would raise the slope but not affect the rating much. 

 

Because they guy at the 120 course is likely better. A course that had a bunch of forced carries to 200 and then basically no trouble after that would be an awful golf course. If it had a bunch of trouble after that then it's either pretty short or much higher course rating than 72.

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Long_Left said:

I'm regretting wading into this before I even start typing. This is, to me, a very simple math problem. These are, obviously, hypothetical ratings and slopes etc. simply to prove that slope is applied incorrectly for players posting a score below the course rating.

 

When a differential is calculated (Differential = (113/Slope) * (Adjusted Gross Score - Course Rating - PCC))

from: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/5 1 Calculation of a Score Differential.htm

 

There is a modifier included for slope for ALL calculations. That modifier is intended to lower a bogey golfer's index based on increasing slope. so...

                                      Rating       Slope       Score                         113/Slope                   Rating - Par               Score - Rating      Differential

High Slope 72.7 155 90   0.72903225 0.7 17.3 12.61225806
Low Slope 72.7 100 90   1.13 0.7 17.3 19.549

 

Works great, if these two golfers met on a neutral course, the golfer playing the harder course would give ~7 shots to the golfer who plays the easier course.

 

Once you apply the "133/Slope" modifier to a negative number you get expected results... in the wrong direction.

 

Course   Rating Slope Score   113/slope        CR-Par          Score - CR          Differential
High Slope 72.7 155 67   0.72903225 0.7 -5.7 -4.155483871
Low Slope 72.7 100 67   1.13 0.7 -5.7 -6.441

 

The golfer who plays at the lower slope course now carries a +6 while the golfer at the higher slope track plays to a +4. This is the defining question... Who would you bet on in a match between these golfers with the +6 giving a pop a side? No sidetracking, no "what ifs," who are you taking at a random course?

 

 

Most are going to take the guy getting shots, BUT I'd bet the course with the 100 slope was a lot longer than the 150 slope. So, the +6 is very good at a long, wide open course while the +4 is very good at a shorter course with trouble. On the whole, I'll stick with the +4, but his game might not translate as well on longer courses. If the +6 happened to be accurate also, then he might be better than 67 on the 150 slope.

 

The other thing I'll add is that indexes are determined on your good days. Bad days are likely to be worse with higher slopes.

Edited by SkiSchoolPro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Probably the +6 by a hair, but in theory it should be a pretty close game. As noted earlier it's a lot harder to shoot 67 on the 72.7/100 course than it is on the 72.7/155 course.

 

But here we go - if you want it to work the other way, which you clearly do, then let's expand on my earlier example. If you're a scratch and you play a match against DJ, do you think you need more shots on the 72.7/155 course or the 72.7/100 course? One course you get 7 shots, the other you get 11. Which one is which. Once you've decided that, work it through. What happens?

So between two golfers, who shoot the same exact round of -5 relative to par, one plays at a home course with a 155 slope and one plays at a dead flat muni track with a 100 slope, you're taking the muni guy?!? Because I "want it to work the other way"?!?

 

For your more shots question. Let's just establish some WAG numbers to make the math work... We're going to say I'm an 8 and DJ is a +8 for giggles. To figure out course handicap we can use the same exact math that is already established per the USGA...

 

Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Ratingpar)

 

In this case the modifier is slope/113... 1.371681415929204 for the 155 course, 0.8849557522123894 for the 100 course...

 

8*1.371681415929204 = 10.97, I'm an 11 at the 155 course (course rating is identical so I'm not adding it here...

-8*1.37... =-10.97 so I'm getting 22 shots off DJ at the 155 track

 

8*.8849= 7.07 I'm a 7 at the 100 slope course. My Course handicap went down....

 

-8*.8849= -7.07 so DJ is a WORSE PLAYER AT THE EASY COURSE? This is the entire point of the entire argument. I "lost" 3 strokes by playing the 100 slope course so I have to play better. The + index player has a course handicap that indicates he will play worse at the lower sloped course....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Probably the +6 by a hair, but in theory it should be a pretty close game. As noted earlier it's a lot harder to shoot 67 on the 72.7/100 course than it is on the 72.7/155 course.

 

But here we go - if you want it to work the other way, which you clearly do, then let's expand on my earlier example. If you're a scratch and you play a match against DJ, do you think you need more shots on the 72.7/155 course or the 72.7/100 course? One course you get 7 shots, the other you get 11. Which one is which. Once you've decided that, work it through. What happens?

How is it harder to shoot 67 on a 72.7/100 course than it is on the 72.7/155 course, but harder to shoot 75 on the 72.7/150 course than it is on the 72.7/100 course? You can't have it both ways

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

How is it harder to shoot 67 on a 72.7/100 course than it is on the 72.7/155 course, but harder to shoot 75 on the 72.7/150 course than it is on the 72.7/100 course? You can't have it both ways

 

Of course you can. I know this is way hypothetical, but let's say that your shot distribution is you always hit it within 5% of the distance of your shot, so a 300 yard drive lands within a space 15 yards left and 15 yards right of your target. A 150 yard shot lands within 15 yards of your target etc. 

 

Now, a 72.7/100 course is likely to be pretty long with absolutely no trouble on it whatsoever. It's the only way to get the course rating up to 72.7 without trouble and you can't really have any trouble at all and have a 100 slope. A 72.7/155 course is likely fairly short with trouble everywhere. 

 

The example player above is not going to care about the trouble. They're never going in it. They're hitting it in the fairway and on the green most every hole (5% is freakishly good). So to shoot -5 he has to hit it close enough to the hole 5 times to hole the putts. That's relatively easy to do if he has a bunch of 100 yard approach shots. It's quite a lot harder to do if he has 200 yard approach shots. The former he's hitting it inside 15 feet every time. The latter it's within 30 feet. Much harder to go low on the long course. 

 

Now let's say you have another player who has a 10% shot distribution. They're going to find quite a lot of the trouble out there. He's hitting it into a 60 yard wide window off the tee. He's going to be in water and rough and trees. Consequently it's pretty hard to shoot 75 on the 72.7/155 course. On the 72.7/100 course, it doesn't matter that he's spraying it - he's still in play because there is no trouble out there. His approach shots are much longer, but he's got some leeway because he doesn't have to make birdies. Just a bunch of pars and a handful of bogeys. That's easier. 

 

The point is that the +4 player is a different beast from the 4 handicap. 

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

So between two golfers, who shoot the same exact round of -5 relative to par, one plays at a home course with a 155 slope and one plays at a dead flat muni track with a 100 slope, you're taking the muni guy?!? Because I "want it to work the other way"?!?

 

For your more shots question. Let's just establish some WAG numbers to make the math work... We're going to say I'm an 8 and DJ is a +8 for giggles. To figure out course handicap we can use the same exact math that is already established per the USGA...

 

Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Ratingpar)

 

In this case the modifier is slope/113... 1.371681415929204 for the 155 course, 0.8849557522123894 for the 100 course...

 

8*1.371681415929204 = 10.97, I'm an 11 at the 155 course (course rating is identical so I'm not adding it here...

-8*1.37... =-10.97 so I'm getting 22 shots off DJ at the 155 track

 

8*.8849= 7.07 I'm a 7 at the 100 slope course. My Course handicap went down....

 

-8*.8849= -7.07 so DJ is a WORSE PLAYER AT THE EASY COURSE? This is the entire point of the entire argument. I "lost" 3 strokes by playing the 100 slope course so I have to play better. The + index player has a course handicap that indicates he will play worse at the lower sloped course....

 

Do you want to answer my question? If you're a scratch, which course do you think you'll need more shots on? The 155 slope or the 100 slope?

 

Once again, slope is not difficulty. It's relative difficulty. If two courses have the same course rating then they are equally difficult for a scratch golfer. It's not about DJ being a worse player at the easy course. It's about how many shots you need to have between you to make a fair game. So, would you rather have 11 shots at the higher slope course or 7 shots and would you rather have 7 shots at the lower slope course or 11 shots? To make it fair...

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Do you want to answer my question? If you're a scratch, which course do you think you'll need more shots on? The 155 slope or the 100 slope?

 

Once again, slope is not difficulty. It's relative difficulty. If two courses have the same course rating then they are equally difficult for a scratch golfer. It's not about DJ being a worse player at the easy course. It's about how many shots you need to have between you to make a fair game. So, would you rather have 11 shots at the higher slope course or 7 shots and would you rather have 7 shots at the lower slope course or 11 shots? To make it fair...

It isn't a matter of "think" it is a matter of "math" and the current system says..

 

As a scratch vs. a +8 (I'm guessing DJ's handicap here) that my course handicap as a 0.0 index at the 155 slope course would be 0.7... so I'm a 1 there. DJ, as a +8 gets the ridiculous treatment of becoming a +11 there based on the USGA formula so I would get 12 shots.

 

On the lower slope course I would remain a 0.7 as my index is 0 and the slope modifier is irrelevant (anything * 0 is 0) so I would still be a 1... Dj would be a -7 there. So the handicap system is saying DJ is expected to shoot worse at the course with less trouble... on the lower slope course I get 8. Neither of these is a representation of a "fair" match because the +index player has to shoot better when it's a higher slope and worse when it's lower.

 

Given that these are made up numbers, I have no flipping clue which course I "think" I need more shots on. This isn't about my game or DJ's game or trees or length or forced carries. This is about a rating system put in place so golfers can play "fair" matches against each other on any rated course in the world. And players better than scratch should not get adjusted back TOWARDS scratch on easier tracks (nor farther away from scratch on hard ones). Your index says NOTHING about your length, accuracy, putting prowess, or ability to pound 9 White Claws at the turn... It simply says "If golfer A plays well today, he or she should shoot X at this course and if you play well you should shoot Y, the difference between those numbers is a fair match." When one of those players regularly shoots under the course rating, they are getting treated as though they play better than their established index at hard courses, and worse than their established index at easy ones. This is backwards from how golfers over scratch are treated because the math is applied to a negative number, plain and simple.

 

 

Edited by Long_Left
Last sentence is relative, left that out...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

It isn't a matter of "think" it is a matter of "math" and the current system says..

 

As a scratch vs. a +8 (I'm guessing DJ's handicap here) that my course handicap as a 0.0 index at the 155 slope course would be 0.7... so I'm a 1 there. DJ, as a +8 gets the ridiculous treatment of becoming a +11 there based on the USGA formula so I would get 12 shots.

 

On the lower slope course I would remain a 0.7 as my index is 0 and the slope modifier is irrelevant (anything * 0 is 0) so I would still be a 1... Dj would be a -7 there. So the handicap system is saying DJ is expected to shoot worse at the course with less trouble... on the lower slope course I get 8. Neither of these is a representation of a "fair" match because the +index player has to shoot better when it's a higher slope and worse when it's lower.

 

Given that these are made up numbers, I have no flipping clue which course I "think" I need more shots on. This isn't about my game or DJ's game or trees or length or forced carries. This is about a rating system put in place so golfers can play "fair" matches against each other on any rated course in the world. And players better than scratch should not get adjusted back TOWARDS scratch on easier tracks (nor farther away from scratch on hard ones). Your index says NOTHING about your length, accuracy, putting prowess, or ability to pound 9 White Claws at the turn... It simply says "If golfer A plays well today, he or she should shoot X at this course and if you play well you should shoot Y, the difference between those numbers is a fair match." When one of those players regularly shoots under the course rating, they are getting treated as though they play better than their established index at hard courses, and worse than their established index at easy ones. This is backwards.

 

 

 

Right, but your contention is that the higher sloped course is the "harder" one. So doesn't it stand to reason that you would need more shots on the "harder" course? Bethpage Black is 77.1/155 from the blue tees. Do you think you would need more shots from DJ there than you would on a wide open muni? Bear in mind if you're an 8 and you're playing a scratch, you get more shots on the higher sloped course. You get fewer shots on the lower sloped course. If you think that should flip upside down below scratch, please explain why.

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Right, but your contention is that the higher sloped course is the "harder" one. So doesn't it stand to reason that you would need more shots on the "harder" course? Bethpage Black is 77.1/155 from the blue tees. Do you think you would need more shots from DJ there than you would on a wide open muni? Bear in mind if you're an 8 and you're playing a scratch, you get more shots on the higher sloped course. You get fewer shots on the lower sloped course. If you think that should flip upside down below scratch, please explain why.

Peace... I fully see where you're coming from and I get it. Yes, to play a "fair" match between two players of highly variable skill is challenging. I see it as working fine for all players scratch or above, as slope increases the higher index gets more advantage to attempt to level out the playing field. But in a "real world" scenario the + index player is getting penalized twice on hard tracks because the higher cap is getting the slope adjustment and they are getting the same slope adjustment in the opposite direction. So their index isn't a true representation of their skill. Someone shooting -3 at a high slope course for all their scores would be assigned an index in the +1.5 range where a player shooting the EXACT same score on a "normal" course (read easier) would be assigned an index of ~+3. So the handicap system says "You both shoot 69s (-3) 5 days a week at your respective courses, since Player A's course is easier for a bogey golfer, Player A is 1.5 shots better than Player B, who shoots their 69s at a harder course." I don't see how this can possibly make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could build a 72.7 course with slope at 150 and end up with something that looks like a golf course. 

 

So let's do something reasonable. I picked a local course where the TIPS are 74.2/135 and the 'senior tees' are 67.2/110.

 

So a Tour Caliber golfer (call it Plus 8 ) gives a scratch golfer 10 from the TIPS and 8 from the senior tees. I'm not scratch but I would rather get 8 strokes on the lower sloped course vs 2 more from the TIPS. 

 

dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

Peace... I fully see where you're coming from and I get it. Yes, to play a "fair" match between two players of highly variable skill is challenging. I see it as working fine for all players scratch or above, as slope increases the higher index gets more advantage to attempt to level out the playing field. But in a "real world" scenario the + index player is getting penalized twice on hard tracks because the higher cap is getting the slope adjustment and they are getting the same slope adjustment in the opposite direction. So their index isn't a true representation of their skill. Someone shooting -3 at a high slope course for all their scores would be assigned an index in the +1.5 range where a player shooting the EXACT same score on a "normal" course (read easier) would be assigned an index of ~+3. So the handicap system says "You both shoot 69s (-3) 5 days a week at your respective courses, since Player A's course is easier for a bogey golfer, Player A is 1.5 shots better than Player B, who shoots their 69s at a harder course." I don't see how this can possibly make sense?

 

If you're always playing the same course, the calculation of your index and your course handicap will exactly offset each other, so both players will have the same course handicap at their own respective courses. 

 

Let's try this a different way though. Let's say you've got two players at different courses. One is 72/120 and the other is 72/150. They both shoot 72 every time they play. Both have a 0.0 index, even though the guy at the second course is shooting his scores on an "easier" course. How can this possibly make sense?

 

The thing is with real world examples, most of the time the course rating and slope rating move around in a vaguely similar fashion. So like DaveLeeNC's course he described, you have a 74.2/135 course and a 67.2/110 course. They're the same course. Do you think it's easier to shoot 8 under the rating on the course that's 74.2/135 (i.e. 66) or the course that's 67.2/110 (i.e. 59)? I don't. And two players who shot those scores would wind up with handicaps that showed that.

 

Anyway - if you have someone who shoots 65 on a 72/150 course, I think what you're saying is that they should have a handicap index of 72-65 = -7 x 150/113 = -9.3. Is that correct? If that person goes to play at that same course, you multiply his index by 150/113 to get a playing handicap. That's -9.3 x 150/113 = -12.3, so -12 course handicap. He now has to shoot 60 to play to his index. You can clearly see that's wrong yes? 

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Because they guy at the 120 course is likely better. A course that had a bunch of forced carries to 200 and then basically no trouble after that would be an awful golf course. If it had a bunch of trouble after that then it's either pretty short or much higher course rating than 72.


why would it be rated higher or be much shorter if there was more bogey golfer trouble rather than good golfer trouble? By definition, the 120 rated course doesn’t have all that much trouble. If it’s helpful, we could move it to 113 slope vs 140 slope. 
 

Here’s how I’m thinking of it. The base course is 72.0/120 with limited forced carry. A course with the same distance and bogey golfer danger also has a lot of 200 yard forced carries.  the difference IMO between the two course’s slope is that the 140/150 course has 200 yard forced carries that the other course doesn’t.  Presumably, you’d agree that this would cause the course with the forced carry to have a much higher slope but not affect the course rating. 
 

[Really, it can be anything that affects bogey golfers but not scratch or better. I dont think distance is at all a good proxy for slope differential as it is a primary determine of course rating not slope]. 

 

I think forced carry is a far more likely differentiator in slope than distance between two identically course rated courses with divergent slopes. 

Edited by dhc1
Clarification of what drives the difference
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

If you're always playing the same course, the calculation of your index and your course handicap will exactly offset each other, so both players will have the same course handicap at their own respective courses. 

 

Let's try this a different way though. Let's say you've got two players at different courses. One is 72/120 and the other is 72/150. They both shoot 72 every time they play. Both have a 0.0 index, even though the guy at the second course is shooting his scores on an "easier" course. How can this possibly make sense?

 

The thing is with real world examples, most of the time the course rating and slope rating move around in a vaguely similar fashion. So like DaveLeeNC's course he described, you have a 74.2/135 course and a 67.2/110 course. They're the same course. Do you think it's easier to shoot 8 under the rating on the course that's 74.2/135 (i.e. 66) or the course that's 67.2/110 (i.e. 59)? I don't. And two players who shot those scores would wind up with handicaps that showed that.

 

Anyway - if you have someone who shoots 65 on a 72/150 course, I think what you're saying is that they should have a handicap index of 72-65 = -7 x 150/113 = -9.3. Is that correct? If that person goes to play at that same course, you multiply his index by 150/113 to get a playing handicap. That's -9.3 x 150/113 = -12.3, so -12 course handicap. He now has to shoot 60 to play to his index. You can clearly see that's wrong yes? 

"Let's try this a different way though. Let's say you've got two players at different courses. One is 72/120 and the other is 72/150. They both shoot 72 every time they play. Both have a 0.0 index, even though the guy at the second course is shooting his scores on an "easier" course. How can this possibly make sense?"

 

It can't make sense, that is exactly my point... if slope is only there to impact the bogey golfer, why is it being used to calculate a scratch or better player? And why is it being applied opposite of how it is applied to everyone "worse" than scratch?

 

"Anyway - if you have someone who shoots 65 on a 72/150 course, I think what you're saying is that they should have a handicap index of 72-65 = -7 x 150/113 = -9.3. Is that correct? If that person goes to play at that same course, you multiply his index by 150/113 to get a playing handicap. That's -9.3 x 150/113 = -12.3, so -12 course handicap. He now has to shoot 60 to play to his index. You can clearly see that's wrong yes? "

 

It's not a "should" argument from me, it's a "how do you compare" argument, which is the point of the handicap system. I see the handicap system as flawed in the fact that a +index player, regardless of rating and slope of their home course is not able to be compared fairly against a player with my index. In your example above, the player's index based on a regular -7  to course rating score at a 150 slope course would travel to any course in the world which doesn't have a 150 or higher rating and be expected to shoot worse than -7 against course rating, where I would be expected to shoot better than my -6 index. Is that not also wrong?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

But here we go - if you want it to work the other way, which you clearly do, then let's expand on my earlier example. If you're a scratch and you play a match against DJ, do you think you need more shots on the 72.7/155 course or the 72.7/100 course? One course you get 7 shots, the other you get 11. Which one is which. Once you've decided that, work it through. What happens?

You’d want the most strokes, irrespective of slope. The slope shouldn’t really impact the score that a scratch golfer shoots at that course - that’s the province of the course rating definitionally. 
 

the 150 sloped course has a bunch of trouble that doesn’t impact good golfers but does impact bogey ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Let's say you've got two players at different courses. One is 72/120 and the other is 72/150. They both shoot 72 every time they play. Both have a 0.0 index, even though the guy at the second course is shooting his scores on an "easier" course. How can this possibly make sense?

 

 

It makes absolute sense. Both courses have been rated (Course Rating) for a scratch player to score 72.

All scratch players are expected to score 72 on those courses. 

 

Both Score Differentials will be 0

(113/120) * (72-72) = 0

(113/150) * (72-72) = 0

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

But if you go below the 'line' and they both score 65

The respective SDs will be

(113/120) * (65-72) = -6.6

(113/150) * (65-72) = -5.3

 

And that has always puzzled me because CONGU doesn't have that effect.

 

 

Edited by Newby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Newby said:

It makes absolute sense. Both courses have been rated (Course Rating) for a scratch player to score 72.

All scratch players are expected to score 72 on those courses. 

 

Both Score Differentials will be 0

(113/120) * (72-72) = 0

(113/150) * (72-72) = 0

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

But if you go below the 'line' and they both score 65

The respective SDs will be

(113/120) * (65-72) = -6.6

(113/150) * (65-72) = -5.3

 

And that has always puzzled me because CONGU doesn't have that effect.

 

 

You will now.  :pimp:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Newby said:

It makes absolute sense. Both courses have been rated (Course Rating) for a scratch player to score 72.

All scratch players are expected to score 72 on those courses. 

 

Both Score Differentials will be 0

(113/120) * (72-72) = 0

(113/150) * (72-72) = 0

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

But if you go below the 'line' and they both score 65

The respective SDs will be

(113/120) * (65-72) = -6.6

(113/150) * (65-72) = -5.3

 

And that has always puzzled me because CONGU doesn't have that effect.

 

 

 

I know - I was trying to make a point. 

 

I don't think the second example is puzzling once you realise that the 120 slope course is harder to shoot a low number on. A 150 slope course is one where it's relatively easy to distance yourself from inferior players. That's true if you're a 0 playing an 8 or a +8 playing a 0. You have more advantage on a high slope course from being better. It's why Dustin Johnson will beat you by more on a 7,500 yard trouble strewn golf course than he will on a 6,400 yard wide open thing.

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

You’d want the most strokes, irrespective of slope. The slope shouldn’t really impact the score that a scratch golfer shoots at that course - that’s the province of the course rating definitionally. 
 

the 150 sloped course has a bunch of trouble that doesn’t impact good golfers but does impact bogey ones. 

 

But you're getting 7 on one and 11 on the other. Which one do you want which number of strokes on? You can't pick 11 on both. Obviously that's what you'd pick if you could.

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I know - I was trying to make a point. 

 

I don't think the second example is puzzling once you realise that the 120 slope course is harder to shoot a low number on. A 150 slope course is one where it's relatively easy to distance yourself from inferior players. That's true if you're a 0 playing an 8 or a +8 playing a 0. You have more advantage on a high slope course from being better. It's why Dustin Johnson will beat you by more on a 7,500 yard trouble strewn golf course than he will on a 6,400 yard wide open thing.

Given CH now accounts for both CR and Slope, it theoretically would not matter what course you played on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Given CH now accounts for both CR and Slope, it theoretically would not matter what course you played on.

 

Right - because the system gives you more shots on the higher sloped course, as it should be.

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the scratch or better performance the bogey golfer factor should not come into play. Once at zero and below (plus) the whole rationale of the bogey golfer is not relevant. Well it is used, and that's why we are on page 7 now. 

Cobra LTDx 10.5* Tour AD HD 5X, Big Tour 15.5*, Rad Tour 18.5* Even Flow White 6.0

Titleist U500 4 23* Hzdrus Smoke Black 6.0 

Titleist 718 AP2 5-P DG AMT White S300 

Vokey SM7 50/8* F, 54/10* S, SM8 58/10* S, DG S200

Scotty Cameron Squareback No. 1, Vice Pro Plus, Foresight GC3 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

For the scratch or better performance the bogey golfer factor should not come into play. Once at zero and below (plus) the whole rationale of the bogey golfer is not relevant. Well it is used, and that's why we are on page 7 now. 

 

In a perfect world, we'd have a slope rating for every pair of players, but that is ridiculously unwieldy. So we do the best with what we can, which is to draw the line in scores between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer and then measure the slope of it. Then we apply that slope to every pair of handicaps. Be they a 32 playing a 27 or a +2 playing a 3 etc. There is no reason to arbitrarily say that slope stops applying at 0. 

  • Like 1

Ping G400 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 UST Recoil 95x

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...