Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[TourSpoon]

2 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

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. 

Yes but the whole reason for slope is not to benefit the CR scratch golfer. In this world it affects the golfer when it really shouldn't apply by definition. I don't see any research on how this helps or hurts the plus golfer, but you can't argue with the logic presented. If you just go out and shoot the course rating every time then the slope has zero effect. Not that I have ever shot a 72.3 in my life, lol. 

[DaveLeeNC]

12 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

Yes but the whole reason for slope is not to benefit the CR scratch golfer. In this world it affects the golfer when it really shouldn't apply by definition. I don't see any research on how this helps or hurts the plus golfer, but you can't argue with the logic presented. If you just go out and shoot the course rating every time then the slope has zero effect. Not that I have ever shot a 72.3 in my life, lol. 

 

I would offer that the relevance of the Bogey Rating to a golfer who shoots a handful of strokes under the CR is pretty much the same as the relevance of the CR to the golfer who regularly shoots a handful of strokes over the Bogey Rating. 

 

dave

[TourSpoon]

56 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I would offer that the relevance of the Bogey Rating to a golfer who shoots a handful of strokes under the CR is pretty much the same as the relevance of the CR to the golfer who regularly shoots a handful of strokes over the Bogey Rating. 

 

dave

True, close to insignificant. 

[dhc1]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

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.

I’d want the course with the eleven strokes as I’m going to shoot about three over while Dustin (presuming he’s actually a +8 is likely to shoot 4-5 under. That’s irrespective of the slope rating. 
 

you’ve repeated said that it’s easier to shoot lower scores on the higher rated course without justifying anything that doesn’t include distance (which I’ve stated multiple times isn’t a differentiating factor for slope as it is a primary one for course rating). 
 

you’ve ask completely ignore the concept where two identical courses are only differentiated by adding 200 yard forced carries off the tees on one (which IMO is reflective of the difference in slope between two courses with the same rating). Why would it be easier to score on the course with the additional forced carries? 

[Nels55]

I read recently of a tour pro who mentioned that on a typical course he would give his caddie a couple of strokes and they could have a good game while on a tour level course he would have to give the caddie 4 a side or something like that maybe more I don't remember.

 

It is a linear fit, if the zero point or Y intercept was 10 under instead of the arbitrary par that it is now then you would not notice the plus handicap 'problem'.  

Y = X * slope + Y intercept

Edited October 13, 2020 by Nels55

[Ty_Webb]

45 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

I’d want the course with the eleven strokes as I’m going to shoot about three over while Dustin (presuming he’s actually a +8 is likely to shoot 4-5 under. That’s irrespective of the slope rating. 
 

you’ve repeated said that it’s easier to shoot lower scores on the higher rated course without justifying anything that doesn’t include distance (which I’ve stated multiple times isn’t a differentiating factor for slope as it is a primary one for course rating). 
 

you’ve ask completely ignore the concept where two identical courses are only differentiated by adding 200 yard forced carries off the tees on one (which IMO is reflective of the difference in slope between two courses with the same rating). Why would it be easier to score on the course with the additional forced carries? 

So your contention is that your score and DJ's score is going to be completely unaffected by the slope rating of the course? On what grounds would that be true?

 

The second bit is precisely the point. Two courses that are 72/120 and 72/150 are wildly different courses. Slope is more a function of how much trouble there is out there. Course rating is more a function of how long the course is, with some trouble factored in. So two courses with the same level of trouble might be 75/150 and 72/130 or so. The way to get that 75/150 down to 72/150 is to make it shorter, but keeping the same (or likely more actually) amount of trouble. So 72/150 is a relatively short course that's got a ton of trouble on it. 72/120 is a course that has little trouble on it. To get the 72 to 72 with no trouble though means it's got to be longer. So one course is 72/120 and is maybe 7,000 yards and has no trouble on it. 72/150 is likely around 6,500 yards with loads of trouble. If you're good enough that the trouble is meaningless to you, which course do you think is easier? The 6,500 one or the 7,000 one?

 

I did comment on that last one too. I pointed out that a course with 200 yard forced carries, but no further trouble around would be an awful golf course. Can you give me an example of such a course? It's pretty obvious that a course like that that had a high slope wouldn't work once you could carry the trouble. The fact that one awful golf course throws up anomalous results is not a good reason to chuck the whole system out the window. 

 

Let's try this. Real courses. Bethpage Black from the blues is 7,450 yards. It's 77.1 and 155. It's hard. Really hard. Marine Park from the blues is 6,866 and is rated 72.2/123. The greens are absolutely insane, but there's not really any trouble to speak of. A few bunkers around, but they're shallow flat things. Just have to keep it within the confines of the golf course and you're in decent shape. A -5 differential requires shooting 67 round Marine Park and 70 round Bethpage Black. Those three shots are pretty close to the difference in length. That's because if you're shooting -5 differentials you don't really care about the trouble. To get a 5 differential, you need to shoot around 77 on MP and 84 round BPB. That's because if you're shooting 5 differentials then the trouble does matter. To shoot a 20 differential, you need to shoot 94 round MP and 105 round BPB. So those differences are 3, 7, 11. That's because as you get worse, the slope has a bigger impact and as you get better it has a smaller impact. If you flipped it around, then you'd have to shoot 67.6 at MP for a -5 and 73.5 at BPB (I'm unrounding these because they're so much further apart than the rounded numbers). That means that a +5 allegedly finds BPB more hard relative to MP than does a scratch golfer. Riddle me that?

[dhc1]

46 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

So your contention is that your score and DJ's score is going to be completely unaffected by the slope rating of the course? On what grounds would that be true?

 

The second bit is precisely the point. Two courses that are 72/120 and 72/150 are wildly different courses. Slope is more a function of how much trouble there is out there. Course rating is more a function of how long the course is, with some trouble factored in. So two courses with the same level of trouble might be 75/150 and 72/130 or so. The way to get that 75/150 down to 72/150 is to make it shorter, but keeping the same (or likely more actually) amount of trouble. So 72/150 is a relatively short course that's got a ton of trouble on it. 72/120 is a course that has little trouble on it. To get the 72 to 72 with no trouble though means it's got to be longer. So one course is 72/120 and is maybe 7,000 yards and has no trouble on it. 72/150 is likely around 6,500 yards with loads of trouble. If you're good enough that the trouble is meaningless to you, which course do you think is easier? The 6,500 one or the 7,000 one?

 

I did comment on that last one too. I pointed out that a course with 200 yard forced carries, but no further trouble around would be an awful golf course. Can you give me an example of such a course? It's pretty obvious that a course like that that had a high slope wouldn't work once you could carry the trouble. The fact that one awful golf course throws up anomalous results is not a good reason to chuck the whole system out the window. 

 

Let's try this. Real courses. Bethpage Black from the blues is 7,450 yards. It's 77.1 and 155. It's hard. Really hard. Marine Park from the blues is 6,866 and is rated 72.2/123. The greens are absolutely insane, but there's not really any trouble to speak of. A few bunkers around, but they're shallow flat things. Just have to keep it within the confines of the golf course and you're in decent shape. A -5 differential requires shooting 67 round Marine Park and 70 round Bethpage Black. Those three shots are pretty close to the difference in length. That's because if you're shooting -5 differentials you don't really care about the trouble. To get a 5 differential, you need to shoot around 77 on MP and 84 round BPB. That's because if you're shooting 5 differentials then the trouble does matter. To shoot a 20 differential, you need to shoot 94 round MP and 105 round BPB. So those differences are 3, 7, 11. That's because as you get worse, the slope has a bigger impact and as you get better it has a smaller impact. If you flipped it around, then you'd have to shoot 67.6 at MP for a -5 and 73.5 at BPB (I'm unrounding these because they're so much further apart than the rounded numbers). That means that a +5 allegedly finds BPB more hard relative to MP than does a scratch golfer. Riddle me that?

I must not be explaining myself well. 
 

take a course that is 70/120. Add a bunch of 200 yard forced carries to it but otherwise it’s the same course. 
 

2 questions:

 

1. is that second course any harder for a scratch or better player?

 

2. what would happen to that course course rating and slope? 
 

im not sure why your comparing courses with different course ratings .....

[Newby]

14 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You will now.  

Yes but as I rarely encounter any +3 or better cappers when I play (although I do when officiating), I'm not going to get excited about it.

In this country most + cappers are more concerned with world ranking points than their actual handicap (as long as it stays better than scratch).

They just want to get into the prestigious national or international strokeplay events (even though they still  contribute to their handicap records).

[DaveLeeNC]

40 minutes ago, Newby said:

Yes but as I rarely encounter any +3 or better cappers when I play (although I do when officiating), I'm not going to get excited about it.

In this country most + cappers are more concerned with world ranking points than their actual handicap (as long as it stays better than scratch).

They just want to get into the prestigious national or international strokeplay events (even though they still  contribute to their handicap records).

 

However, it still matters to low single digit handicappers as they will occasionally shoot below the CR (which by definition means that they will included in the 'best 8 of 20'). So how the system deals with scores below the CR matters to a portion of the set of golfers that you encounter more routinely. 

 

dave

Edited October 13, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Yes but as I rarely encounter any +3 or better cappers when I play (although I do when officiating), I'm not going to get excited about it.

In this country most + cappers are more concerned with world ranking points than their actual handicap (as long as it stays better than scratch).

They just want to get into the prestigious national or international strokeplay events (even though they still  contribute to their handicap records).

This is a practical perspective. However, I often see on these pages, vibrant defense of rules that are “rarely encountere[d]” and the concept of practicality is set aside. 

 

Outside of the practical perspective, it remains confusing to me that some posters (not you) argue that for a better than scratch golfer, slope does matter but in a directionally opposite way to that of a bogey golfer even though the system is based upon the fundamental understanding that slope doesn’t affect scratch golfers. In other words, the slope has no impact upon scratch golfer but does impact those who are materially better. What is it about plus handicap golfers RELATIVE TO SCRATCH ONES that makes this reasonable?

Edited October 13, 2020 by dhc1

[Ty_Webb]

 

11 hours ago, dhc1 said:

I must not be explaining myself well. 
 

take a course that is 70/120. Add a bunch of 200 yard forced carries to it but otherwise it’s the same course. 
 

2 questions:

 

1. is that second course any harder for a scratch or better player?

 

2. what would happen to that course course rating and slope? 
 

im not sure why your comparing courses with different course ratings .....

 

1. No it's not harder for a scratch player

2. Likely nothing would happen to the course rating and the slope would be higher. 

3. It would be a dreadful golf course as already noted. A golf course that hard core punished an errant shot in the sub 200 yard range and didn't penalize errant shots in the over 200 yard range would be interminably dull for everyone. Such courses I don't believe exist, or if they do they're very uncommon.

 

I'm comparing courses with different course ratings because it doesn't make any difference to anything that we are talking about. I was making it a real world example. There aren't very many 72/150 courses out there. Pine Valley's regular tees are an example though. 6,532 yards. Course rating 72.8. Slope 153. Oh and would you look at that! It's short, trouble everywhere. A +8 would eat it alive. Marine Park again at 6,866 and 72.2/123. It's 330 yards longer, so that's about 20 yards extra per hole. 20 yards is worth about 0.1 shots on the PGA Tour, so it's going to be about 1.7 or 1.8 shots harder than Pine Valley for a PGA tour player. So a 63 at PV is worth roughly the same as a 65 at MP, perhaps a little better. The math for those two scores works out like (63-72.8) x 113/153 = -7.2. For MP, the 65 works out like (65-72.2) x 113/123 = -6.6. Hmm - interesting...

 

4 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

This is a practical perspective. However, I often see on these pages, vibrant defense of rules that are “rarely encountere[d]” and the concept of practicality is set aside. 

 

Outside of the practical perspective, it remains confusing to me that some posters (not you) argue that for a better than scratch golfer, slope does matter but in a directionally opposite way to that of a bogey golfer even though the system is based upon the fundamental understanding that slope doesn’t affect scratch golfers. In other words, the slope has no impact upon scratch golfer but does impact those who are materially better. What is it about plus handicap golfers RELATIVE TO SCRATCH ONES that makes this reasonable?

 

There is nothing different about how it's treating sub-scratch golfers. It just looks like it is because 0 is treated as the central point, but look at what the impact is:

 

On a slope 147 course, a 10 handicap gets 13 shots, a 20 handicap gets 26 shots, a 30 handicap gets 39 shots, a 0 handicap gets 0 shots - so you see each gap in 10 strokes in index results in a difference of 13 strokes in course handicap. So what happens to a plus 10? Presumably you would want them also to have 13 strokes of difference. Which is exactly what happens - they get -13 shots. Draw a line through all those. It's a straight line. It's relatively steep, hence high slope. On a 113 course those would all be 10 strokes difference instead of 13. 

 

The higher slope course is not blanket harder. It gets more and more harder the worse you are. Conversely it gets easier the better you get. If you improve on a high slope course then your scores will go down more than on a low slope course. That's because the benefits of hitting it better are magnified by the trouble you avoid by doing so. That doesn't magically stop happening when you reach zero. It keeps happening. So as a +2 improves, his improvement is magnified on the course with more trouble on it (i.e. higher slope). A +4 would tend to beat a +2 by more on a high slope course. There is only one way that can work with the system we have. Because if you add more strokes to what the +2 gets on a higher slope course then you have to multiply both the +2 and the +4 by slope/113 to get their course handicap. And if you do that, then you have to multiply scores by 113/slope to get differentials. Otherwise really stupid things happen.

 

Everyone gets hung up on two similar golfers playing different courses and then meeting on the same course, but a far more common occurrence is someone playing the same course a lot and using their handicap on that course. So let's take someone who shoots 66 every time they play. Course is 72/140. Each round, their differential is (66-72) x 113/140 = -4.8. They go out and play and their course handicap is -4.8 x 140/113 = -5.9 = -6. So they go play and they shoot their 66 and hit their handicap. If you flip it around, then their differentials become (66-72) x 140/113 = -7.4. They go out and play their course and you get their course handicap -7.4 x 140/113 = -9.2 = -9. Now they play and they shoot their 66, but that's a net 75. That can't be right. Maybe we need to multiply by 113/140 to get from their index to their course handicap. That would get them back to -6, but now they'd be giving fewer shots on the high slope course and more shots on the lower slope course, so that can't be right either. And if you do it differently, what do you do about the player who has 7 best scores in their record of 3 overs. Then they get a REALLY hot putter and shoot -10 one day on a course with a slope of 147. If you do it your way that's a -13 differential, so now their index is 1.0=(-13 + 7 x 3)/8. What do you multiply them by to get to their course handicap? 113/147 or 147/113? The system breaks down if you don't treat people consistently. The right way to calculate that differential is -10 x 113/147 = -7.7. Now that person has a (-7.7 + 7x3)/8 = 1.7 and you multiply that by 147/113 to get a course handicap of 2.2 = 2. Before their great score, they got 4 shots. Now they get 2. Bringing that all the way down to 1 is too much because you're doubling up the impact of the slope.

[Halebopp]

2 hours ago, dhc1 said:

This is a practical perspective. However, I often see on these pages, vibrant defense of rules that are “rarely encountere[d]” and the concept of practicality is set aside. 

 

Outside of the practical perspective, it remains confusing to me that some posters (not you) argue that for a better than scratch golfer, slope does matter but in a directionally opposite way to that of a bogey golfer even though the system is based upon the fundamental understanding that slope doesn’t affect scratch golfers. In other words, the slope has no impact upon scratch golfer but does impact those who are materially better. What is it about plus handicap golfers RELATIVE TO SCRATCH ONES that makes this reasonable?

 

All the obstacles and challenges on the course a scratch player is expected to face are included in the Course Rating. Bogey Rating includes all the same challenges for a bogey golfer (for men a player with a playing handicap around 20, 24 for women). But because it's practically impossible to rate the courses for every single level of playing ability, the relative difficulty of a given course and set of tees in relation to the scratch golfer is depicted with the Slope Rating. For men Slope Rating = 5.381 * (Bogey Rating - Course Rating).

 

The Slope Rating (divided by 113) is simply the slope of the straight line that goes through the Course Rating and the Bogey Rating points in the coordinate system. Therefore the Slope Rating is irrelevant to the scratch golfer and the bogey golfer (as long as the player knows what the Bogey Rating is). The calculation of everyone else's (+5, 7, 35... HCP) Course Handicap requires the use of the Slope Rating.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Halebopp

[dhc1]

2 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

All the obstacles and challenges on the course a scratch player is expected to face are included in the Course Rating. Bogey Rating includes all the same challenges for a bogey golfer (for men a player with a playing handicap around 20, 24 for women). But because it's practically impossible to rate the courses for every single level of playing ability, the relative difficulty of a given course and set of tees in relation to the scratch golfer is depicted with the Slope Rating. For men Slope Rating = 5.381 * (Bogey Rating - Course Rating).

 

The Slope Rating (divided by 113) is simply the slope of the straight line that goes through the Course Rating and the Bogey Rating points in the coordinate system. Therefore the Slope Rating is irrelevant to the scratch golfer and the bogey golfer (as long as the player knows what the Bogey Rating is). The calculation of everyone else's (+5, 7, 35... HCP) Course Handicap requires the use of the Slope Rating.

 

 

Given that the slope rating isn't relevant to scratch golfers, what is the rationale plus rated golfers should be affected by slope given the definition of slope is the difference between a bogey golfer and a scratch.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, dhc1 said:

Given that the slope rating isn't relevant to scratch golfers, what is the rationale plus rated golfers should be affected by slope given the definition of slope is the difference between a bogey golfer and a scratch.

 

It is the same rationale as for golfers playing above Bogey Golf (and the same situation where the CR has no effect on what a Bogey Golfer should shoot). You have to make some assumption and the one chosen is a linear extrapolation for scores outside the range of CR to BR (on BOTH sides). 

 

dave

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

Given that the slope rating isn't relevant to scratch golfers, what is the rationale plus rated golfers should be affected by slope given the definition of slope is the difference between a bogey golfer and a scratch.

You could make the same argument about a 36-handicapper, why to we just extrapolate the scratch/bogey line.  The answer, we do it both to higher and to lower scores, because it makes things simple.  

But I'm not sure that the Slope rating isn't applicable to scratch golfers as a group.  It might be particularly applicable to "long and wild" scratch golfers, since the Bogey Rating tries to measure the effect of "problems" that are further off the fairway, problems that don't influence the idealized scratch golfer.  The system simply cannot be designed to apply equally for every golfer in the world.  

To me, this problem really isn't worth trying to "solve", not for a group of players who are a relatively small part of the golfing population and who, generally speaking, tend to play an extremely small portion of their golf in formats where the handicap matters.

[dhc1]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

 

1. No it's not harder for a scratch player

2. Likely nothing would happen to the course rating and the slope would be higher. 

3. It would be a dreadful golf course as already noted. A golf course that hard core punished an errant shot in the sub 200 yard range and didn't penalize errant shots in the over 200 yard range would be interminably dull for everyone. Such courses I don't believe exist, or if they do they're very uncommon.

 

I'm comparing courses with different course ratings because it doesn't make any difference to anything that we are talking about. I was making it a real world example. There aren't very many 72/150 courses out there. Pine Valley's regular tees are an example though. 6,532 yards. Course rating 72.8. Slope 153. Oh and would you look at that! It's short, trouble everywhere. A +8 would eat it alive. Marine Park again at 6,866 and 72.2/123. It's 330 yards longer, so that's about 20 yards extra per hole. 20 yards is worth about 0.1 shots on the PGA Tour, so it's going to be about 1.7 or 1.8 shots harder than Pine Valley for a PGA tour player. So a 63 at PV is worth roughly the same as a 65 at MP, perhaps a little better. The math for those two scores works out like (63-72.8) x 113/153 = -7.2. For MP, the 65 works out like (65-72.2) x 113/123 = -6.6. Hmm - interesting...

 

1. why is a golf course with a 72/120 rating one that doesn't "penalize errant shots in the [less than] 200 yard range"? that's the only difference between it and the higher sloped course.  Is it a terrible course? Would it matter if we changed it to 72/130 and add the forced carries to make it a 145 sloped course?

 

2. Why do all of your examples depend upon distance as the difference between the two courses? Here's two actual courses: Rich Harvest (6300 yards, 71.1/137) vs. Willowbrook (6389 yards, 70.6/116). Why is a low score at Willowbrook better regarded by the system vs. that at Rich Harvest such that as the same score is shot at both courses, it become more beneficial to Willbrook?

[dhc1]

7 minutes ago, davep043 said:

You could make the same argument about a 36-handicapper, why to we just extrapolate the scratch/bogey line.  The answer, we do it both to higher and to lower scores, because it makes things simple.  

But I'm not sure that the Slope rating isn't applicable to scratch golfers as a group.  It might be particularly applicable to "long and wild" scratch golfers, since the Bogey Rating tries to measure the effect of "problems" that are further off the fairway, problems that don't influence the idealized scratch golfer.  The system simply cannot be designed to apply equally for every golfer in the world.  

To me, this problem really isn't worth trying to "solve", not for a group of players who are a relatively small part of the golfing population and who, generally speaking, tend to play an extremely small portion of their golf in formats where the handicap matters.

 

Doesn't the slope rating still help the double bogey golfer? 

[dhc1]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Everyone gets hung up on two similar golfers playing different courses and then meeting on the same course, but a far more common occurrence is someone playing the same course a lot and using their handicap on that course. So let's take someone who shoots 66 every time they play. Course is 72/140. Each round, their differential is (66-72) x 113/140 = -4.8. They go out and play and their course handicap is -4.8 x 140/113 = -5.9 = -6. So they go play and they shoot their 66 and hit their handicap. If you flip it around, then their differentials become (66-72) x 140/113 = -7.4. They go out and play their course and you get their course handicap -7.4 x 140/113 = -9.2 = -9. Now they play and they shoot their 66, but that's a net 75. That can't be right. Maybe we need to multiply by 113/140 to get from their index to their course handicap. That would get them back to -6, but now they'd be giving fewer shots on the high slope course and more shots on the lower slope course, so that can't be right either. And if you do it differently, what do you do about the player who has 7 best scores in their record of 3 overs. Then they get a REALLY hot putter and shoot -10 one day on a course with a slope of 147. If you do it your way that's a -13 differential, so now their index is 1.0=(-13 + 7 x 3)/8. What do you multiply them by to get to their course handicap? 113/147 or 147/113? The system breaks down if you don't treat people consistently. The right way to calculate that differential is -10 x 113/147 = -7.7. Now that person has a (-7.7 + 7x3)/8 = 1.7 and you multiply that by 147/113 to get a course handicap of 2.2 = 2. Before their great score, they got 4 shots. Now they get 2. Bringing that all the way down to 1 is too much because you're doubling up the impact of the slope.

 

I've tried to be clear that I don't agree with inverting the slope and 113. My point is that it doesn't make sense to include slope at all where it's defined as the additional difficulty for a bogey golfer RELATIVE TO A SCRATCH. To me that's about as relevant to these two golfers as what kind of shoes they're wearing.

 

I'll again point out that distance is not a necessary part of the slope calculation despite it being consistently relied upon as a differentiator. 

[DaveLeeNC]

7 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

Doesn't the slope rating still help the double bogey golfer? 

 

It does in exactly the same way that slope 'helps' a below scratch golfer. A golfer who shoots 5 over the BR on a high slope course gets a differential that is closer to 20 (or something around 20) than that same 5 over on a low slope course. A golfer who shoots 5 under the CR on a high slope course gets a diff that is closer to 0 than that same score of 5 under the CR on a low slope course. 

 

Lots of people seem to object to that last sentence in the above paragraph. 

 

dave

[davep043]

1 minute ago, dhc1 said:

 

Doesn't the slope rating still help the double bogey golfer? 

As far as I'm concerned, the system isn't intended to "help" anyone, its intended to help allow competition among players with different skill levels.  So the Slope rating applies to double bogey golfers, just as it applies to Plus handicaps, its just that the magnitude of the influence is larger for those who shoot higher scores.

The Slope Rating is defined by two numbers, the Scratch Rating and the Bogey Rating.    You propose arbitrarily changing the "slope" of the reference line for all scores under the CR.  Maybe we should also look at changing the slope for scores over "bogey golf".   Maybe the WHS should develop a Double Bogey Rating and maybe a Tour Pro Rating, and see if the line needs to slope differently in the ranges above Bogey and below Scratch?  If you choose to do something, to alter the slope of the reference line, for players beyond the "left end" of the range, shouldn't we do something to specifically address players beyond the right end?  Or would that be too complicated?  It seems to me there are WAY more players who shoot scores above "Bogey golf" compared to those who shoot under par rounds.  Shouldn't we address the larger population first?

[dhc1]

1 minute ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

It does in exactly the same way that slope 'helps' a below scratch golfer. A golfer who shoots 5 over the BR on a high slope course gets a differential that is closer to 20 (or something around 20) than that same 5 over on a low slope course. A golfer who shoots 5 under the CR on a high slope course gets a diff that is closer to 0 than that same score of 5 under the CR on a low slope course. 

 

Lots of people seem to object to that last sentence in the above paragraph. 

 

dave

i understand the linear aspect of the math and how everything converges to scratch. My point is that the slope rating is defined as the obstacles that hurt a bogey golfer relative to scratch. 
 

the same issues that lead to problems for the bogey golfer clearly exist for the double bogey golfer so it makes sense that they also benefit from a slope differential. 
 

conversely, forced carries under 200 yards, flat fairway bunkers and straightforward green side traps present limited issue for either scratch or plus golfers yet the more of these that exist (therefore increasing slope), it’s assumed to have a sizable impact on what a great round is handicapped. I’ll again say that I’m not looking to invert the number 

[dhc1]

6 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As far as I'm concerned, the system isn't intended to "help" anyone, its intended to help allow competition among players with different skill levels.  So the Slope rating applies to double bogey golfers, just as it applies to Plus handicaps, its just that the magnitude of the influence is larger for those who shoot higher scores.

The Slope Rating is defined by two numbers, the Scratch Rating and the Bogey Rating.    You propose arbitrarily changing the "slope" of the reference line for all scores under the CR.  Maybe we should also look at changing the slope for scores over "bogey golf".   Maybe the WHS should develop a Double Bogey Rating and maybe a Tour Pro Rating, and see if the line needs to slope differently in the ranges above Bogey and below Scratch?  If you choose to do something, to alter the slope of the reference line, for players beyond the "left end" of the range, shouldn't we do something to specifically address players beyond the right end?  Or would that be too complicated?  It seems to me there are WAY more players who shoot scores above "Bogey golf" compared to those who shoot under par rounds.  Shouldn't we address the larger population first?

The directional movement with double bogey and bogey golfer is consistent as the issues that affect the bogey golfer also affect the double bogey golfer. Almost definitionally, they don’t affect plus golfers. 
 

that being said, as with all whataboutism arguments, let’s address the point that handicaps are illogical for plus golfers first and then we can move on to the other points. 

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

i understand the linear aspect of the math and how everything converges to scratch. My point is that the slope rating is defined as the obstacles that hurt a bogey golfer relative to scratch. 
 

the same issues that lead to problems for the bogey golfer clearly exist for the double bogey golfer so it makes sense that they also benefit from a slope differential. 
 

conversely, forced carries under 200 yards, flat fairway bunkers and straightforward green side traps present limited issue for either scratch or plus golfers yet the more of these that exist (therefore increasing slope), it’s assumed to have a sizable impact on what a great round is handicapped. I’ll again say that I’m not looking to invert the number 

 

The problems that affect slope also impact a scratch golfer, just to a lesser extent. If you have water and bunkers and trees close to the playing areas, scratch players will be affected by those too. They'll be affected more than plus golfers, same as bogey golfers are affected more than scratch golfers. It seems pretty clear to me that the slope continues past scratch. It just so happens that scratch and bogey are the two points that the system decided to use. They could have used +10 and 40. They'd have probably got a slightly different slope, but I doubt if it would be wildly different. The majority of people who play the game fall in between scratch and bogey, so they chose those pivot points. Doesn't break the whole system.

 

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

The directional movement with double bogey and bogey golfer is consistent as the issues that affect the bogey golfer also affect the double bogey golfer. Almost definitionally, they don’t affect plus golfers. 
 

that being said, as with all whataboutism arguments, let’s address the point that handicaps are illogical for plus golfers first and then we can move on to the other points. 

 

There is nothing illogical about handicaps for plus golfers. It all fits.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

i understand the linear aspect of the math and how everything converges to scratch. My point is that the slope rating is defined as the obstacles that hurt a bogey golfer relative to scratch. 
 

the same issues that lead to problems for the bogey golfer clearly exist for the double bogey golfer so it makes sense that they also benefit from a slope differential. 
 

conversely, forced carries under 200 yards, flat fairway bunkers and straightforward green side traps present limited issue for either scratch or plus golfers yet the more of these that exist (therefore increasing slope), it’s assumed to have a sizable impact on what a great round is handicapped. I’ll again say that I’m not looking to invert the number 

 

I would disagree with your premises. There is far more contributing to slope changes than obstacles. Length is a demonstrable factor (slope goes up with length pretty much without exception - take a look at the tees on any given course. The idea that obstacles have no effect on scratch golfers seems very questionable. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Same for bogey vs double bogey golfers. 

 

dave

 

 

[TourSpoon]

If there was a no slope factor below zero (plus) bus, I would be on it. Let's get this to 9 pages! Above bogey golfer conversation should have its own thread. 

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

If there was a no slope factor below zero (plus) bus, I would be on it. Let's get this to 9 pages! Above bogey golfer conversation should have its own thread. 

Let’s see how that works out shall we? Typical club rated at 72.0 with a 133 slope. 
shoot 102 30 over the course rating differential is 25.49

shoot 92 20 over the rating 16.99 differential 

shoot 82 gets you a 8.49 differential. 
Notice that the margin between the differential of those 10 stroke different scores is a uniform 8.50

 

Now take a score of 77 which is 5 over the rating (4.25 differential) and compare it to a score of  67 which is 5 better than the rating AND the same ten stroke spread between scores. You think that differential spread should be 9.25 instead of the current 8.50? All because it doesn’t look right?

The purpose of the handicap system is to make a match between two players as even as possible. Not to determine how “good” a player is.  So on the same course the difference between scores and the differential they create needs to be the same.

Its funny isn’t it? Without getting political this is like taxing those richer than us. We used to have a 96% reward for excellence built into the handicap system and now some want to punish that darn plays cap for being good.

[dhc1]

14 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I would disagree with your premises. There is far more contributing to slope changes than obstacles. Length is a demonstrable factor (slope goes up with length pretty much without exception - take a look at the tees on any given course. The idea that obstacles have no effect on scratch golfers seems very questionable. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Same for bogey vs double bogey golfers. 

 

dave

 

 

Fair enough. I should be more specific in what I’m saying. 
 

If two courses have identical rating and different slopes, what should a scratch player score? 
 

I think the system is designed so that they are expected to be able to shoot the course rating and the difficulty factors that increase slope are also imbedded in the course rating. 
 

I used the phrase “no effect” because a scratch player is expected to be able to shoot the course rating irrespective of the slope. I think that this concept should be the case for plus players as well (instead of having them be impacted by something that is created to adjust for players who are  much worse than scratch golfers). 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

I used the phrase “no effect” because a scratch player is expected to be able to shoot the course rating irrespective of the slope. I think that this concept should be the case for plus players as well (instead of having them be impacted by something that is created to adjust for players who are  much worse than scratch golfers). 

 

I assume that you are not saying that you feel that a round of 5 under the CR on the senior tees at your local muni course should be treated the same as a score of 5 under the CR at a PGA Tour caliber course (championship tees). And that you are not saying that a scratch golfer should get the same strokes from a Plus 8 golfer on the muni senior tees vs. the same championship tees. 

 

But if you are saying that the proper relationship between the 'right diff' for scores better than the CR might be different than the slope for scores between CR and BR, I have no argument with that. 

 

dave

[TourSpoon]

9 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Let’s see how that works out shall we? Typical club rated at 72.0 with a 133 slope. 
shoot 102 30 over the course rating differential is 25.49

shoot 92 20 over the rating 16.99 differential 

shoot 82 gets you a 8.49 differential. 
Notice that the margin between the differential of those 10 stroke different scores is a uniform 8.50

 

Now take a score of 77 which is 5 over the rating (4.25 differential) and compare it to a score of  67 which is 5 better than the rating AND the same ten stroke spread between scores. You think that differential spread should be 9.25 instead of the current 8.50? All because it doesn’t look right?

The purpose of the handicap system is to make a match between two players as even as possible. Not to determine how “good” a player is.  So on the same course the difference between scores and the differential they create needs to be the same.

Its funny isn’t it? Without getting political this is like taxing those richer than us. We used to have a 96% reward for excellence built into the handicap system and now some want to punish that darn plays cap for being good.

Good analysis, maybe the plus bus is a shortie. Sometimes in our quest to make a topic take up an entire server we lose sight of the goals here and I find myself (not to be political either) living in the middle with the ability to see both sides of this argument which has gone full circle several times. In the end, its certainly not something more than mental gymnastics around a problem that affects very few people, myself excluded. 

[dhc1]

10 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Let’s see how that works out shall we? Typical club rated at 72.0 with a 133 slope. 
shoot 102 30 over the course rating differential is 25.49

shoot 92 20 over the rating 16.99 differential 

shoot 82 gets you a 8.49 differential. 
Notice that the margin between the differential of those 10 stroke different scores is a uniform 8.50

 

Now take a score of 77 which is 5 over the rating (4.25 differential) and compare it to a score of  67 which is 5 better than the rating AND the same ten stroke spread between scores. You think that differential spread should be 9.25 instead of the current 8.50? All because it doesn’t look right?

The purpose of the handicap system is to make a match between two players as even as possible. Not to determine how “good” a player is.  So on the same course the difference between scores and the differential they create needs to be the same.

Its funny isn’t it? Without getting political this is like taxing those richer than us. We used to have a 96% reward for excellence built into the handicap system and now some want to punish that darn plays cap for being good.

again, I understand the math that you're espousing particularly for players on the same course.

 

the issue is what is the non-math reason that a player who consistently shoots 10 under the course rating at a course with a 120 slope has to give a stroke to a player who consistently shoots 10 under at a course with a 133 slope. this stroke is irrespective of whether the match is played at the 120 or 133 slope course btw.

 

For example: the reason a player who shoots 18 over the course rating on a course with a higher slope rating gives a stroke or two to a player who shoots 18 over the course rating on a course with a lower slope rating is because s/he has to navigate more bogey type difficulty so the same score relative to the "easier" bogey golfer course is viewed as being a better round.