New World Handicap System - whats your new cap?

[rogolf]

Two questions:

- with all this time to work on the changes to software, why is it wrong at the 11th hour?

- in NA, "playing to your handicap" usually referred to your net score compared to par, but , in reality, net score should have been compared to the course rating, hence the addition of (CR - par) to the formula of course handicap.  What does Stableford points have to do with it?  Wouldn't 36 points being playing to your handicap?  (Sorry, that's three questions. 😀)

Edited November 1, 2020 by rogolf

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

It seems in your part of the world "playing to one's handicap" is a "thing". I don't ever remember the expression being used in the U.S.

 

May I ask what it actually means ? Is it because with CONGU you had say, 5 handicap strokes, and your net for the round was even par (or better ?) ?

 

Why is it so important ?

I have occasionally said or heard others say something like, "Right now I can't come close to playing to my handicap" or similar. Which means going through a period of much worse than usual play.

 

Of course if it keeps up for a while, the handicap will go up and the problem sort of takes care of itself 😟

 

I've also heard it said if someone posts a few unusually good rounds and their handicap drops so low they feel pressure to play to the lower 'cap. In any case, it's a pretty frequent colloquialism in my little circle of golfing acquaintances. 

 

My everyday play is in handicapped games where being able to "play to my handicap" on a given day is a pretty big deal. Or at least come closer to playing to mine than some other guys come to playing to theirs...

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

 

- with all this time to work on the changes to software, why is it wrong at the 11th hour?

 

My guess would be, earlier in the process when they might have been pilot testing and checking their software they were waffling back and forth over just what parts of the new "standardized" world wide system they wanted to adopt and what parts they wanted to do differently. 

 

I suspect lots of us who work in industries other than golf have had similar experiences. Plenty of time to implement a new system correctly except the entire time is spent while committees play politics and change the specs every other week until it's too late to actually debug the system before it goes live.

[Colin L]

 

10 hours ago, Deceptively Short said:

Why is this maths 'totally irrelevant', by having the cr-par in the calculation of your course handicap you have no need to compare your net score with the course rating; it has already been done for you.

If you hit 36 points or net level par then you have played to your handicap - simples.

At the moment (on my course) if I score 38 points off our blues or 36 points off the yellows or 34 points off the whites then I have played to my handicap - surely slightly more complicated. I understand that before when we only had one handicap number this was the only way. But now, when we have to check our course handicap per course and tee wouldn't it be easier (surely one of the goals of any handicapping system).

Simples?  Well, fairly simple, but not as simple as just counting the number of strokes you take, knocking off your handicap and comparing the result with the CR.    It doesn't involve  capping the number of strokes you take on a hole as stableford does:  if you take a 10 on a hole, 10 is counted into your  score.    It's rather pure and very simple: how many blows did it take to bash a small ball round a golf course.  And playing to handicap means to me that this total, less my handicap matches the SSS, soon to be Course Rating.

 

If I  measured medal play using stableford points, I could be kidding himself .  The impact of a disastrous hole is mitigated. That 10 is counted as  a 6  and I've taken 4 strokes off my actual total.  Stableford is a great format and my preferred type of competition, but It's a modified form of stroke play which can hide a painful truth - the number of strokes I have actually taken.  Which, to be honest, is maybe why I prefer it in a competition. 🙂

But it's my net score that is the true measure of whether I have played to handicap.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Colin L

[jvincent]

17 hours ago, Colin L said:

But it's my net score that is the true measure of whether I have played to handicap.

 

That's not really true though.

 

Handicaps are a measure of your potential.

 

If you take a 10 on a hole once every 50 rounds (as an example) it's a statistical outlier and not a true indication of your potential. That's why individual hole scores are capped at net double.

[Colin L]

26 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

That's not really true though.

 

Handicaps are a measure of your potential.

 

If you take a 10 on a hole once every 50 rounds (as an example) it's a statistical outlier and not a true indication of your potential. That's why individual hole scores are capped at net double.

It is indeed true.  Yes,  my  CONGU handicap is a measure of my potential but if I return a net score equal to the SSS/CSS  then I have that day played to my handicap, played to my potential.   The system (for its remaining hour and three quarters of existence) is based on the expectation that I should do so once in every three rounds.

 

Tomorrow my handicap index will be a measure of my demonstrated ability which, as I see from your being in Canada, yours already is. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Colin L

[DaveLeeNC]

On 10/31/2020 at 5:34 AM, PaulBoy said:

As to Slope ... I understand how it works, but I don't feel it works fairly - As an example: My home club has a Slope 124 - My brother plays at Ballyliffin GC in ROI - The Glashedy Links has a slope of 138 - Even when I thought I'd be playing off 5, I was only going to get one extra stroke & would play off 6? - I have played Glashedy 20+ times & never played to handicap! - It is a minimum of 3 & closer to 5 shots harder on a relatively calm day (a three club wind is considered calm there!) - Any windier & I'd be happy to break 100 - Maybe I have misunderstood Slope in the context of WHS / Course Handicap etc so if that is the case I am happy to be corrected...

 

You really cannot compare 2 courses simply by comparing their slope. For indexes in the range of 5 it takes roughly a 24 point change in slope to mean a one stroke difference. For indexes around 5 CR is the dominant factor and you can't look only at slope.  And for play around scratch slope has no influence at all. 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

 

Deleted duplicate post 

Edited November 1, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[DaveLeeNC]

Deleted duplicate post.

Edited November 1, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Halebopp]

On 11/1/2020 at 1:33 AM, rogolf said:

Two questions:

- with all this time to work on the changes to software, why is it wrong at the 11th hour?

 

Have you ever been involved in a software project? 🙂 All the ones I've watched from nearby have been more or less failures. It takes months from the launch date to get them working the way they should. The changes to our software systems with the move to the WHS didn't go any differently. The system was launched in February, the season started in April at most clubs and I was working with Excel sheets to manually check some players' Handicap Indices for club competitions well into June practically every weekend.

[rogolf]

52 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Have you ever been involved in a software project? 🙂 All the ones I've watched from nearby have been more or less failures. It takes months from the launch date to get them working the way they should. The changes to our software systems with the move to the WHS didn't go any differently. The system was launched in February, the season started in April at most clubs and I was working with Excel sheets to manually check some players' Handicap Indices for club competitions well into June practically every weekend.

Yes, several, in industrial settings where failures could not be tolerated.  The 5P principle - Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.

Also, IT groups/companies have a long record of over-commit and under-deliver.

Edited November 2, 2020 by rogolf

[nsxguy]

13 hours ago, rogolf said:

Yes, several, in industrial settings where failures could not be tolerated.  The 5P principle - Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.

Also, IT groups/companies have a long record of over-commit and under-deliver.

 

That's true enough. But remember, "Murphy" was an optimist. 

 

Having been in IT software for the majority of my working life,,,,,,,,,,,,, often software is incredibly complicated. Far more so than the lay person realizes. 

 

Add to that the incredible explosion of computer processing and therefore inexperienced programmers who think, because they know which software instructions do what, they know how to program (Hint: they don't).

 

I've had users request something they thought was relatively simple to do and when they got our estimate they were floored. Conversely I've had the same users says something like "We'd like the system to do this but it sounds complicated (read expensive) and I've told them "Actually that should be pretty easy".

 

Now all that said, newby did mention "transition routine" which sounds to me like it wasn't so much the software, as it was data. The software for calculating handicaps is incredibly simple.

 

Sounds like the (UK) conversion of all the scores and tee sets along with entering the new Course ratings and slopes were the biggest problems.

Edited November 3, 2020 by nsxguy

[rogolf]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

That's true enough. But remember, "Murphy" was an optimist. 

 

Having been in IT software for the majority of my working life,,,,,,,,,,,,, often software is incredibly complicated. Far more so than the lay person realizes. 

 

Add to that the incredible explosion of computer processing and therefore inexperienced programmers who think, because they know which software instructions do what, they know how to program (Hint: they don't).

 

I've had users request something they thought was relatively simple to do and when they got our estimate they were floored. Conversely I've had the same users says something like "We'd like the system to do this but it sounds complicated (read expensive) and I've told them "Actually that should be pretty easy".

 

Now all that said, newby did mention "transition routine" which sounds to me like it wasn't so much the software, as it was data. The software for calculating handicaps is incredibly simple.

 

Sounds like the (UK) conversion of all the scores and tee sets along with entering the new Course ratings and slopes were the biggest problems.

And the new system couldn't be running in the background for the past several weeks, with corrections made as necessary, so that the cut-over was seamless?  Surely such things have been accomplished before without issue - I've seen it done successfully, in situations where failures would be very serious.  It's just a matter of planning and execution.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Now all that said, newby did mention "transition routine" which sounds to me like it wasn't so much the software, as it was data. The software for calculating handicaps is incredibly simple.

 

Sounds like the (UK) conversion of all the scores and tee sets along with entering the new Course ratings and slopes were the biggest problems.

There seem to have been two major contributing issues. The identification 'key' of course/tees in the ratings database and the clubs files was not always compatible. All the data was there but wasn't matched correctly. My thought is that it was more a software specification issue than just data matching.

The methods of handling Supplementary 9 hole scores is different in WHS and CONGU. And CONGU had changed the method during the time that the data extract covered.  The stored date formats are/were very difficult to reconcile. It seems that they may now have decided to ignore some of them.

 

A side issue was that the population of the source database (ie members) had not been checked and 'cleansed' by many clubs.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Newby

[nsxguy]

9 hours ago, rogolf said:

And the new system couldn't be running in the background for the past several weeks, with corrections made as necessary, so that the cut-over was seamless?  Surely such things have been accomplished before without issue - I've seen it done successfully, in situations where failures would be very serious.  It's just a matter of planning and execution.

 

I'm sure it was running in the background (beta-tested) for quite a while but cutovers of such large systems are seldom "seamless".

 

In point of fact, few brand new, fairly large systems, even ones where failures could be very serious, are released without bugs of any kind - witness the previous version here.

 

And that forum software was in existence, up and running on other platforms, for quite a while before this board bought the package. And yes, the sellers of that software over promised and under delivered.

 

 

6 hours ago, Newby said:

There seem to have been two major contributing issues. The identification 'key' of course/tees in the ratings database and the clubs files was not always compatible. All the data was there but wasn't matched correctly. My thought is that it was more a software specification issue than just data matching.

 

The methods of handling Supplementary 9 hole scores is different in WHS and CONGU. And CONGU had changed the method during the time that the data extract covered.  The stored date formats are/were very difficult to reconcile. It seems that they may now have decided to ignore some of them.

 

A side issue was that the population of the source database (ie members) had not been checked and 'cleansed' by many clubs.

 

Of course I wasn't aware of everything involved and had no knowledge of the previous system(s) but if all the disparate clubs maintained their own systems and used a variety of software to keep their own handicaps there would certainly be "conversion" issues.

 

Been there, done that.

[Colin L]

On the morning of November 2nd, I woke up aware this was Day One of the WHS for us and aware but unsurprised that  there were a fair few issues to be resolved.  I opened the curtains and looked out and do you know what?   The sky hadn't fallen down.

[Newby]

22 minutes ago, Colin L said:

On the morning of November 2nd, I woke up aware this was Day One of the WHS for us and aware but unsurprised that  there were a fair few issues to be resolved.  I opened the curtains and looked out and do you know what?   The sky hadn't fallen down.

But we in England can't actually play golf until Dec 2nd.

[xreyuk]

I went from 4.2 to 1.5.

 

Slope rating on our course is 134 off Whites and 127 of Yellows so will be off 2 instead of 4.

 

Had a couple of good rounds this year but the rest was average or garbage. I had three rounds that were negative differnetials, which is why I came down (shooting 75 with CSS 76 etc)

Edited November 5, 2020 by xreyuk

[vtpachyderm]

We've implemented the system from the start of this year here in Norway, and my handicap was about the same at the start of the year compared to how it ended last year. However, the system went as far back as 2018 when counting registered rounds as part of the last 20 rounds. As this year progressed, the good rounds from previous years dropped out, and my bad rounds from this year kicked in, and so my hcp went up. In the picture, you can see how my registered rounds this year looked like. The outdoor season is more or less done for me, and I ended it with a 9.8 for the year.

 

After all is said and done, my understanding of the system is as follows:

• If the score differential is equal to or less than the course handicap (which is adjusted for the course slope rating), it means I've played to or better than my current handicap.
• PCC is a measure of how easy/hard the course was playing that day based on all registered rounds on that day. I'm guessing this is to adjust for weather, conditions, pins etc. etc.
• The little number in brackets to the right of the score differential accounts for an unusually low round. In my case, for my 5th round, since I played so much better than my handicap, it cuts all my previous rounds by 1 stroke in the calculation. The calculation from the 8 best rounds and taking into account my one super low round was (83.7 - 5)/8 = 9.8, and this is where that extra 5 strokes reduction factored in.
• If my next registered round score is less than 13.4, my handicap will drop. If not, it'll remain unchanged for at least 2 rounds. I have those 2 rounds to get my act together next year and then that 12.6 drops out and unless I get lower than that, my cap will go up.

I think it's worked out pretty well here, and the only caveat is that people have to register all their rounds for it to accurately reflect your current state of your game. I know of some that chose not to register a particularly good/bad round since it can have a pretty good impact on the score.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[jvincent]

5 hours ago, vtpachyderm said:

 

I think it's worked out pretty well here, and the only caveat is that people have to register all their rounds for it to accurately reflect your current state of your game. I know of some that chose not to register a particularly good/bad round since it can have a pretty good impact on the score.

 

 

Are you guys following the UK model of having to declare casual rounds will be eligible for handicap purposes or the USGA method of posting all scores?

 

If it's the latter then the people who don't post scores are either sandbagging (bad) or vanity handicapping (good if you are playing against them). 

[vtpachyderm]

21 hours ago, jvincent said:

 

Are you guys following the UK model of having to declare casual rounds will be eligible for handicap purposes or the USGA method of posting all scores?

 

If it's the latter then the people who don't post scores are either sandbagging (bad) or vanity handicapping (good if you are playing against them). 

Here we can choose to declare our rounds that will be posted, but they to have a marker or someone who can approve it. This is agreed upon before teeing off i.e. we don't get to change our mind later as the round develops. This is also open for the situation you describe where you have sandbaggers and vanity players as a lot of them don't want to declare unless we're playing in a competition where it will then be registered.

 

This was a bit of a sore point in our society this year as we play stableford points, and I was accused of sandbagging the day I shot my 77. But then again, that was the only round I played this year where I didn't lose a ball during the round and had only 1 3 putt...