What in the world is "Pope of Slope" talking about here? (new WHS par adjustment)

[davep043]

I'll talk in generalities rather than specifics. Generally, a higher handicap is more erratic, both in the quality of individual shots, and in his scores. His scores will have a greater spread than a lower handicap player. The difference between handicap and average differential will be greater for a higher handicapper, whether under the old system or the new one. So if a higher handicapper has an average day, and his lower-handicap opponent does the same, the higher handicap will have a higher net score. The better player has an edge if they both have average days. On balance, this edge is there until the higher handicapper has an unusually GOOD day, net par or better, that makes it really tough on the low handicapper. Overall, the edge goes to the lower handicapper, but that edge, over a significant number of rounds, might only be a stroke, maybe 2 strokes, maybe a half stroke. And I'm sure that there are widely erratic low handicappers, and really steady high handicappers, but they're the exceptions.

I think its easy to get hung up on individual holes. Sure, a high handicapper may have a few par-net birdie holes, and he's likely to win those. The same player is also likely to have a similar number of triple-net-double holes, easy wins for you. If you get irritated when he goes 3/2, do you feel embarrassed at the easy wins when he goes 7/6? If that high handicapper doesn't have many doubles and triples, he's having a better-than-average day, and you're not going to beat him with a merely average day of your own.

 

[Shilgy]

^^ I get all of that but I was referring to the handicap system itself rewarding the better player. The 0.96 multiplier was always referred to as a reward for excellence as the higher they players handicap the more numerically it affected their cap. And we know that most players have about the same handicap now using 8 of 20 scores as they did using 10 of 20 plus x0.96. Considering all that is the reward for excellence really still a thing? Their should be a reward for striving to shoot beetr scores.

[Halebopp]

In my opinion NDB max for handicapping does exactly that, at least for net stroke play.

[davep043]

Given that you understand that the system generally favors the lower handicap, what else would you like? The "reward for excellence" is no longer in the calculations, yet the system still favors lower handicaps. As @Halebopp mentioned, the change from ESC to NDB max score allows single-digit handicaps to post slightly higher scores than they could before (under the USGA). I'm only guessing, but for those in the 10-19 handicap range, I think it may decrease scores slightly. This will increase the edge for the lower handicap players. In my opinion, any handicap shouldn't give a BIG advantage to better players, the intention is to allow reasonably fair competitions. In my mind, the old USGA system did that, and the new WHS does it too.
To me, playing better is a goal in itself, I don't need to change the competitive balance, I just want to play well.

[Halebopp]

I wasn't even thinking about your move from the ESC to NDB, just the fact that the difference between the gross score and the NDB Adjusted Score is bigger the higher a player's handicap is. Thus, in a net stroke play event the high handicapper is at a disadvantage.

[Shilgy]

Oh, I agree with you about the reward for improvement. I was looking for, I guess, that the previous reward for excellence had not just been relegated to the trash bin. I see too many higher handicapped players slop their way to doubles and triples-when their score is not needed in a team game. Tell the same player the team needs a net par and he will make bogey for net par. The phrase that they “never make a putt that is not needed” comes to mind.

[Shilgy]

They could take higher scores in the previous ESC method as well.

[Newby]

Oh, I agree with you about the reward for improvement. I was looking for, I guess, that the previous reward for excellence had not just been relegated to the trash bin.

Not in Australia it seems. If I have got it right, they reduce the calculated CH by 7% to get a Playing Handicap. I guess this does not affect the Index after the event

[davep043]

I've seen plenty of low-handicappers miss make-able putts once their partner is in the hole, or when their opponent can't be beat, handicap manipulation isn't the sole property of higher handicaps. The new rules haven't removed that potential, and our friends from outside of the USGA areas have a very valid point about posting match play and fourball scores. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of higher-handicappers completely fold when their net par is needed. @NewbySince you're talking about team events, you might also compare the Handicap Allocations to the previous system. For fourball match play, we used to use 100% of the difference in Course Handicap. With the WHS, the recommendations is to use 90%. For fourball stroke play, the old recommendation was to use 90% of the Course Handicap, now the recommendation is to use 85%.

[Shilgy]

Let’s just say that since the new year started and guys freaked out that they no longer stroked, on say then14 handicap hole because of the Par-CR adjustment, I have seen more of the conduct I mentioned. Rather than striving to improve they have made certain their handicap index has gone up to where they are more “comfortable “.

[Augster]

That can be filed under “cheaters are going to cheat”.

Personally, I love the new WHS with CR-par and NDB. My cap is going up to where I always felt it should have been. Limiting my bad holes to a double bogey (ESC) kept my cap artificially low (5-7 range) and thusly I was rarely competitive in handicapped matches. When I take a quad 8 to lose the high to a triple 7, then post a double 6 really cuts into the cap as a high variability player.

NDB gives more shots to lower caps. CR-par means less shots are usually used in a match, overall, unless you’re playing really tough tees.

Back to cheaters. It’s easy to get rid of them. First, don’t allow fourball scores. Second, only allow individual match play scores if the opponent will attest to the score being posted. Third, attestation of every stroke play score that is entered. And not just attested by buddies. Allow only scores where a player has been randomly assigned to a group. And at least 2 in that group have to attest the score. If a player is just out playing with his buddies, disallow that score. Lastly, don’t play for anything, net. Make winning your flight, net, worth $5. But winning the gross $100 or what have you.

It’s pretty simple to get rid of cheating. I doubt Americans would go for it though. 90% of players wouldn’t be able to establish a handicap. Which is fine by me. There are other ways to bet with your buddies. Keep a cap by the old system. Keep a cap by the new system. Average everyone’s scores. Make up your own system.

I don’t think the Ruling bodies need to go that far for such a small problem. In my club, like 3% are known baggers. Way more than most people want to keep a cap legitimately and honestly.

[DaveLeeNC]

@augster "90% of players wouldn’t be able to establish a handicap. Which is fine by me. There are other ways to bet with your buddies."

It may be fine by you, but it won't be fine by a great proportion of the referenced 90% of US golfers.

It isn't like the 90% of US golfers play with a single set of buddies. They often play with several informal groups that are 'very informal' and change regularly. About the only way to make this work is to have a universally accepted methodology for calculating 'social handicaps'.

As for why the WHS doesn't simply have a system whereby a golfer can have both a social handicap and a competitive handicap (assuming that their play is such that both apply) - I have no idea.

dave 

[Roadking2003]

I doubt that there is any relationship between handicap and cheating.

[Newby]

There are plenty of systems about that can be used for 'social' handicaps. And no doubt many of players who could knock up a spreadsheet to do the job.

[DaveLeeNC]

Of course there are. Tom's group has one and so does Jerry and Ralph. And none of them are the same because there is no reason for them to be the same because they are all different. So players in Tom's group can't play in Ralph's group, etc.

IMHO the USGA should 'host' the social handicap system so that all have access to the same thing. Competitive handicaps - same story.

dave

[rogolf]

Sure there is - those with falsely high handicaps (aka sandbaggers) are cheating.

[Newby]

Anyone with a false handicap, high or low, is cheating.

[Roadking2003]

Right. But there is no relationship between handicap and cheating. Just an anecdote, but I caught the lowest capper I have ever played with cheating.

[dpb5031]

This has been a great thread; thanks @TheCityGame
I do think Knuth is a bit sour. The previous system was largely his baby and his objections to the new WHS have been dismissed by the ruling bodies, so his gripes are not surprising.
So far I like the new system. I often compete with guys playing different sets of tees and appreciate that that's easily accounted and adjusted for by the GHIN app.
Regarding the sandbagging discussion, it's important to remember that the system relies on players putting forth 100% effort to shoot the lowest score possible each time they play. We all know this often isn't the case in reality. When "that guy" shows up for a tournament, puts his game face on and grinds for every stroke, he's going to be advantaged over those who play EVERY round like that. It's passive sandbagging, but sandbagging nonetheless.

[nsxguy]

I really have to wonder how often ESC, now NDB really comes into play. In fact as a low-single-digit capper at my home club I can't imagine having more than say two or three rounds the entire season (of about 35 rounds) where ESC was invoked counted as a 10 best (now 8) out of 20 score.

I imagine it's somewhat rare. So all this hand-wringing over a stroke here are there that probably won't even get into one's handicap index in the first place seems to be an exercise in futility.

Surely if I made a triple bogey as a three handicap at home , that round is almost certainly not going to make it into the 8 best out of 20. I really have to wonder how often an ESC/NDB round gets into one's index at all.

I expect that the higher the handicap the more likely a round or two manages 8 best but it still can't be very often.

I think some statistics of this sort would be very interesting.

[davep043]

I guess the frequency of a "max score" would vary by player. There are low-handicappers who are still pretty erratic, they'd have more "max's" than a really steady player, even on reasonably good days. I think you're right, higher handicappers in general are more erratic than lower handicappers, but within any one group there is certainly some variability. I too would be interested in seeing some statistics.

[HatsForBats]

Here is what I can offer but it's under the old system.

 

748 rounds of 9-holes

140 rounds by players under a 10 Course Handicap of which 2 rounds (1 in 70) a player had ESC applied to a hole and had a final net score of 1 over par* or less

608 rounds by players at 10 or higher of which 21 rounds (1 in 29) had ESC applied to a hole and a final net score of 1 over par or less

Net 1 over par is equivalent to a 2 over index differential

Even if it would almost never be applied for a low handicapper that does not mean it is not necessary given that it will apply for higher handicappers and it can help avoid a player purposely blowing up holes to inflate their index.

[davep043]

@HatsForBats says:
Even if it would almost never be applied for a low handicapper that does not mean it is not necessary given that it will apply for higher handicappers and it can help avoid a player purposely blowing up holes to inflate their index.
In my opinion, the rule isn't intended to address cheating, handicap cheaters are going to find ways to cheat, no matter what the rules require. Its intended to minimize the impact of individual poor holes on a player's handicap. I had been told at one time that the idea of capping hole scores for handicap purposes was a remnant of the time when almost all golf competition was match play. I've never found anything written to back that up, but it makes a bit of sense. But I thank you for the research, its interesting to see how little impact individual high scores have had on handicaps in your sample.

[rogolf]

Thanks for that data. Moving to NDB from the previous ESC will actually increase postable scores for single digit handicappers - it goes from max gross double bogey on all holes to max gross triple bogey on holes where that player would receive strokes.

[Ty_Webb]

Until they get below scratch, then it will work the other way. Some holes will be a maximum of bogey under NDB.