Quote:
Originally Posted by

**turtleback**

Sorry, the math teacher in me just can't let this stand. It is y = mx + b where m is the slope and b is the y-intercept (the point on the y-axis where the line crosses it). But you get full credit on slope being rise over run.

I imagine you are right about this, but the way the USGA calculates SLOPE RATING is really much easier mathematically-

(v) *Slope Rating* is the difference between the *Bogey Rating* and the *USGA Course Rating* multiplied by 5.381 for men and 4.24 for women. (See Definitions and 13-3f.) http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Rule-13/#scrollTop:rules_browse_left=0.30601092896174864

So why did they pick 5.381 and 4.24 instead of 4.762 and 3.752? Had they picked the later two numbers instead, then a slope of 113 would now be 100.

Quote:
Originally Posted by

**David in FL**
So the player multiplies by 100 / 94.1 instead of 120 / 113....... Lots easier.

I gotta say though, if I worked as hard on my golf game as you do trying to find ways to change the game itself, I'd probably be a helluva lot better player than I am!

No- instead of multiplying by 120/133 you would multiply by 106/100 (or 1.06 or 106%)- Yes, I think that IS EASIER. Do you really think it is just as easy to divide by 113 as opposed to 100?

Quote:
Originally Posted by

**iacas**

It would be an extra step at the ratings level - i.e. internally, the ratings (the actual set of individual hole characteristic measurements) would still spit out a number like "137" and then the local golf association would have to take the extra step of doing the math. You'd only bother do that if the percentage was somehow simpler or made more sense, **and it does not.**

Furthermore, I think it would make things more complicated. Currently, to determine your differential, you do 113/slope. To find your handicap, it's slope/113. You simply reverse the side the 113 is on. Your proposal would have people taking their index and multiplying or dividing by a number that's larger or smaller than 1.0, and in my experience, people have a hard time "dividing by 87%." (They don't seem to get how dividing something can make a number larger.) It conceptually doesn't make as much sense to them as the current system.

I addressed the "extra step" bit above.

Do you read what you write? What's the difference - players have to know a number. In your system, they have to know "87" or whatever. In the current one, they have to know "137" or whatever. Players have to know the same number of things.

I don't think that more people would understand it. I don't think that the current system is difficult to understand. In fact, as stated above, I think that more people would have a tougher time wrapping their brains around multiplying and dividing by the percentage than the way it's currently done.

You gotta better explain to me what the extra step would be if the Men's multiplier was 4.762 and the Women's 3.752 instead of the current 5.381 & 4.24 because I don't see it. Yes, people would still have to know the same number of things, but dividing (or multiplying) by 100 is easier than 113. If you don't like the idea of %, here is what it could look like using 100 as your "neutral" slope instead of 113

Current Slope |
New Slope |

55 |
49 |

70 |
62 |

85 |
75 |

100 |
88 |

113 |
100 |

118 |
104 |

123 |
109 |

128 |
113 |

133 |
118 |

138 |
122 |

143 |
127 |

148 |
131 |

155 |
137 |

Current Course Handicap Calculation:

Index*(Slope/113)

New Course Handicap Calculation

Index*(Slope/100)

I fail to understand why dividing by 113 is easier than dividing by 100. If someone has a valid reason, please explain.

While I imagine that very few people actually calculate their individual round indexes after playing, that too would be easier.

Current Round Index Calculation:

ESC Score-CR*(113/Slope)

New Round Index Calculation:

ESC Score-CR*(100/Slope)

Same number of steps using 100 instead of 113. I know some people that can multiply and divide by 100 in their heads, but few who can do that with 113. So my original questions stands, why did the USGA pick 113 as their baseline instead of 100?