4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Percentage change is actually ideal in comparing the relative difference in distance (yards) and accuracy (degrees offline from target) between the different skill levels that bogey rating / slope is attempting to capture. Even if you convert the degrees offline to a lateral dispersion in yards at the shorter distance the higher HCP's hit the percentage difference / change from Scratch golfers is larger (more sloped) than for drive distance.

I disagree that it's an ideal way of comparing things. One compares small numbers (like 3° and 10°) while another compares significantly larger numbers (250 and 220 or whatever).

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I know, because distance accounts for ~ 90% of the formula, which is likely too heavy a weight.

You haven't demonstrated at all that it's "likely." That's just a manner of rephrasing your opinion.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Bogey golfers do not have the average dispersion of scratch golfers.

Nobody is debating that. It's a given.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Therefore attempting to evaluate the higher relative difficulty they face on a certain course should take this fact into account more in line with its statistical impact on score.

You haven't argued your case at all. Trees are accounted for more for higher handicappers, in a few ways. That you think they should matter even more is what you have to argue, and except for saying things like "they should matter more" (while not demonstrating much specific knowledge about how much they currently change things), you have not done so.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

I read this already. This is where I learned how little trees affect bogey rating / slope.

That paper demonstrates how little the course rating is affected by trees. If you want to argue that they should matter more, you first have to demonstrate knowledge about how much they matter now and why that's not sufficient.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Their 'simulation' is a tautology comparing the output of the same formula with different inputs. It's just an example / demonstration of how little weight trees have in the existing formula.

And, you have to demonstrate both knowledge of that current formula and demonstrate why it's inefficient. Trees are already given more weight for the bogey golfer.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

It's not as Broadie does running a dynamic programming simulation between different course setups with a statistical model of a scratch and bogey golfer to see the expected impact on average score.

This is where you also start to get into circular nature of what you're proposing… Let's suppose the USGA decides to indulge you. So now an 18 (course) handicapper plays a course rated 72.4/150 instead of 72.4/125. He shoots the same score (about 90 or 91 in his 10 of 20 that count) because, you know, nothing about the course has changed at all. So his 90s in the 10 of 20 rounds that count result in an index has dropped from 15-point-something to 12-point-something.

In other words, the fact that the guy is an 18 is part of what leads to his higher scoring and thus his higher handicap. By increasing the difficulty, the worse the golfer you are, the bigger the benefit you get in reducing your handicap.

Heck, a 36 handicapper would, overnight, be a 29.x-handicapper? Despite shooting the same scores… because you've inflated the course index?

So then that now-30 handicapper goes and plays a scratch golfer on a course without many trees and… gets creamed.

That's the problem, and one of the several things for which you don't seem to be accounting.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Even if an estimate of 3 extra (likely low) tee shots to the trees for a bogey golfer is correct that's 3 potential stroke & distance penalties (6 strokes) because even if the trees are rated as fairly 'recoverable' the chances of a lost ball are going to be quite high.

No way is 3 strokes "likely low."

I've played with bogey golfers on courses rated in the 140s with lots of trees and stuff, and no way do they take three stroke-and-distance penalties per round. That would require two things which are highly unlikely to all happen: 1) player has to find the woods three times, and 2) lie has to be so bad player has to take three unplayable lies with stroke and distance.

Then that round also has to count for their handicap, despite six penalty strokes (effectively)?

Guess what actually happens?

a) "unrecoverable trees" do not exist on both sides of fairways very often. When they do, the course rating and slope is already a bit higher.
b) the player aims away from the trees.
c) the player doesn't hit a driver.

etc.

Your entire argument is, IMO, a non-starter. You'd actually be punishing the higher handicappers, and the more you increased the rating, the more you'd be punishing them. Why do you want a 20-handicapper to call himself a 16?

At the end of the day, courses with a lot of super-thick stands of trees are already rated higher. Bogey golfers already get more benefit from their lack of accuracy than scratch golfers (namely that we must consider the maximum tree value along the entire corridor, not just within the landing area).

That those things already don't drastically change the course rating demonstrates the USGA's position on how much trees should affect things.

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The degrees offline are applied along the distance of the player's average shot distance. Percent comparison accurately shows that for the skill of holding their target line, a bogey golfer 's ability is worse in relative terms than with distance where a scratch player at 250 yards only hits it 25% farther than bogey at 200 yards. They work hand in hand so relative % difference in skill in both distance and degrees offline is descriptive of the difference in relative skill between bogey golfers and scratch golfers.

I continue to disagree. You can't compare the differences in small numbers like degrees versus the the difference in large numbers like yards, when both are done as a percentage.

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Here's the same relationship converted to strokes value (per Broadie's #'s) of different skill levels vs. scratch…

I'm aware of what the data shows.

The point that you seem to be missing is that you haven't proven or even really begun to demonstrate knowledge of how the rating/slope accounts for this now or begun to make a case as to why it should be changed.

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Yet the assumptions in the rating guide hold an expectation of bogey golfers as having the same Std Deviation of Degrees Offline as scratch golfers.

They do not. Not really. I've already addressed this a few times. I realize with your condition that you're going to keep hammering away saying the same thing over and over, but I'm about tapped out (again).

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The expected landing area for a scratch golfer at 200 yards is 29 x 19, and 33 x 37 for the bogey golfer at 200 yards. At 100 yards, it's 11 x 14 and 16 x 20. And that's 2/3 of the time.

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not saying it will or should lower all Bogey HCPs, The difference in average score for bogey relative to scratch is what it is.

No, it isn't "what it is" because your changes would change "what it is."

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

A more accurate formula would just do a better job of making the bogey rating and slope more accurate for the particular course.

You keep saying these words as if you've demonstrated or proven something, but you haven't even begun to do that.

40 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It would eliminate a potential area for intentional or unintentional 'sandbagging' from playing very tight / treed courses where the relatively higher dispersion for a bogey golfer is not well accounted for by the rating system. I don't think it's going to award 'extra' HCP points, just reflect a player's average score on different courses more accurately and increase the portability, which was the original purpose of slope.

I think you're wrong on what it would do, and that you've not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of what the system accomplishes, how it's truly set up now, and how the changes you keep pushing would actually change things.

Again, there are probably not even these massive stands of trees on enough holes (on both sides) that this would have much of an effect at all. Oh, and they have to be far enough away to be outside the landing area, but not so far away that they're not ridiculously far away.

That's not even a thing you're likely to find very many places at all, I'd imagine.

I'm done now. Please leave me out of it from here. I'll pass this along to my ratings guy and if he has anything more to add, I'll post a summary.