Differential vs Course Handicap

[Clemsonfan]

As an analyst by nature, I would like to compare the scores under both systems. It is something we can easily do if we have the data. I actually thought the new system was less fair to those whose game was on the decline - like mine!

Old: Best 10 of last 20 scores with the .96 multiplier. Course handicap excluded course rating and overall par.

New: Best 8/20. Course handicap includes course rating -par.

My understanding is Stableford caps scores at Net double bogey like stroke play. If so, handicap should be slower to rise because you are only using 8 versus 10 scores. If I am missing something, I am curious enough to  want to understand what that may be.

My home course tees that I play are 72.1/154 now. My best score out here is 82. When my game started to decline, my handicap didn’t budge for 13 rounds because of good scores in my first 8! I know I am an anomaly but my handicap has increased almost 80% in the past few years (with only a few rounds this year). For a few months I knew I was losing every bet because my game was nowhere near my handicap.

I suspect I have steamrolled a few nuances but that shouldn’t matter much. When I have modeled this with someone playing the same tees and course, one good round, or return to form, will immediately reduce the handicap by some amount.

[xrayvizhen]

To flog this subject even further, if that's even possible, this article from Golf Monthly just appeared today in one of my news feeds. Written by a golf writer in the UK who I never heard of, he's basically saying that there should be only 3-5 rounds from the most recent 20 that should count towards the average and only competitive rounds should count. He claims the erratic scorers would have less of an advantage than they do now. He makes a lot of references to "club golfers" in the UK being the ones who are mostly dissatisfied.

https://share.google/qmZZBEoJvOxHxJGil 

In my experience with my league where we have golfers with indexes ranging from 5 to 40, looking at the weekly results from the past two years, I can detect no pattern that would substantiate the claim that the current system gives an unfair advantage to either erratic golfers (aren't we all?) or higher handicappers. Apparently though, at least in the UK, this seems to be "a thing."

Edited 17 hours ago by xrayvizhen

[Clemsonfan]

9 hours ago, xrayvizhen said:

To flog this subject even further, if that's even possible, this article from Golf Monthly just appeared today in one of my news feeds. Written by a golf writer in the UK who I never heard of, he's basically saying that there should be only 3-5 rounds from the most recent 20 that should count towards the average and only competitive rounds should count. He claims the erratic scorers would have less of an advantage than they do now. He makes a lot of references to "club golfers" in the UK being the ones who are mostly dissatisfied.

https://share.google/qmZZBEoJvOxHxJGil 

In my experience with my league where we have golfers with indexes ranging from 5 to 40, looking at the weekly results from the past two years, I can detect no pattern that would substantiate the claim that the current system gives an unfair advantage to either erratic golfers (aren't we all?) or higher handicappers. Apparently though, at least in the UK, this seems to be "a thing."

I am fascinated by this article. Given so many are upset, I would love to see how the calculations changed for them. In the USA, it likely reduced handicaps, at least for me. In the UK it appears to inflate handicaps but not uniformly? 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Clemsonfan said:

I am fascinated by this article. Given so many are upset, I would love to see how the calculations changed for them. In the USA, it likely reduced handicaps, at least for me. In the UK it appears to inflate handicaps but not uniformly? 

What change are you talking about? The switch from 10/20 * 0.96 to 8/20 kept handicaps almost exactly where they were. 8/20 instead of 10/20 reduces it, but eliminating 0.96 brought the 8 back up a little. So net… almost nobody saw a change to their index let alone to the number of strokes they got on the course.