Note: This thread is 4034 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
0
-
1. Do you hit off the grass or mats when you go to the range?
-
Always off the GRASS - I want realistic conditions66
-
Always off the GRASS - This is all my range offers9
-
Always off the MATS - It's cheaper1
-
Always off the MATS - I like the feel of the mat0
-
Always off the MATS - I don't want to clean my clubs when i'm done1
-
Always off the MATS - This is all my range offers23
-
I switch it up but mostly off the GRASS12
-
I switch it up and it's 50/507
-
I switch it up but mostly off the MATS18
-
It doesn't mater to me at all. I have no preference0
-
-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 4 replies
- 257 views
-
- 1 reply
- 67 views
-
"5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge 1 2 3 4 1060
By iacas, in Instruction and Playing Tips
- 5 minutes daily
- dedication
- (and 6 more)
- 19,079 replies
- 2,064,273 views
-
- 11,939 replies
- 1,114,865 views
-
- 24 replies
- 6,426 views
-
Announcements
-
TST Partners
Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code). -
Posts
-
-
Almost no effect and arguably when it does have an effect it does a better job. An example is the best way I can think to say this. Say you have a course that has a 476 yard par 5 on it. Par is 72, course rating is 72.0. Slope is whatever you want it to be. Scratch player plays that hole and under NDB maximum score is a 7, which makes sense. Then let's say you take that hole and chop a yard off it, making it 475 yards and call it a par 4. That would have no impact on the course rating (unless there's a big fluke going on about the rating being 71.95001 or something). Now that scratch player gets 1 stroke. Assuming that the stroke index of the hole in question is 1 (which would make sense that it would be the hardest hole on the course given it was a par 5 three minutes ago), then that scratch player has a maximum score under NDB of 7, which once again seems reasonable. It was 7 when the hole was 1 yard longer, so it should be 7 now too. If you don't make that adjustment, then now the max score is 6, which would be a weird change to make. I know that in reality this will change by what the actual stroke indices are and the actual hole where that extra shot comes along will vary by handicap (between all 18 of them), but at its basest level, whether par is 71 or 72 shouldn't really impact what the maximum score should be. On average it should fall out that way, which it does now and didn't before. -
Day 30, June 3. Yay I can post in red again 😃 This morning, I spent 20 minutes hitting 6-iron shots (indoors, off a mat, into a net, usual routine) and then did Speed Stix training (out back). The latter I evidently hadn't done since November and it shows in the numbers, but that's something I need to get back into too. -
In the 1970s and 1980s, Dean Knuth, who became known as the "Pope of Slope," created the handicap system as well as the course rating system. He consulted with the USGA through 2002, but hasn't really had a hand in the handicapping since then, and was not involved in the WHS. Suffice to say, he does not like the WHS, and he wrote an article expressing why: https://www.popeofslope.com/world-handicap-system.html. The problem? His article… well, it's bad. Here is a brief (for me!) exploration of that article. Part 1 includes the bulk of his point, right up until the section labeled "The Par Pitfall," here: The handicapping system has seen almost no changes in the U.S. It's the rest of the world where they've seen the biggest changes. In the U.S., ESC was replaced by NDB, we have soft and hard caps, and we use 8/20 instead of 10/20 at 96%. Those are the only real changes. Dean will spend most of the rest of the time talking about par, but — and this cannot be stressed enough — the par is irrelevant. Its role in determining your playing or course handicap does three things only: It makes the score you have to shoot to "play to your handicap" make a lot more sense. It "bakes in" the changes players should have made but rarely did when playing from different tees. Through NDB, it defines the holes on which you can take a triple (or which you can take a gross bogey if you're on the + side of scratch). The calculation of your differential at the end is completely unaffected and does not involve par. Dean will spend a good amount of the time in this article talking about how par is "less precise" than the rating and slope, but he seems to miss the two points here: Par is an integer. If it helps him to think of it as 72.000000 or something, by all means, Dean… Par is used only to adjust another whole number: the strokes a player gets on the course. We don't give 10.4 strokes — a 10.4 index player might get 13, 10, 8, or whatever number of whole-number strokes. The problem with this type of statement is that the "par handicap" could be "7" or "13" or "88" and except for affecting NDB, players competing against each other would have the same difference (except they'd still need to adjust for playing from different tees). Let's say a 10.4 and a 14.7 are playing a 71.5/127 course. Par is 72. (10.4 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 72 = 11.2 -> 11 strokes (14.7 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 72 = 16.0 -> 16 strokes -> this player gets 5 strokes Instead of 72, plug in 23 because it's your favorite number: (10.4 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 23 = 60.2 -> 60 strokes (14.7 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 23 = 65.0 -> 65 strokes -> this player gets 5 strokes They still get the strokes they deserve (5), but we've lost the meaning as players now get 60 strokes off a 10 handicap. Remove the course rating and… you're back at the same problem as we've had where players weren't doing the calculation properly, and we lose the first benefit of "playing to your handicap". An example of that, with a 12.3 index player playing on a 68.7/123 rated par 72 course. Properly: (12.3 * 123/113) + 68.7 - 72 = 10.1 -> 10 strokes Improperly: 12.3 * 123/113 = 13.4 -> 13 strokes If the player plays a "net even par" round of golf, he'll shoot 82 and 85. Here's why this makes sense: WHS: (82 - 68.7) * 113 / 123 = 12.2 differential Prior: (85 - 68.7) * 113 / 123 = 14.97 -> 15.0 differential The player "played to his handicap" with a net even par round in shooting the 82, which aligns with getting ten strokes, not 13. This makes way more sense and is in fact an improvement over the prior system for two of the three reasons listed above: It more closely aligns the index and the score you have to shoot to "shoot your handicap" It bakes in players playing from different tees. Par is not a factor in determining the differential in the WHS system, only the playing handicap. The only way it affects the differential is that it can award a triple bogey on a few more holes (or a gross bogey max to a few + handicappers playing shorter tees) in determining NDB. You can completely ignore the WHS system of calculating your playing handicap and your differentials — the calculation of which does not use par - is going to be almost exactly the same (again, differing only when you tripled a hole on which you wouldn't have gotten NDB but now do because you didn't do the subtraction part of the WHS course/playing handicap calculation). Or maybe it was because of the other three reasons listed above. Which were the reasons given to me back in 2017 and 2018 when I talked with some of the people responsible for helping to create the WHS. If the ease of adoption by other countries and regions, then that's a fourth reason. But, I didn't really hear much about it prior to the WHS being instituted. A similar step was also required when players played from different tees, yet this was frequently forgotten. Players used to playing the blue tees would move up to the whites and expect to keep their 13 strokes, and be dismayed and sometimes even angered and argumentative that they would only get 10. This literally makes no sense. There's no more or less rounding than in previous versions. The output of "HI * Slope/113" typically produced a decimal number, the output of "HI * Slope/113 + CR - Par" also produces a decimal number, and the output of "Score * 113/Slope" (which is unchanged) also produces a decimal number. Each are rounded just as they were before. No, Dean is way off base here. Even if you accept that "par is an approximation" (of course difficulty), it's not used as he suggests. A player playing a par-72 that's rated 75 will get more COURSE handicap strokes than a player playing a par-72 that's rated 67, but that makes sense. At the end of the round, their score is processed using the same old formula to get their differential as always. This is about where I start to wonder and worry about Dean's mental faculties at his nearly 80 years of age. It hasn't "gone away" - it's been built-in as he says, and I think it's fairly obvious that this is true. No it is not. It is what I've said above, which is what the USGA and R&A have said it is. I agree that the course rating is the "most accurate measure of the relative difficulty for the scratch golfer" (I mean, it's almost exactly the defeinition), and slope determines the relative difficulty between two levels of player. So, which of these formulas incorporates BOTH the CR and the Slope in determining a player's course handicap: a. (HI * Slope/113) + CR - Par b. (HI * Slope/113) Clearly A incorporates "the most accurate measure of the relative difficulty" (as well as the measure of the relative difficulty). Dean's favored formula did NOT include "the most accurate measure of the relative difficulty for the scratch golfer". A scratch golfer under Dean's preferred method could shoot an even par round of 72 and see a differential that ranged from +2.7 (75.4/140) to 5.5 (66.3/118) or something. Under the WHS, if they shoot net par, they're going to end up with about a 0.0 differential. No. Again, you could subtract any integer from the Course Rating (which again the WHS ADDS to the calculation in course/playing handicap that the older system did not) and get the same relative course handicaps for all players. Using par just helps it make the most sense to actual golfers. It's an integer… as are the scores we shoot and the pars of the holes we play. The addition of the "CR - Par" has almost no effect on a player's differential. Again, the only affect it would have is when NDB is applied, because there may be a few holes where they'd get a stroke that they do not. And even then, it requires the player to card a triple on that specific hole, and be among their 8 out of 20 counting scores, AND even then if it happens once a round in ALL of the eight rounds, it's about 1 stroke on their index (probably a bit less given that most slopes are > 113). This has nothing to do with "jumping in" and everything to do with the foundational reasons for adding (CR - Par). Dean sees it as "adding par" when he would more accurately see it as adding the Course Rating! Small point of order: this was not shown to be accurate. The 96% applied to all 10 scores almost perfectly offset the dropping of two middle scores. Some players indexes went up a little. Some went down a little. The net change was almost exactly 0. Yes, that's how math works. The change makes MORE sense, again, as a player shooting net par under the WHS has basically "shot their handicap". Shoot below net par and your handicap will likely go down. Shoot above it and it may go up a little (less chance of this than shooting under lowering it, though, of course). So? Half of the players who play a 72.5/72-par course will see their Course Handicap one higher than they had before the system and half will not! Also and again, players who play a course rated 68.7 par-72 will all see their course handicaps drop several strokes. That's just math, and the boundaries of rounding. Dean chose a 0.5 marker, but the same math is true at any level, because the HI already has a decimal, and the Slope/113 multiplier also tends to produce decimals. So, someone who previously had a 10.5 to 10.9 index will still be an 11, while the 10.0s to 10.4s will go up to 11s. But on another course where the decimals work out to 0.3 and 0.2… the same math applies. And on a course where the decimals work out to 0.8… players half of the players will get an "extra" stroke and half will not. This is just rounding. It's always been a part of the WHS. The point at which rounding occurs might move slightly (depending on the course and index in question) for half of the situations, but if you have a 10.0 and an 11.5… or a 10.5 and an 12.0… half of the time the higher handicapper will get the "extra" stroke, and half the time the lower handicapper will get the "extra" stroke. This is just how rounding works. Handicaps in match play are almost entirely unaffected. A 13 playing a 10 might now be a 10 playing a 7, but the difference is still the same size. You're subtracting out a constant (CR - Par) from both players. The (HI * Slope/113) remains the same. This makes no sense and Dean has absolutely failed to provide any basis for this "less accurate" while ignoring that the WHS ADDS the CR to the course handicap calculation. It is easier. Shoot net par and you've "played to your handicap." Yes, and what they say is both accurate and makes sense. The WHS method bakes in the "playing from different tees" and makes it easier to know what it takes to "play to your handicap." Those are my notes right up until "The Par Pitfall." Dean has yet to make a valid point in any of this blog post thus far. When I have the time, and feel like procrastinating a bit more like today, I'll continue with my response to this blog post. I respect what Dean did in creating the original handicap system and the course ratinga system. The course rating system is one of the most elegant solutions to a very complex problem that I have ever seen. Nothing done by the WHS changes that. The course rating system is relatively unchanged, and its application in the WHS is, again, MORE accurate by the inclusion of the Course Rating than the previous system, in addition to the other benefits. Dean deserves (and has been given) much credit for that. But, if this is how he thinks these days, Dean can remain Pope Emeritus but the Cardinals need to elect a new Pope. -
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now