World Handicap System Now Out (2020)

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Yep.  Closer than it was.  But still significant differences.

Give it up already. FFS. The WORLD is much, much closer to the system we've been using in the U.S. than they were before. If before was 0% and exactly the same was 100%, we're ~70 to 80% there. Much closer to the one extreme than the other.

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Overall, last minute disappointment.

Not remotely accurate. This stuff has been known for months.

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I don’t know very many casual players who play stroke play. By far, the most common is a play a 4-ball match.

You're way off base there.

[dennyjones]

17 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I don’t know very many casual players who play stroke play.

I don't know anybody that plays anything but stroke play unless it's a scramble event.   Must be different in Michigan

Edited January 2, 2020 by dennyjones

[David in FL]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Give it up already. FFS. The WORLD is much, much closer to the system we've been using in the U.S. than they were before. If before was 0% and exactly the same was 100%, we're ~70 to 80% there. Much closer to the one extreme than the other.

Not remotely accurate. This stuff has been known for months.

You're way off base there.

How can I be “off base” in being disappointed, or in my own experiences?  Because they differ from yours?

Edited January 2, 2020 by David in FL

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

How can I be “off base” in being disappointed, or in my own experiences?

Because you're provably wrong, @David in FL. Stroke play is by far the most popular form of play in the U.S. And not 60/40. By far.

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Because they differ from yours?

Because we're talking about facts here, not opinions. So there's no "mine" or "yours."

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Because you're provably wrong, @David in FL. Stroke play is by far the most popular form of play in the U.S. And not 60/40. By far.

In casual play?  Do you have a reference for that?  My personal experience, especially among better players, who are more likely to actually be maintaining a handicap, is different, but I’d be genuinely interested to see the proof.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

In casual play?

Yes, in casual play. The USGA sends a report out to golf associations, this type of stuff is one of the many, many bits in there. The number is not even close. Like 8x the rounds are played at stroke play vs. match play. You're way, way off here. And this is not really on topic, either, so…

[David in FL]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Yes, in casual play. The USGA sends a report out to golf associations, this type of stuff is one of the many, many bits in there. The number is not even close. Like 8x the rounds are played at stroke play vs. match play. You're way, way off here. And this is not really on topic, either, so…

How would they know?  I post a score.  My buddies post a score.  No one knows the format from which those scores were derived.  Again, genuinely curious.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

How would they know?  I post a score.  My buddies post a score.  No one knows the format from which those scores were derived.  Again, genuinely curious.

We've been off topic long enough, but consider the ways in which they might be able to glean this information, David.

The WHS is much closer to unified, worldwide, than it was only yesterday. You don't like that, and seemingly can't recognize that we're closer than we were yesterday.

[p1n9183]

Well my index just arrived, it´s 2.3. I was a 2 handicap with the previous system. My course is 70.2 rating, par 72 and Slope 127 from the tips so my handicap there is now 1. 

[iacas]

Welcome (in the U.S. at least) to the WHS.

On (or about) January 6, golfers should be able to see their new handicap index. The GHIN app was completely re-written (by the GolfGenius people), so you'll want to download the new version of that. And you'll want to be aware of the following:

• Post your rounds daily so the PCC (playing conditions calculation) works properly.
• Post a score with a max of net double bogey on your bad holes. If you post hole-by-hole scores (recommended), you can put in your raw scores and this will be handled for you.
• Learn how the new course handicap is calculated.*

* This mostly makes it easier for people playing from different tees. Let's say you have a pair of 9.0 index players, and one wants to play the blues (par 72, 72.0/144) while the other wishes to play the whites (par 71, because on one hole the tees are on the near side of a large lake, 69.0/133).

Old Way:
Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 = 11 course handicap
White: 9.0 * 133/113 = 11 course handicap

That's how both would be listed on the sheet hanging in the pro shop, so they'd often forget the last step which was to subtract out the course rating, giving Blue an extra three shots or taking three away from white (same thing). They'd end up at either 14 and 11 or 11 and 8.

New Way:
The new way bakes this right in, right from the start, by making your course handicap relative to par.

Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 + 72.0 - 72 = 11
White: 9.0 * 133/113 + 69.0 - 71 = 9

You add the course rating and subtract the par to get the course handicap. This "bakes in" the course rating so that tournament directors and gambling buddies and whomever else don't have to argue about playing from different tees. This is also why par is important in the new handicapping system (though it will be rare for a par to change from one set of tees to another, it can happen).

P.S. I'm rounding 11.469 down to 11 but honestly am a bit too lazy right now, but there's a small chance this becomes 11.5 and thus the 11.5 rounds up to a 12 course handicap. I don't think so, but the point remains the same even if you have to adjust by 1 for my rounding.

[DaveP043]

I'd like to add just one comment to what @iacas has laid out.  I've read a few comments that suggest that the GHIN database may not have all the hole data for each course in the system before it re-opens on Jan 6.  The first time you attempt to enter hole by hole scores, I think its probably a good idea for you to check the par and handicap numbering to make sure its all correct.  I know that all of the golf clubs and the state and regional associations will do their best, but I'm sure there will be a mistake or two somewhere.

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

• Learn how the new course handicap is calculated.*

* This mostly makes it easier for people playing from different tees. Let's say you have a pair of 9.0 index players, and one wants to play the blues (par 72, 72.0/144) while the other wishes to play the whites (par 71, because on one hole the tees are on the near side of a large lake, 69.0/133).

Old Way:
Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 = 11 course handicap
White: 9.0 * 133/113 = 11 course handicap

That's how both would be listed on the sheet hanging in the pro shop, so they'd often forget the last step which was to subtract out the course rating, giving Blue an extra three shots or taking three away from white (same thing). They'd end up at either 14 and 11 or 11 and 8.

New Way:
The new way bakes this right in, right from the start, by making your course handicap relative to par.

Blue: 9.0 * 144/113 + 72.0 - 72 = 11
White: 9.0 * 133/113 + 69.0 - 71 = 9

You add the course rating and subtract the par to get the course handicap. This "bakes in" the course rating so that tournament directors and gambling buddies and whomever else don't have to argue about playing from different tees. This is also why par is important in the new handicapping system (though it will be rare for a par to change from one set of tees to another, it can happen).

Oh wow, I had no idea this was going to happen. This is really nice. My men's club frequently has 2 tee boxes for some flights, and it was always a pain to make sure your handicap was accurate. (It varied from event to event on whether they added or subtracted strokes.) It also means if your group plays from different tee boxes and wants to play a game, you can set up strokes much easier than in the past. Great change.

Do you know if there will still be a difference that you would have to calculate between men's and women's handicaps?

[iacas]

Spoiler

On 1/2/2020 at 11:26 AM, DaveP043 said:

I'd like to add just one comment to what @iacas has laid out.  I've read a few comments that suggest that the GHIN database may not have all the hole data for each course in the system before it re-opens on Jan 6.  The first time you attempt to enter hole by hole scores, I think its probably a good idea for you to check the par and handicap numbering to make sure its all correct.  I know that all of the golf clubs and the state and regional associations will do their best, but I'm sure there will be a mistake or two somewhere.

You're not kidding. I remembered this:

On 12/7/2019 at 9:31 PM, RemyM said:

Par will not differ on a hole by gender based on the difference in tee length.  If most of the tees rated for men are a par 5 then all will be played as a par five even if one forward tee is only par 4 length. See page 101.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Handicap/Rules-of-Handicapping_USGA_Final.pdf

And did some poking around.

National Course Rating Database

Downing here in Erie:

Others in the area (I'll post every one I search for, including all the private clubs (five) and a few public 18-hole courses), and only look at the men's tees (and excluding any "family" tees):

• Lawrence Park: Pars of 72, 71, 69, and 67.
• Kahkwa: Pars of 71, 70, and 69.
• Lake Shore: Pars of 72 and 69.
• Lake View: Pars of 72, 71, 70, and 68.
• Meadville: Pars of 72, 70, and 68.
• Over Lake: 69 and 67.
• Green Meadows: Pars of 72, 69, and 67.
• Downing is up above.
• Harbor Ridge (9 holes): Pars of 72, 70, 68, and 66.

Literally every course I looked up has different pars for different tees, and often different pars for EVERY set of tees. Which, I gotta be honest, is not what I expected to find at all. I didn't expect to find the "pars" to all be the same with the frequency that @RemyM was insisting they would be, but I didn't expect them to be like this, either. Maybe it's a day-one glitch in the system or something because we have an off-season to catch up on these types of issues here in PA.

So let's look at some courses in places where the weather isn't resulting in an off-season. Bold indicates the same type of "problem."

• Bernardo Heights (CA): Pars are all 72, rating goes from 72.8 to 64.5.
• Dallas National (TX): All 72, 76.2 to 66.1.
• Timacuan (FL): 68 to 72 to 68 and then 66, ratings from 73.3 to 62.8. 
• Summerlin (NV): 72, 74.4 to 65.9.
• PGA National (FL): Pars 72 to 68, ratings 75.2 to 66.6.

Hmmm. FL is behind, but Texas and California and Nevada are the same.

How about North Carolina?

• Talamore: All 71, 72.4 to 63.1.
• Pine Needles: Pars of 71, 70, 69, 68, 68 with ratings from 73.9 to 63.9.
• Mid South: Pars of 71 (and a 69 from the shortest of 8 tees), ratings 73.8 to 66.2 (or 63.5 for the shortest of 8).

Hmmm. Those that have different pars have pars pretty close to the course rating for those tees, but this affects the average golfers in a couple of ways:

• Posting max of net double bogey.
• Their calculated course handicap (see post just above this one).

The former, I feel, is a good reason for the hole pars to more accurately reflect their yardage. If you're playing a 390-yard par five, and you get a blow, I don't know that you should be able to post an 8. Then again, if you're getting an 8 on a 390-yard hole, maybe you should get to post an 8. 🙂 But really, that's likely a "par four" from those tees, even if the back tees on the other side of the pond are 550-yards and a true par five.

The latter - keeping the par elevated - helps make matches more appropriate. For example, let's now take our two 9.0 index golfers and put them on the blue tees and the yellow tees at Downing with the different pars.

Blue: 9.0 * 127/113 + 73.8 - 73 = 10.9 = 11 course handicap
Yellow: 9.0 * 115/113 + 66.7 - 68 = 7.9 = 8 course handicap

That's… pretty egregious, IMO. The one guy is playing a 7100 yard course and the other is playing a 5800 yard course. Three shots? Let's assume the pars are both 72:

Blue: 9.0 * 127/113 + 73.8 - 72 = 11.9 = 12 course handicap
Yellow: 9.0 * 115/113 + 66.7 - 72 = 3.9 = 4 course handicap

I could see how someone else might say that's pretty goofy in the other direction. (Under the old way, remember, you'd find the difference in course handicaps and add the difference in course rating, so 9.0 * 127/113 - 9.0 * 115/113 + (73.8 - 66.7) = 8, which is the same difference…).

The lengths of Downing's yellow and blue tees are (yellow yardage - "real par" - blue yardage - "real par", different pars bolded):

1. 430 - 4 - 511 - 5
2. 343 - 4 - 416 - 4
3. 387 - 4 - 412 - 4
4. 331 - 4 - 370 - 4
5. 180 - 3 - 197 - 3
6. 283 - 4 - 416 - 4
7. 414 - 4 - 575 - 5
8. 145 - 3 - 173 - 3
9. 310 - 4 - 438 - 4
10. 480 - 5 - 512 - 5
11. 195 - 3 - 219 - 3
12. 278 - 4 - 401 - 4
13. 456 - 5? - 483 - 5 (plays uphill… 456 might be adjusted to over 470 - borderline hole here from yellow)
14. 331 - 4 - 415 - 4
15. 181 - 3 - 203 - 3
16. 308 - 4 - 408 - 4
17. 362 - 4 - 456 - 4
18. 367 - 4 - 503 - 5 (marked as a par four from even the back tees on the scorecard, always has been)

So, scorecard par is 72 for both sets of tees, and one could pretty reasonably say that the course par should be 73 for the blue and… let's say 70 from the yellows. I don't know how the current (goofed up?) system gets 68.

Again, under the old system, Blue would be getting 8 shots from Yellow, and they're only three apart using the (goofed up?) new numbers.

---

I think:

• Adjusted pars make sense for the net double bogey stuff. A 390-yard par five without forced layups like crazy, etc. isn't really a par five, and should be capped at a net double bogey of 6, IMO.
• If pars vary too much from sets of tees, the course handicap calculation goes to shit.

I think a lot of courses (well, not the courses, their golf associations) in PA, FL, and possibly other states have some work to do.

---

Please, please, I consider myself a Rules expert, and a handicapping expert under the old system, but because I tend to only play gross events or care about gross events, I haven't really pre-studied a TON of the WHS stuff. We have until April before we kick in here in WPGA, and I'm spending most of January learning all this stuff. So please, if I've got something wrong, correct me.

I plan to talk with some people about this today, too.

Edit (later in the day): So, I talked with people in various organizations about this, and many northern states still have work (and plenty of time to do that work) to do. They know this, but many have until March 15 or April 1 or whatever to do this work. So be it.

Other organizations like those in NC or FL… should get on these things soon. And they are, as even later that day… Pine Needles was adjusted in the NCRDB. 😄

Edited January 2, 2020 by iacas
Corrected

[DaveP043]

20 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Oh wow, I had no idea this was going to happen. This is really nice. My men's club frequently has 2 tee boxes for some flights, and it was always a pain to make sure your handicap was accurate. (It varied from event to event on whether they added or subtracted strokes.) It also means if your group plays from different tee boxes and wants to play a game, you can set up strokes much easier than in the past. Great change.

Do you know if there will still be a difference that you would have to calculate between men's and women's handicaps?

The Man/woman matches should work the same way as when men play from different tees.  The only correction to make will be when the par for the different tees varies.  This is outlined in 6.2b in the Rules of Handicapping:

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

Edit: This is in section III, as the pages for handicapping rules don't allow deep linking like the Rules of Golf do.

Additional edit by Dave - This section addresses the issue @iacas outlined above, of two players playing from different tees, where the par also differs.  That section returns the difference in Playing Handicaps to what it would have been under the old rules.

Edited January 2, 2020 by DaveP043
clarified

[DeadMan]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The Man/woman matches should work the same way as when men play from different tees.  The only correction to make will be when the par for the different tees varies.  This is outlined in 6.2b in the Rules of Handicapping:

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

Edit: This is in section III, as the pages for handicapping rules don't allow deep linking like the Rules of Golf do.

Thanks!

Seems like a really good improvement. Will make setting up tournaments and games way easier.

[DaveP043]

This brings up a bit of terminology that we'll need to learn.  Your Course Handicap is the one calculated in Section 6.1 of the Rules.

CH = HI x (Slope/113) + (CR-Par)

Your Playing Handicap may be adjusted for playing from tees with differing pars.  It may also be adjusted based on the format of the competition, based on Appendix C in the Rules.  No matter what your Playing Handicap, your max hole score for handicap posting will be based on your Course Handicap.  This is another reason to enter your scores hole by hole, the system will ignore your Playing Handicap when it adjusts for Net Double.

[gbogey]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This brings up a bit of terminology that we'll need to learn.  Your Course Handicap is the one calculated in Section 6.1 of the Rules.

CH = HI x (Slope/113) + (CR-Par)

Your Playing Handicap may be adjusted for playing from tees with differing pars.  It may also be adjusted based on the format of the competition, based on Appendix C in the Rules.  No matter what your Playing Handicap, your max hole score for handicap posting will be based on your Course Handicap.  This is another reason to enter your scores hole by hole, the system will ignore your Playing Handicap when it adjusts for Net Double.

I think the simplest solution is to just not make anything over double bogey going forward, so that will be a New Year's resolution.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, gbogey said:

I think the simplest solution is to just not make anything over double bogey going forward, so that will be a New Year's resolution.

I make that resolution every year.  So far, I've also broken it every year.