World Handicap System Now Out (2020)

[Pretzel]

40 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I have a question about PCC that I couldn't find in the manual itself. Here's the situation: my men's club typically doesn't post scores to GHIN until a few days after a tournament. What impact would this have on PCC? I know that individuals should post their scores on the same day they played to make sure the PCC calculation is accurate. I'd imagine that a group of 40+ scores would be the same way. In fact, given that's so many scores, my impression is that it is very important to have any tournament scores posted the same day.

I want to make sure I understand this before I raise it as an issue. Posting these scores on the same day can take a lot of work from the club.

When the club posts the scores, do they post them with the correct date in the past or do they post them with the current date?

Posting usually gives you the options of choosing the date the round was played, and so long as the date of the round is correctly selected it should not affect PCC modifications. It will certainly delay any PCC modifications since the data needed to make a modification is missing for several days, but from what I've seen it seems the PCC may take several days to appear anyways because of delayed score posting from individuals that always happens regardless.

If asking a question to GHIN, it would probably be best to ask how many times/how often is PCC for a given date updated. If it updates only once at the end of the day then the PCC for your tournaments would not take into account performance during the tournament and only performance from players before/after the tournament group. If it updates several times up to a week after the date, which would make the most sense because many golfers don't post the same day they play already, then the PCC would still be eventually corrected based on your tournament scores.

[reidsou]

If we have players play from different tees in the same individual stroke play competition, should we use a handicap allowance of 100%? (Instead of the recommended 95%.)

See Rules of Handicapping for the definition of handicap allowance. 

[DeadMan]

13 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

When the club posts the scores, do they post them with the correct date in the past or do they post them with the current date?

They post them with the correct date (in the past).

It depends on how often the PCC calculation is made, but I can't figure that out from the handbook.

[reidsou]

13 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

They post them with the correct date (in the past).

It depends on how often the PCC calculation is made, but I can't figure that out from the handbook.

The PCC calculation is made once - the night of the date of play. That PCC is then applied to all scores played on that date, regardless of when posted. 

[DeadMan]

25 minutes ago, reidsou said:

The PCC calculation is made once - the night of the date of play. That PCC is then applied to all scores played on that date, regardless of when posted. 

Okay, that's what I thought. I will have to push them to post scores day of. Thank you for the help.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

If we have players play from different tees in the same individual stroke play competition, should we use a handicap allowance of 100%? (Instead of the recommended 95%.)

See Rules of Handicapping for the definition of handicap allowance. 

Based on the Rules, you should still use 95% of the appropriate Course Handicap, as calculated for the tee each player is using.  I don't see any reason not to use the recommended Handicap Allowance.

48 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Okay, that's what I thought. I will have to push them to post scores day of. Thank you for the help.

Or make it clear that each player MUST post their own score on the day of play, and then check the posting when its convenient.  

[Shindig]

I feel I should know this next part.  I see that when I play alone (not just "not someone I know," but as a one-some), I still don't post scores.  

I don't see a rule I might have imagined in the past:  what if I'm playing, but not optimizing for score?  For example, when I play with my mom, I'll sometimes (especially on par-4 holes) play from her tees and hit a 5-iron or 4-hybrid off the tee, aiming to play the hole from about where one of her good drives will go. Then on par-3s I'll step back to the tees I'd play if I were playing the course in different company, similar on par-5s (where I'll then hit driver and a long second shot, aiming to practice par-5 play).  I think I can't post such a "score" if I play that way. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Okay, that's what I thought. I will have to push them to post scores day of. Thank you for the help.

Please and yes. Push them to post that day.

[reidsou]

45 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Based on the Rules, you should still use 95% of the appropriate Course Handicap, as calculated for the tee each player is using.  I don't see any reason not to use the recommended Handicap Allowance.

The reason not to use the 95% recommendation is that it reduces the relative playing handicap of those who play from the longer tees. Giving an advantage to players who play from shorter tees. 

I don't think the recommended Handicap Allowance contemplates this situation of players competing from different tees in the same competition. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, reidsou said:

I don't think the recommended Handicap Allowance contemplates this situation of players competing from different tees in the same competition. 

But the course rating and slope adjust the handicaps the other way. So I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying at all.

Par 72.

A 3.0 index, a 10.0 index, and a 17.0 index.

73.4/136 versus 70.2/128…

Player H.I.	73.4/136 CH	95% CH	70.2/128 CH	95% CH
3.0	5	5	2	2
10.0	13	13	10	9
17.0	22	21	17	17

In other words, a 3.0 playing the back tees gets 5 strokes while a 17.0 playing the up tees gets 17… Or 21 or 22 from the back tees.

[reidsou]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

But the course rating and slope adjust the handicaps the other way. So I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying at all.

Par 72.

A 3.0 index, a 10.0 index, and a 17.0 index.

73.4/136 versus 70.2/128…

Player H.I.	73.4/136 CH	95% CH	70.2/128 CH	95% CH
3.0	5	5	2	2
10.0	13	13	10	9
17.0	22	21	17	17

In other words, a 3.0 playing the back tees gets 5 strokes while a 17.0 playing the up tees gets 17… Or 21 or 22 from the back tees.

Thanks for taking time to put together this detailed example. 

I agree the CR and slope mean a higher course handicap for longer tees. The higher the course handicap, the more it is affected by the handicap allowance when calculating the playing handicap. I think it is easier to see this effect before rounding. In your example sets of tees and two players with the same index - say 10.0. 

Player A plays from longer tees: course handicap 13.435

Player B from shorter tees: course handicap 9.527. 

A difference of 3.908. 

Playing handicaps with 95% handicap allowance.

Player A: 12.763

Player B: 9.051

A difference of 3.212. 

Player B has gained 0.7 strokes in playing handicap by using the shorter tees. 

[mauricio]

8 hours ago, Shindig said:

I feel I should know this next part.  I see that when I play alone (not just "not someone I know," but as a one-some), I still don't post scores.  

I don't see a rule I might have imagined in the past:  what if I'm playing, but not optimizing for score?  For example, when I play with my mom, I'll sometimes (especially on par-4 holes) play from her tees and hit a 5-iron or 4-hybrid off the tee, aiming to play the hole from about where one of her good drives will go. Then on par-3s I'll step back to the tees I'd play if I were playing the course in different company, similar on par-5s (where I'll then hit driver and a long second shot, aiming to practice par-5 play).  I think I can't post such a "score" if I play that way. 

If it's a valid score, played according to the rules, with the minimum of holes able to post, you can post according to the rules. IF you play like your example, you should post according to the rules, thats not a valid round/score, you shall not post. Nice to hear that you play with your mom. 

38 minutes ago, reidsou said:

Thanks for taking time to put together this detailed example. 

I agree the CR and slope mean a higher course handicap for longer tees. The higher the course handicap, the more it is affected by the handicap allowance when calculating the playing handicap. I think it is easier to see this effect before rounding. In your example sets of tees and two players with the same index - say 10.0. 

Player A plays from longer tees: course handicap 13.435

Player B from shorter tees: course handicap 9.527. 

A difference of 3.908. 

Playing handicaps with 95% handicap allowance.

Player A: 12.763

Player B: 9.051

A difference of 3.212. 

Player B has gained 0.7 strokes in playing handicap by using the shorter tees. 

Since a Course Handicap represents the number of strokes received to play to par, an adjustment is only necessary if players are competing from tees with different pars.

When par is different, the player(s) competing from the tees with the higher par simply add the difference in par to their Playing Handicap(s). (Rule 6.2b, Rules of Handicapping)

A handicap allowance is the percentage of a Course Handicap recommended to create equity based on the format of play.

Since higher-handicap players typically have more variance in their scores and an increased potential to shoot lower net scores, when full Course Handicaps are used in certain formats, players with lower Course Handicaps are generally at a disadvantage. By taking a percentage of Course Handicap, the higher handicap players are impacted more, which brings the expected scores for all players or teams to a more consistent level. Handicap allowances are mainly applied in team formats, where the combination of players can produce lower scores compared to other teams.

Millions of scores and/or simulations were used to determine and validate the handicap allowances used under the WHS, and the recommendations for each format of play can be found here. (Appendix C, Rules of Handicapping)

Edited June 19, 2020 by mauricio
Text repeated, deleted that part.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, reidsou said:

A difference of 3.908. 

You know that's not how that works.

It's 13 vs. 10, and then 13 vs. 9.

The player playing the longer tees gets the same CH, and the guy playing the shorter tees loses a shot. Kinda the opposite of this:

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

The reason not to use the 95% recommendation is that it reduces the relative playing handicap of those who play from the longer tees. Giving an advantage to players who play from shorter tees. 

No?

[Shindig]

37 minutes ago, mauricio said:

If it's a valid score, played according to the rules, with the minimum of holes able to post, you can post according to the rules. IF you play like your example, you should post according to the rules, thats not a valid round/score, you shall not post. Nice to hear that you play with your mom. 

Thanks!  Both for the information and the compliment   

[reidsou]

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

You know that's not how that works.

It's 13 vs. 10, and then 13 vs. 9.

The player playing the longer tees gets the same CH, and the guy playing the shorter tees loses a shot. Kinda the opposite of this:

No?

Yes, I'm aware that the playing handicap is rounded at the end of the calculation (Interpretation 6.1b/1).

What you are pointing out is an accident of rounding in this particular example - 13.435 and 0.95 * 13.435 = 12.763 both round to 13. Whereas 9.527 rounds to 10, but 0.95 * 9.527 = 9.051 rounds to 9. However, when multiplying by 0.95 (i.e. subtracting 5%) a higher course handicap will be reduced more than a lower course handicap, as shown here.

Rounding can obscure this or make it confusing, as in this example. But in general, the higher playing handicap is more likely to be reduced after rounding than the lower playing handicap. This is the handicap allowance advantage of the shorter tees that I mentioned. 

Thanks for the dialogue! 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

What you are pointing out is an accident of rounding in this particular example - 13.435 and 0.95 * 13.435 = 12.763 both round to 13. Whereas 9.527 rounds to 10, but 0.95 * 9.527 = 9.051 rounds to 9. However, when multiplying by 0.95 (i.e. subtracting 5%) a higher course handicap will be reduced more than a lower course handicap, as shown here.

Again, the slight bit of rounding is often or even usually offset by the lower slope and course rating, so I disagree with your original point that the person playing the longer set of tees is punished by the 5% reduction. The overall scheme often “hurts” the guy playing forward a bit more.

Besides, lower handicap players tend to play back, higher forward.

95% is fine IMO. I even think it should be 85 or 90. Higher handicappers have more variance in their scores and more potential to shoot net under par scores.

[DaveP043]

9 hours ago, reidsou said:

Thanks for taking time to put together this detailed example. 

I agree the CR and slope mean a higher course handicap for longer tees. The higher the course handicap, the more it is affected by the handicap allowance when calculating the playing handicap. I think it is easier to see this effect before rounding. In your example sets of tees and two players with the same index - say 10.0. 

Player A plays from longer tees: course handicap 13.435

Player B from shorter tees: course handicap 9.527. 

A difference of 3.908. 

Playing handicaps with 95% handicap allowance.

Player A: 12.763

Player B: 9.051

A difference of 3.212. 

Player B has gained 0.7 strokes in playing handicap by using the shorter tees. 

Because of the rounding involved, you can always find examples like this, but in real life they're relatively rare.  Do the calculation for HI of 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc, and see how many times there is difference in strokes between the two players.  Again, rounding can cause the same type of "unfairness" even when the players are on the same tee.  There is always a break point where a difference in HI of 0.1 will mean a full stroke difference in Course Handicap.  Shouldn't we just subtract the HIs of the players, and then calculate strokes to be given?  That would be seriously cumbersome, its not a good idea.  Is it "unfair" to give a stroke when you're only 0.1 lower than your opponent?   Not to me, its just a by-product of a system that ends up using only whole numbers.

[reidsou]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Because of the rounding involved, you can always find examples like this, but in real life they're relatively rare.  Do the calculation for HI of 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc, and see how many times there is difference in strokes between the two players.  Again, rounding can cause the same type of "unfairness" even when the players are on the same tee.  There is always a break point where a difference in HI of 0.1 will mean a full stroke difference in Course Handicap.  Shouldn't we just subtract the HIs of the players, and then calculate strokes to be given?  That would be seriously cumbersome, its not a good idea.  Is it "unfair" to give a stroke when you're only 0.1 lower than your opponent?   Not to me, its just a by-product of a system that ends up using only whole numbers.

Thanks for this detailed reply, but my point about handicap allowance is unrelated to rounding. (Turned out I picked an unfortunate example where rounding happened to obscure my point - my bad.)

BTW, I really appreciate your informative posts on rules topics.. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by reidsou