World Handicap System Now Out (2020)

[DaveP043]

7 hours ago, Troy Ocker said:

Are better ball events ever HCP-counting? I didn't think any team-events were. 

Each national golf association decides which types of scores count for handicap.  In USGA areas, we record pretty much every format.  I know that in much of Europe, fourball scores are not counted, and in many areas match play scores are not counted.  This is one of the remaining differences within the WHS system.

[StuM]

I'm responding to a post from "Are you a Vanity Capper?" but think I am going in a direction more relevant to this thread.  Below is the comment from @DaveP043 that I am responding to.

I use the USGA GHIN Mobile App to post scores and cannot find anything in it to "Pre-register a round" nor to indicate my playing partner for them to be emailed for confirmation.  My understanding is that GHIN is from the USGA so I would expect it to "Comply".  Am I wrong that GHIN is USGA's site?  

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

4 hours ago, StuM said:

I'm responding to a post from "Are you a Vanity Capper?" but think I am going in a direction more relevant to this thread.  Below is the comment from @DaveP043 that I am responding to.

I use the USGA GHIN Mobile App to post scores and cannot find anything in it to "Pre-register a round" nor to indicate my playing partner for them to be emailed for confirmation.  My understanding is that GHIN is from the USGA so I would expect it to "Comply".  Am I wrong that GHIN is USGA's site?  

 

 

 

There is currently no requirement to pre-register.  I was trying to say that I would support a change from the USGA to do just that.  It would move us towards the rest of the world, and it would decrease the potential for a player to manipulate his handicap, as compare to our current system.

[StuM]

40 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I was trying to say that I would support a change from the USGA to do just that.  It would move us towards the rest of the world, and it would decrease the potential for a player to manipulate his handicap, as compare to our current system.

Got it.  I was worried I was missing something.  I get your point on integrity of the data but for me, the current system is fine.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

To me its an admirable goal, to have all golfers using the same handicap system, instead of having six different systems.  The goal hasn't been met, but future changes may bring is all closer than we are now.  As for the formula changes, for those of us in the USGA areas the effect is really minimal.  I do like the elimination of the Exceptional Tournament score reduction, that could become excessively penal, in my opinion.

They eliminated Exceptional Tournament score penalty? I know there was one for any posted score (not just tournaments) because I got whacked 2 strokes by it last year. I'd love to see it killed for non tournament play. 

 

I still dislike the elimination of ESC because I occasionally see people entering wrong total score because of it, more so than with ESC. I dislike the PCC adjustment because it's gimmicky. For instance we had a +3 at my home course the first week league. Not because the course played hard but because there were a bunch of guys playing for the first time in 5 months. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

They eliminated Exceptional Tournament score penalty? I know there was one for any posted score (not just tournaments) because I got whacked 2 strokes by it last year. I'd love to see it killed for non tournament play. 

Yes, the T-score reduction was eliminated, replaced by the Exceptional Score reduction for posting a Differential more than 7 strokes below your HI (1 stroke) or 10 strokes below (2 strokes).  The positive part about that is that the impact of the reduction diminishes with each new score you post.  Under the old T-score reduction, if you continue to play poorly, so your calculated HI goes up, your "corrected" HI goes down by about the same amount, and that impact lasts for a full year after the first of the two low T-scores was posted.    

14 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I still dislike the elimination of ESC because I occasionally see people entering wrong total score because of it, more so than with ESC.

To me the use of net double bogey as the max hole score is an improvement, because it doesn't have artificial "steps" at 10-stroke Handicap intervals, its a smoother impact.  It also puts us in agreement with most of the rest of the world, who have long used Stableford scoring.  If anyone doesn't understand the new system after more than 3 years, AND chooses not to post scores hole by hole, they're intentionally ignorant of the rules.  But people screwed up under the ESC rules too, there will always be folks who don't know or don't care to know.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

They eliminated Exceptional Tournament score penalty? I know there was one for any posted score (not just tournaments) because I got whacked 2 strokes by it last year. I'd love to see it killed for non tournament play.

You're aware of this, no?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/exceptional-score-reduction.html

16 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I still dislike the elimination of ESC because I occasionally see people entering wrong total score because of it, more so than with ESC.

ESC existed for a long time. NDB is relatively new. ESC had its issues, too, and the USGA and AGAs have a good amount of data on how often it was applied correctly.

16 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I dislike the PCC adjustment because it's gimmicky. For instance we had a +3 at my home course the first week league. Not because the course played hard but because there were a bunch of guys playing for the first time in 5 months. 

It's just an algorithm.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

You're aware of this, no?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/exceptional-score-reduction.html

ESC existed for a long time. NDB is relatively new. ESC had its issues, too, and the USGA and AGAs have a good amount of data on how often it was applied correctly.

It's just an algorithm.

Just because it's an algorithm doesn't mean it's not gimmicky. 

 

I was aware of the 2 stroke reduction for an exceptional round. I shot more than 7 strokes below my differential during a casual round with friends with nothing on the line. My handicap went down to a ridiculous and unattainable number. I was screwed the rest of the season. In fact it will haunt me this season when I likely get soft capped for most of the season. Handicap is supposed to be a representative of your potential. Well, one epic round minus 2 strokes on your last last 20 is far from potential. That's why I have disdain for the whs. 

 

I misinterpreted what Dave wrote. Frankly the exceptional round penalty is overly punitive. I could understand its application if you shot that in a tournament, as a disincentive to sandbagging, but not outside of a tournament? Garbage. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Just because it's an algorithm doesn't mean it's not gimmicky.

Just because you had a +3 occurrence that triggered the algorithm doesn't mean it's gimmicky.

It accomplishes what it tries to accomplish. On days when scoring is higher, players are still capable of getting "credit" for their scores. What the cause of the higher scoring is does not matter much - tournament setup, foul weather, etc.

2 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I was aware of the 2 stroke reduction for an exceptional round. I shot more than 7 strokes below my differential during a casual round with friends with nothing on the line. My handicap went down to a ridiculous and unattainable number. I was screwed the rest of the season.

As you said… your handicap is supposed to be more about your potential than your "average," so you'll have a hard time arguing that your potential was not > 7 strokes below since you actually achieved it.

2 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Handicap is supposed to be a representative of your potential. Well, one epic round minus 2 strokes on your last best 9 is far from potential. That's why I have disdain for the whs.

How do you figure? You shot that score, no?

2 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I misinterpreted what Dave wrote. Frankly the exceptional round penalty is overly punitive. I could understand its application if you shot that in a tournament, as a disincentive to sandbagging, but not outside of a tournament? Garbage. 

I'm going to go back to it for a third time… you shot the score, no?

It seems you typically shoot in the 90s to 100s. You shot an 81 in July, for a 5.6 differential, which was surrounded by two differentials in the 24s.

And yet… you shot an 86 (14.0) later in July, then an 82 (9.7) in August, followed by an 86 (14.0). Heck, five of your eight counting scores are from the last five scores out of your last 20, going back to this time frame last year. Those five scores (14.0, 9.7, 18.1, 14.0, 17.1) have an average differential of 14.6. Your current handicap index is 15.6… so it seems to me that your "potential" is actually still a bit lower than even your current soft capped HI.

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I was aware of the 2 stroke reduction for an exceptional round. I shot more than 7 strokes below my differential during a casual round with friends with nothing on the line. My handicap went down to a ridiculous and unattainable number. I was screwed the rest of the season. In fact it will haunt me this season when I likely get soft capped for most of the season. Handicap is supposed to be a representative of your potential. Well, one epic round minus 2 strokes on your last last 20 is far from potential. That's why I have disdain for the whs. 

You shot 10 strokes below your handicap, AFTER adjusting for slope.  I'd say your resulting (reduced) handicap does reflect your potential, if you have to potential to score that well.  I've occasionally suggested that your true "potential" is best indicated by your single lowest score, not by some average of your "better than average" scores.  And I realize I've typed this without reading @iacas post saying much of the same, with more detail.

28 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Just because it's an algorithm doesn't mean it's not gimmicky. 

I'm not a huge fan of the PCC, but I also realize that is has had a pretty limited impact on most players.  That was the intent, to have a pretty small impact, they thought it might be applied in about 10% of rounds posted.  As an example, one of my better recent rounds had a PCC of +2 applied.   I have 2 other rounds with a PCC calculated, one a -1 on a score among my best 8, one at +1 for a non-counting round.   That means that my calculated HI is 0.125 strokes lower than it would have been without the PCC., not exactly a big deal.

And since some type of "daily correction" was included in several of the pre-existing handicap systems prior to 2020, its no surprise to me that something like this was included in the WHS.  The changes for those of us in USGA areas are pretty limited, compared to golfers who used to be under CONGU, but everyone in the world saw some kind of changes.  

[billchao]

43 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Handicap is supposed to be a representative of your potential.

As others have pointed out, it’s fair. Your potential should include the once in a lifetime round, seeing as you shot it and thus are capable of it. And this is coming from someone who is a 13.8 due to three good rounds (one exceptional) last summer that I haven’t played up to since.

What would you propose to be the alternative? Would you not count the lowest score in the period? That invites more trouble than the current method IMO.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

2 minutes ago, billchao said:

As others have pointed out, it’s fair. Your potential should include the once in a lifetime round, seeing as you shot it and thus are capable of it. And this is coming from someone who is a 13.8 due to three good rounds (one exceptional) last summer that I haven’t played up to since.

What would you propose to be the alternative? Would you not count the lowest score in the period? That invites more trouble than the current method IMO.

 

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

Just because you had a +3 occurrence that triggered the algorithm doesn't mean it's gimmicky.

It accomplishes what it tries to accomplish. On days when scoring is higher, players are still capable of getting "credit" for their scores. What the cause of the higher scoring is does not matter much - tournament setup, foul weather, etc.

As you said… your handicap is supposed to be more about your potential than your "average," so you'll have a hard time arguing that your potential was not > 7 strokes below since you actually achieved it.

How do you figure? You shot that score, no?

I'm going to go back to it for a third time… you shot the score, no?

It seems you typically shoot in the 90s to 100s. You shot an 81 in July, for a 5.6 differential, which was surrounded by two differentials in the 24s.

And yet… you shot an 86 (14.0) later in July, then an 82 (9.7) in August, followed by an 86 (14.0). Heck, five of your eight counting scores are from the last five scores out of your last 20, going back to this time frame last year. Those five scores (14.0, 9.7, 18.1, 14.0, 17.1) have an average differential of 14.6. Your current handicap index is 15.6… so it seems to me that your "potential" is actually still a bit lower than even your current soft capped HI.

A 1-2 stroke reduction applied to all your scores simply because you fall below a certain differential threshold is plain wrong in my opinion.  They already made the index more sensitive to good scoring by taking the best 8 of 20 instead of best 10 of 20, thus giving a more aggressive downward adjustment.  If you want to nail people with a 1 or 2 stroke reduction for an exceptional score during a tournament then I'm fully supportive. But the exceptional scoring penalty outside of a T is far to punitive.  Let the mathematical averages care for that, not some manufactured number that kicks in and changes all 20 of your past scores--- changing 19 other scores after the fact?  That's illogical to me.   

Now for us guys that don't play for 6 months, in some respects it's like starting to learn to play over again. I can hope for a miracle that I'll quickly regain some form that resembles my hot streak, but it's bleak.   

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

A 1-2 stroke reduction applied to all your scores simply because you fall below a certain differential threshold is plain wrong in my opinion.

I don't agree.  You shot a score more than 10 full strokes under your handicap, that shows your potential, and you claim to understand that Handicap is about potential.  And that score indicates your potential whether you shoot that score in a true competition or in a casual round with buddies, you DO have that potential.  I'm not sure I've ever gone that low, and I've been playing for more than 50 years.  

[BlackDiamondPar5]

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't agree.  You shot a score more than 10 full strokes under your handicap, that shows your potential, and you claim to understand that Handicap is about potential.  And that score indicates your potential whether you shoot that score in a true competition or in a casual round with buddies, you DO have that potential.  I'm not sure I've ever gone that low, and I've been playing for more than 50 years.  

Right, I went that low, not 2 stokes below it. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If you want to nail people with a 1 or 2 stroke reduction for an exceptional score during a tournament then I'm fully supportive. But the exceptional scoring penalty outside of a T is far to punitive. 

The problem with this is most golfers will not have many competition scores. A regular men's club event is not supposed to be a competition score. Competition scores are only supposed to be events that are significant to the club:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-usga-golf-faqs/faqs---posting-competition-scores.html

My club, for examples, has 3 major tournaments during the year, and I believe those are the only time that we post competition scores. Most clubs should be doing the same. Given that, it doesn't really make sense to limit it to only competition scores.

Edited May 8, 2023 by DeadMan

[DaveP043]

21 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Right, I went that low, not 2 stokes below it. 

Your Handicap Index wasn't lowered below that really good differential either.  Even your lowest Handicap Index was still well above that low Differential of 5.6, well above what you've shown as your true potential.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

22 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Your Handicap Index wasn't lowered below that really good differential either.  Even your lowest Handicap Index was still well above that low Differential of 5.6, well above what you've shown as your true potential.

True but why the 2 stroke reduction? What's the statistics did the USGA use for deciding 2 stokes vs 1 stoke vs no exceptional score applied? My guess is it was to appease someone on the "global committee," (same for pc). Would have been better if they stuck with an average of best differentials. If the intention is to emphasize better scores then why not a 7 or 6 score average?

 

I greatly respect your opinion, but as an engineer I look at this exceptional score adjustment as somewhat arbitrary and illogical. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[billchao]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Right, I went that low, not 2 stokes below it. 

You’re stuck on this point, which you’re wrong about, IMO.

You did shoot that low, and the 2 extra strokes are because you did it while everyone else struggled that day. You outperformed everyone else on the course that day - by a wide margin it would seem.