World Handicap System Now Out (2020)

[iacas]

2 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

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.

An average is not a great measure of your "potential."

Let's imagine your best 8 differentials are: 1.0 and then 9.0 x 7. Your HI would be 8.0. Is that a measure of your "potential" given that you shot a 1.0 differential round?

It doesn't take an engineering degree to see that 8.0 is really far from 1.0.

1 hour 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.

Yep. Your low differential is 5.6 (your realized "potential"), but your low HI is 12.5. Currently 15.6.

59 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Would have been better if they stuck with an average of best differentials.

I disagree. 8.0 is still really far away from 1.0, so just rolling the exceptional score into the average doesn't really "solve" the problem.

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

[BlackDiamondPar5]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

An average is not a great measure of your "potential."

Let's imagine your best 8 differentials are: 1.0 and then 9.0 x 7. Your HI would be 8.0. Is that a measure of your "potential" given that you shot a 1.0 differential round?

It doesn't take an engineering degree to see that 8.0 is really far from 1.0.

Yep. Your low differential is 5.6 (your realized "potential"), but your low HI is 12.5. Currently 15.6.

I disagree. 8.0 is still really far away from 1.0, so just rolling the exceptional score into the average doesn't really "solve" the problem.

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

There's nothing wrong with an average. The system already averages your best. If the intention is to put more emphasis on the best differentials then decrease the number of diffs in the average. You can also apply weighted averages if you wish to put even more emphasis on lower scores. 

 

Unless there's some mathematical modeling that we can see, then kicking in an arbitrary - 1 and - 2 exceptional score at arbitrary differentials doesn't really stand up to logic test. 

 

I strongly suspect both the exceptional score handling and PCC were adopted as a compromise to one or more of the global parties involved in developing the world handicap. 

 

 

[DaveP043]

34 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I strongly suspect both the exceptional score handling and PCC were adopted as a compromise to one or more of the global parties involved in developing the world handicap. 

The entire system pre-2020 represented continual compromises over the decades.  Making compromises with additional interested parties isn't a bad thing, nor is it intrinsically wrong.  In most cases, any choice is somewhat arbitrary when compared to a slightly different choice.  So complain all you like, this is the system we have.  And if my guess is right, we'll see more changes in the future, quite possibly moving closer to procedures in other parts of the world, and further away from the "traditional" methods of the USGA handicap system.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

There's nothing wrong with an average.

You've already said this:

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Handicap is supposed to be a representative of your potential.

Given that, when you have a 1.0 and seven 9.0s… an average is 8.0, while if we reduced all of those to 7.0… your average would be 6.3. The 6.3 is closer to your "potential" (a 1.0).

Your "potential" was a 5.6… and yet your handicap index only got as low as a 12.5.

So, that is the issue with just taking an average, and a big part of why they've added this measure.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The system already averages your best.

And it works fine. If your eight differentials were 7.0 and 9.0 alternating, your "potential" would be somewhere around a 7.0… and your average would be 8.0. That's fine.

When your potential is 1.0 and your average is 8.0… but could be 6.3, the 6.3 more accurately represents your potential.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If the intention is to put more emphasis on the best differentials then decrease the number of diffs in the average. You can also apply weighted averages if you wish to put even more emphasis on lower scores.

And then someone on here would be complaining about that.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Unless there's some mathematical modeling that we can see, then kicking in an arbitrary - 1 and - 2 exceptional score at arbitrary differentials doesn't really stand up to logic test.

"Unless there's some mathematical modeling that we can see, then just doing the average even when there's an outlier type score doesn't really stand up to the logic test."

I like arguing that way! In other words… you've already determined you don't like it, so you're not really using "logic" here — you're just couching your opinion in words that make it sound like it has a lot more weight than "I don't like it."

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I strongly suspect both the exceptional score handling and PCC were adopted as a compromise to one or more of the global parties involved in developing the world handicap.

And… that's bad because… why?

To put it another way… if the rest of the world was doing things like these already… then maybe there's more validity to it than you seem to realize?

[reidsou]

Would *love* to get an ESR. 

It would be symptomatic of big improvement in my game. 

(Maybe ESR should be a recognized TST achievement!)

[billchao]

42 minutes ago, reidsou said:

It would be symptomatic of big improvement in my game.

I wish that were the case. It’s a lot closer to blind squirrel syndrome if you ask me (I’ve done it three times now).

[DeadMan]

2 hours ago, reidsou said:

Would *love* to get an ESR. 

I was thinking the same. I would need to shoot 3 to 5 under for it to happen to me. Sign me up!

[billchao]

11 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I was thinking the same. I would need to shoot 3 to 5 under for it to happen to me. Sign me up!

That’s your own fault for being good. Go shoot 17 differentials for a bit and then a 9 😉

[BlackDiamondPar5]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

You've already said this:

Given that, when you have a 1.0 and seven 9.0s… an average is 8.0, while if we reduced all of those to 7.0… your average would be 6.3. The 6.3 is closer to your "potential" (a 1.0).

Your "potential" was a 5.6… and yet your handicap index only got as low as a 12.5.

So, that is the issue with just taking an average, and a big part of why they've added this measure.

And it works fine. If your eight differentials were 7.0 and 9.0 alternating, your "potential" would be somewhere around a 7.0… and your average would be 8.0. That's fine.

When your potential is 1.0 and your average is 8.0… but could be 6.3, the 6.3 more accurately represents your potential.

And then someone on here would be complaining about that.

"Unless there's some mathematical modeling that we can see, then just doing the average even when there's an outlier type score doesn't really stand up to the logic test."

I like arguing that way! In other words… you've already determined you don't like it, so you're not really using "logic" here — you're just couching your opinion in words that make it sound like it has a lot more weight than "I don't like it."

And… that's bad because… why?

To put it another way… if the rest of the world was doing things like these already… then maybe there's more validity to it than you seem to realize?

In your example, if you say a 1.0 is the potential because someone captures lighting in a bottle then make the index based on the single best score. If you want to make a handicap more sensitive to good scores then you reduce the number used in determining the average of the best. Perhaps best 5 instead of 8 or whatever. This effectively puts a greater weight on better scoring.  Whereas the application of ESR is an arbitrary break point. It's ludicrous that a person that shoots a diff bettered by 7.0 is treated 1 stroke differently than a person that has a bettering diff of 6.9!  I even asked the USGA to provide a statistical analysis or some kind of summary with numbers that drove such decision and they wouldn't.  All they would provide is the standard copy/paste from the FAQ's.   I'm using logic with foundations based on math and statistics and it seems the others just blindly accept what's given by the USGA.  

 

If anyone can produce the data I'd love to see it. My heals are dug in on my position and nothing you or anyone else has written has swayed me. But it doesn't mean I would not be influenced upon review of actual data. 

 

20 hours 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.  

You've probably never done that because your a much better golfer than I am. As you know a person with a 22 CH is something like 40-50 times more likely than an upper single digit CH to go -10 diff.  

17 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

The entire system pre-2020 represented continual compromises over the decades.  Making compromises with additional interested parties isn't a bad thing, nor is it intrinsically wrong.  In most cases, any choice is somewhat arbitrary when compared to a slightly different choice.  So complain all you like, this is the system we have.  And if my guess is right, we'll see more changes in the future, quite possibly moving closer to procedures in other parts of the world, and further away from the "traditional" methods of the USGA handicap system.

As for the WHS overall.  It was a solution looking for a problem.  The number of people in the US that needed a HC to compete in global handicapped events with others from around the world is miniscule.  The way the average golfer in the USA uses their handicap compared to a person in Europe is quite different for example.  The latter having more formal competitions at clubs.  Whereas most in the USA might only enter in a couple formal handicapped events annually. I believe only about 10% of GHIN holders have T scores in the last year.  But regardless, to the masses in the USA that have a handicap you can bet it's every bit important.--- sacred are the informal competitions with  buddies and ad-hoc groups of golf acquaintances for their Saturday morning rounds where everyone throws $10 into a hat.  If we're forced to use our handicap in ways that are defined by some global committee then the tail is wagging the dog.

Edited May 9, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[iacas]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

In your example, if you say a 1.0 is the potential because someone captures lighting in a bottle then make the index based on the single best score.

Dude.

You’re being ridiculous at this point. My example shows how the -2 adjustments pulls the average closer to your potential in the event of an exceptional score better than just the straight average.

I think that’s been fairly clear so to continue to misrepresent that feels willful.

I’m on the golf course so I can’t look at everything you said, but if it’s along the same line says the above then there’s not much point anyway.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

As for the WHS overall.  It was a solution looking for a problem.

No. It solved many issues. Look beyond what you’re used to. There’s a whole big rest of the world out there. I know change can be hard but it doesn’t have to be.

You just want to complain. Seemingly anything but the old system would irritate you. You’ve complained about the reduction to using eight scores (but ignore that the 0.96 multiplier went away), then say “just use the best one differential.”

You’re not having a discussion. You’re just complaining.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Dude.

You’re being ridiculous at this point. My example shows how the -2 adjustments pulls the average closer to your potential in the event of an exceptional score better than just the straight average.

I think that’s been fairly clear so to continue to misrepresent that feels willful.

I’m on the golf course so I can’t look at everything you said, but if it’s along the same line says the above then there’s not much point anyway.

No. It solved many issues. Look beyond what you’re used to. There’s a whole big rest of the world out there. I know change can be hard but it doesn’t have to be.

You just want to complain. Seemingly anything but the old system would irritate you. You’ve complained about the reduction to using eight scores (but ignore that the 0.96 multiplier went away), then say “just use the best one differential.”

You’re not having a discussion. You’re just complaining.

It's disappointing that you've gone this route. I thought we were having a conversation. But I guess it's only a discussion if I don't disagree with you, and if I disagree then I'm complaining. My mistake! 

To be clear I've never complained about the elimination of 0.96 multiplier, not once!  Additionally I've never complained about using an 8 score average instead of 10, not once! If the goal was to make an index more heavily weight good scores and make it more sensitive to downward movement, then mathematically that makes sense. I personally can't complain about that either. There's math to back it up!   

Your claim that the -1 or -2 adjustment pulls the average in closer to the potential is certainly true, but 7 is an arbitrary break point. Justify why the person that only goes 6.9 below simply goes into the average of their best, but the person going 7 below see's a punitive 1 stroke penalty for 20 of their scores? It's ridiculous.  Unless you can show the statistical data for that justification then it's just an opinion. The USGA wouldn't provide it!

As for the WHS in general I probably wouldn't be too far off if I said some elements were borne from compromise with other handicapping jurisdictions.  Perhaps maybe to get them to adopt slope we had to concede to ESR and something as nonsensical as PCC etc.  On the plus side the WHS has resulted in a superior GHIN app and more secure protection of data. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by BlackDiamondPar5

[billchao]

57 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

It's disappointing that you've gone this route. I thought we were having a conversation. But I guess it's only a discussion if I don't disagree with you, and if I disagree then I'm complaining. My mistake!

Dipping into the victim’s playbook already? Come on, man.

How are you having a discussion? You’ve not addressed many of the rebuttals to your statements and continue to post the same few points over and over without offering an alternative solution. We get it, you don’t like the system. It penalized you. I’ve shot ESR three times in the past two years and made zero posts against the WHS. It’s just how it is now.

57 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

but 7 is an arbitrary break point. Justify why the person that only goes 6.9 below simply goes into the average of their best, but the person going 7 below see's a punitive 1 stroke penalty for 20 of their scores? It's ridiculous.

Yea, it’s probably largely arbitrary. I’m sure there’s some statistical reason behind it based on the likelihood of it happening, but so what? They wanted to draw the line somewhere and they did.

59 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

As for the WHS in general I probably wouldn't be too far off if I said some elements were borne from compromise with other handicapping jurisdictions.

You’ve posted this several times, as well, to which others have responded something along the lines of, “What’s wrong with compromise?” You still have given no answer.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

something as nonsensical as PCC

That’s just your opinion, yea? I don’t think PCC is nonsensical. I think it’s a very valid attempt to factor in playing conditions to allow handicap index to be a baseline assessment of a player’s potential. Is it perfect? No, but what is?

---

I’m not really sure how you think this “discussion” should be going but I have a hard time seeing how your posts are anything other than complaints about the WHS.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

In your example, if you say a 1.0 is the potential because someone captures lighting in a bottle then make the index based on the single best score.

As I said before, you hate that they are using 8 scores instead of 10, so it's disingenuous (taken the best possible way) for you to say "just make it the single best score!"

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If you want to make a handicap more sensitive to good scores then you reduce the number used in determining the average of the best. Perhaps best 5 instead of 8 or whatever.

Again, you didn't like that it went from 10 to 8 (and again, I'll point out that you missed that few handicaps changed much with that change because the 0.96 multiplier went away). So going to 5 is, again at best, disingenuous.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Whereas the application of ESR is an arbitrary break point.

It is, but so are a lot of things in golf and, truly, in literally every sport. Why is the hole 4.25"? Why is the ball 1.68" in diameter (minimum)? Etc.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

It's ludicrous that a person that shoots a diff bettered by 7.0 is treated 1 stroke differently than a person that has a bettering diff of 6.9! I even asked the USGA to provide a statistical analysis or some kind of summary with numbers that drove such decision and they wouldn't.

That doesn't mean they don't have the info: it just means they're not willing to share it with you.

Here's what bothers me. I get a peek, as a rules official and a long-time volunteer with an AGA, behind the curtain. I see the tremendous thought and care that go into these kinds of things. You are essentially shitting on the hundreds of people that care enough and think about this stuff a ton while having a fraction of the knowledge that they have. I have a bit more knowledge, which still doesn't mean my opinions are "more right" or anything (opinions can't be right or wrong, but when you say things that are factual, those can be right or wrong), but it does probably give me a bit more of an understanding as to why and how they've arrived where they are.

@DaveP043 can attest to some of this stuff, too.

People love to bitch about things (handicapping, rules of golf, etc.)… but rarely do they take the time to truly understand as much as they can.

You say it's "ludicrous" but I say it's practical. Unless they're going to do it with tenths of a stroke (which they could do given that it's to the differential), they have to choose two scores to serve as the breakpoints.

You bettered your index by, what, like 15 strokes or more?

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

All they would provide is the standard copy/paste from the FAQ's. I'm using logic with foundations based on math and statistics and it seems the others just blindly accept what's given by the USGA.

So are they. And so am I. But you're ignoring it because you don't like the results.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If anyone can produce the data I'd love to see it. My heals are dug in on my position and nothing you or anyone else has written has swayed me. But it doesn't mean I would not be influenced upon review of actual data.

You could have saved us all a bunch of time by saying "my heels are dug in" and leaving it at that.

You're not going to get to see the "actual data." So that's a red herring or something. "My heels are dug in, unless something that's never going to happen, happens." Cool.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

You've probably never done that because your a much better golfer than I am. As you know a person with a 22 CH is something like 40-50 times more likely than an upper single digit CH to go -10 diff.

It's still pretty unlikely. And you weren't just barely 10 below your index at the time. Heck, you're almost 10 below your index NOW, your soft-capped, "ESR" reduced handicap index.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

As for the WHS overall.  It was a solution looking for a problem.

As I said before… no. You couldn't be more wrong here, and since we're talking about facts now… I can say that.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The number of people in the US that needed a HC to compete in global handicapped events with others from around the world is miniscule. 

There's much more to it than that. Sorry.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The way the average golfer in the USA uses their handicap compared to a person in Europe is quite different for example.

Now it isn't, so much.

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If we're forced to use our handicap in ways that are defined by some global committee then the tail is wagging the dog.

You're not forced to do anything, man.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

It's disappointing that you've gone this route.

Just stop right there. I went the "route" of pointing out that you're arguing in bad faith.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I thought we were having a conversation.

We are. But it seems you're not really reading what I and others have typed.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

But I guess it's only a discussion if I don't disagree with you, and if I disagree then I'm complaining. My mistake!

Got nothing to do with it. A forum wouldn't exist if everyone just agreed all the time. Topics would be one post, and that'd be the end of it, except for a few "I agree" type comments. Boring.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

To be clear I've never complained about the elimination of 0.96 multiplier, not once!

This shows that you didn't really read what I've written. I didn't say you complained about it. You have complained about the 10 scores going down to 8. But you've ignored that we also dropped the 0.96 multiplier. You know what the result of those two changes were? That handicap indexes stayed almost the same for almost all golfers. If your HI was 22.3 when counting 10/20 * 0.96, it was probably basically 22.3 when it shifted to 8/10.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Additionally I've never complained about using an 8 score average instead of 10, not once!

Hmmmm.

On 5/8/2023 at 3:01 PM, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

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.

I think it's fair to read that as a minor complaint. It's not as aggressive as you think given the 0.96 thing went away. It does give a little more weight to a single round of golf, but the other 7 are actually all a little higher than they used to be under the 10/20*0.96 system.

Moving on…

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Your claim that the -1 or -2 adjustment pulls the average in closer to the potential is certainly true, but 7 is an arbitrary break point.

Nearly everything in golf is arbitrary. The rules are arbitrary. This isn't the laws of physics. The whole sport is arbitrary.

What you seem to want to say is: "Despite agreeing that a HI is a measure of one's potential, I don't like that my handicap was dropped closer to about 7 strokes above what I showed empirically was my potential."

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Justify why the person that only goes 6.9 below simply goes into the average of their best, but the person going 7 below see's a punitive 1 stroke penalty for 20 of their scores?

Here you go: they had to draw the line somewhere. If they drew it at 8 and 11, or 9 and 12, your 5.6 differential still would have triggered the -2, no?

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Unless you can show the statistical data for that justification then it's just an opinion. The USGA wouldn't provide it!

Why should they? FFS man. Them not wanting to give you all their data doesn't mean they don't have it. Your posts on this type of thing feel accusatory and mean. They're smart people. They gave this a TON of thought.

You're implying that they're morons because they won't show you their data.

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Perhaps maybe to get them to adopt slope we had to concede to ESR and something as nonsensical as PCC etc.

PCC makes sense. You can dislike it but to say that it doesn't "make sense" means either:

• you don't understand it (I don't think this is the case)
• you're wrong.

Because it "makes sense." You just don't like it.

18 minutes ago, billchao said:

How are you having a discussion? You’ve not addressed many of the rebuttals to your statements and continue to post the same few points over and over without offering an alternative solution. We get it, you don’t like the system. It penalized you. I’ve shot ESR three times in the past two years and made zero posts against the WHS. It’s just how it is now.

👍🏼

18 minutes ago, billchao said:

I’m not really sure how you think this “discussion” should be going but I have a hard time seeing how your posts are anything other than complaints about the WHS.

Yeah.

@BlackDiamondPar5, we get it. You don't like it.

I think the system did its job, and as I've pointed out a few times now… you've agreed handicap is your differential, you've shot a 5.6 differential, and you're complaining because your handicap was reduced to a 12.5 and is now a 15.6. Those are still nearly 7 and a full 10 higher than your actual you-really-did-it "potential."

[BlackDiamondPar5]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

As I said before, you hate that they are using 8 scores instead of 10, so it's disingenuous (taken the best possible way) for you to say "just make it the single best score!"

Again, you didn't like that it went from 10 to 8 (and again, I'll point out that you missed that few handicaps changed much with that change because the 0.96 multiplier went away). So going to 5 is, again at best, disingenuous.

It is, but so are a lot of things in golf and, truly, in literally every sport. Why is the hole 4.25"? Why is the ball 1.68" in diameter (minimum)? Etc.

That doesn't mean they don't have the info: it just means they're not willing to share it with you.

Here's what bothers me. I get a peek, as a rules official and a long-time volunteer with an AGA, behind the curtain. I see the tremendous thought and care that go into these kinds of things. You are essentially shitting on the hundreds of people that care enough and think about this stuff a ton while having a fraction of the knowledge that they have. I have a bit more knowledge, which still doesn't mean my opinions are "more right" or anything (opinions can't be right or wrong, but when you say things that are factual, those can be right or wrong), but it does probably give me a bit more of an understanding as to why and how they've arrived where they are.

@DaveP043 can attest to some of this stuff, too.

People love to bitch about things (handicapping, rules of golf, etc.)… but rarely do they take the time to truly understand as much as they can.

You say it's "ludicrous" but I say it's practical. Unless they're going to do it with tenths of a stroke (which they could do given that it's to the differential), they have to choose two scores to serve as the breakpoints.

You bettered your index by, what, like 15 strokes or more?

So are they. And so am I. But you're ignoring it because you don't like the results.

You could have saved us all a bunch of time by saying "my heels are dug in" and leaving it at that.

You're not going to get to see the "actual data." So that's a red herring or something. "My heels are dug in, unless something that's never going to happen, happens." Cool.

It's still pretty unlikely. And you weren't just barely 10 below your index at the time. Heck, you're almost 10 below your index NOW, your soft-capped, "ESR" reduced handicap index.

As I said before… no. You couldn't be more wrong here, and since we're talking about facts now… I can say that.

There's much more to it than that. Sorry.

Now it isn't, so much.

You're not forced to do anything, man.

Just stop right there. I went the "route" of pointing out that you're arguing in bad faith.

We are. But it seems you're not really reading what I and others have typed.

Got nothing to do with it. A forum wouldn't exist if everyone just agreed all the time. Topics would be one post, and that'd be the end of it, except for a few "I agree" type comments. Boring.

This shows that you didn't really read what I've written. I didn't say you complained about it. You have complained about the 10 scores going down to 8. But you've ignored that we also dropped the 0.96 multiplier. You know what the result of those two changes were? That handicap indexes stayed almost the same for almost all golfers. If your HI was 22.3 when counting 10/20 * 0.96, it was probably basically 22.3 when it shifted to 8/10.

Hmmmm.

I think it's fair to read that as a minor complaint. It's not as aggressive as you think given the 0.96 thing went away. It does give a little more weight to a single round of golf, but the other 7 are actually all a little higher than they used to be under the 10/20*0.96 system.

Moving on…

Nearly everything in golf is arbitrary. The rules are arbitrary. This isn't the laws of physics. The whole sport is arbitrary.

What you seem to want to say is: "Despite agreeing that a HI is a measure of one's potential, I don't like that my handicap was dropped closer to about 7 strokes above what I showed empirically was my potential."

Here you go: they had to draw the line somewhere. If they drew it at 8 and 11, or 9 and 12, your 5.6 differential still would have triggered the -2, no?

Why should they? FFS man. Them not wanting to give you all their data doesn't mean they don't have it. Your posts on this type of thing feel accusatory and mean. They're smart people. They gave this a TON of thought.

You're implying that they're morons because they won't show you their data.

PCC makes sense. You can dislike it but to say that it doesn't "make sense" means either:

• you don't understand it (I don't think this is the case)
• you're wrong.

Because it "makes sense." You just don't like it.

👍🏼

Yeah.

@BlackDiamondPar5, we get it. You don't like it.

I think the system did its job, and as I've pointed out a few times now… you've agreed handicap is your differential, you've shot a 5.6 differential, and you're complaining because your handicap was reduced to a 12.5 and is now a 15.6. Those are still nearly 7 and a full 10 higher than your actual you-really-did-it "potential."

To be clear I didn't mean that you think the one best score should be an index, but it served as example that calculating it with 1 or more diffs would be better than the ESR. 

Let's stop with your nonsensical accusation... I never, not once, stated nor implied that going from 10 to 8 best differentials was a problem. It's 100% fine with me . But it's a fact of simple arithmetic that each of the 8 scores has 1/8 impact instead of 1/10. 1/8 is bigger than 1/10. If you read facts as a problem, well that's on you. I see your BS of trying trying to marginalize me with misconstrued statements.  But you lack the fire power of facts and data. 

 

Seems most of the responses back to me are opinions, perhaps those just blindly accepting what's been given by the USGA and whs.  Maybe some don't understand data and statistics enough to ask questions. Maybe some are just interested in carrying water for the USGA. 

[reidsou]

On 5/8/2023 at 10:36 AM, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

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.

... 

Frankly the exceptional round penalty is overly punitive. ... Garbage. 

By "screwed" and "punished" you mean that you cannot accept the Rules of Handicapping that apply equally to everyone? You would like a higher handicap. Sounds like a sandbagger to me. 

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

To be clear I didn't mean that you think the one best score should be an index, but it served as example that calculating it with 1 or more diffs would be better than the ESR.

:sigh:

38 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Let's stop with your nonsensical accusation... I never, not once, stated nor implied that going from 10 to 8 best differentials was a problem.

Again, that's how it read to me (and two others I asked).

And, buddy, please back off on the language. It wasn't "nonsensical." Nor are things the USGA and other golf associations have done "ludicrous." You don't like them, and that's about the strongest your language should be.

38 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

But it's a fact of simple arithmetic that each of the 8 scores has 1/8 impact instead of 1/10. 1/8 is bigger than 1/10.

:sigh:

38 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

If you read facts as a problem, well that's on you. I see your BS of trying trying to marginalize me with misconstrued statements. But you lack the fire power of facts and data.

Again, you're ignoring the 0.96 multiplier, and ignoring the post I made JUST ABOVE where I went into more detail here. The 0.96 multiplier lowered EVERY one of the 10 scores, and indexes didn't really change much when they went to 8 but dropped the 0.96 multiplier.

8.0 x 3, 9.0 x 3, 10.0 x 4 * 0.96 = 8.7
8.0 x 3, 9.0 x 3, 10.0 x 2 = 8.9

Yes, using 8 instead of 10 lowers it by a bit more, but you're talking about 12.5% versus 10%… and ignoring the loss of the 0.96 (4%) on each score.

So let's replace an 8.0 above with a 2.0.

2 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 * 0.96 = 8.2
2 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 = 8.1

Oh my. Probably unlikely to result in a different playing handicap than the 10/20*0.96.

You're being given a lot of rope here. I know you don't see it that way, but…

38 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Seems most of the responses back to me are opinions, perhaps those just blindly accepting what's been given by the USGA and whs.  Maybe some don't understand data and statistics enough to ask questions. Maybe some are just interested in carrying water for the USGA. 

Oy. No.

I'm not going to justify that last attack (now on not only the USGA and other golf associations worldwide, but now attacking me and my knowledge of basic statistics) with more of a response than this: chill, man.

This shit's just golf. You don't like the WHS because you were dropped to a 12.5 index after shooting a 5.6 differential, despite agreeing that your index is about your "potential."

[billchao]

Ok, lets look at this another way, @BlackDiamondPar5. You're in a match with a someone. On a day when, for whatever reason, most people shoot above average scores for their index. This guy beats you by shooting 7 strokes below his index. You've got no problem with that?

[GolfLug]

Shooting 7 diff below HCP?? Sandbaggers be running wild in the woods. They must be crushed with impunity. 😂