problem with handicap system

[crazy_horst]

But wait -- why apply the slope at all? The slope is only to adjust the score for the worse-than-scratch player, by definition. It makes no sense to apply it to a better than

But aren't you assuming that the guy who shot 68 is a scratch golfer? What happens to your calculations if a player shot 68, but is a 2 handicap?

[tm22721]

The handicap system is for elites only because "par" establishes an impossible goal for 90% of players. Great for the top flight players who can compete at the club championship level, discouraging for mere mortals.

Then, many golf course managers complain about not enough membership to pay the bills !

You can't have it both ways. We need 4500 yard executive type courses, not 6500-7500 yard monstrosities with impossible lies.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Will View Post But wait -- why apply the slope at all? The slope is only to adjust the score for the worse-than-scratch player, by definition. It makes no sense to apply it to a better than scratch player. For any score at the course rating or better, the diff should not be adjusted at all! I think Reid argues that it should be adjusted, but in the opposite way. That's not correct because slope only has meaning for the worse-than-scratch golfer, by definition (slope derived from the bogey rating). But aren't you assuming that the guy who shot 68 is a scratch golfer? What happens to your calculations if a player shot 68, but is a 2 handicap?

But aren't you assuming that the guy who shot 68 is a scratch golfer? What happens to your calculations if a player shot 68, but is a 2 handicap?

I was a bit unclear. The problem occurs when anyone shoots lower than the course rating, it doesn't depend on their handicap.

[connor35]

I would love to sit down with the person who came up with the slope idea. He or she must be brilliant. The concept is correct. The formula is flawed, however.

Reid, that would be Dean Knuth, the "Pope of the Slope".

If you've never been there, check out http://www.popeofslope.com/ Knuth's website.

[Will]

Reid, that would be Dean Knuth, the "Pope of the Slope".

That is so cool, thanks!

[Will]

I contacted Dean Knuth about this, and explained the issue. He said he thought the current system contained no errors regarding negative differentials. He also said he had written a 1-2 page memo to the USGA a few years ago addressing the topic, and to ask them about it.

I did, and will post the memo when I get it.

[reid]

Will:
It was a few years ago that I brought this to the USGA's attention . I may have been responsible for them asking Mr Knuth to provide the memo. They sent me several attachments to a rebuttal e mail. The attachments contained mathematical errors and the e mail that they sent me made no sense at all. They kept claiming that because Tiger woods can beat a scratch golfer more easily on a very severe course, his handicap should be adjusted toward zero. That is the opposite of what needs to be done since he would need to give more strokes to such a player were they to have a match. In other words, they proved my point by saying 2+2=5. You will read in my book that I had to get lawyers and file a patent to protect my ideas.

Shindig:
Did you get much out of my long explanation of the meaning of slope?

[iacas]

Reid, I'm not interested in picking nits about the key. We both know what the chart's trying to show us and I doubt anyone's been thrown off by the key. The key has little to do with the topic at hand, nor did the article really have anything to do with this topic. Let's get back to that, shall we?

On that topic, I continue to disagree with you that slope matters when you shoot below the course rating. Slope is primarily for the bogey golfer (and course rating for the scratch guys). Slope's impact is lessened as you approach a score nearer the course rating. I don't believe it should "ramp up" again as you keep traveling past the course rating. So, if you've patented something which inverts the slope, I disagree with your system as well.

And I still think it's important to bear in mind that this is still likely only an issue that affects 0.1% of golfers or less.

[Will]

Will:

I heard back from a fellow on the USGA handicap committee, they are interested and want to study it a bit before officially responding. Also, the pro at my club forwarded my analysis to his contact at the USGA, who has responded that he initially agrees that the handicap formula is incorrect. More to come soon.

[reid]

Will:
I initially tried to handle this discreetly with the USGA. I wasn't and still am not interested in embarassing them. I received a very tiffy response to my first letter and engaged in a 10 letter exchange with them (always very respectful on my part). Boy, am I glad I saved those letters! But I got nowhere. I don't know what the title of the person I was dealing with was, what her mathematical aptitude was, etc. but let me just say it this way: I don't think she got an 800 on the math SAT. I couldn't get her to understand. So I stopped trying to explain it to her. Then I did the patent. Then I put it in my book. When you hear from the USGA, please refer them to me. I will be enthusiastic about meeting with them and making a formula that is fair to all players regardless of ability. I have a lot of ideas; some of which are in the patent and some of which I included in my book.
There seems to be a sticking point for some regarding the issue of the slope being only for bogey golfers. I do believe that this was the purpose of the slope rating's inclusion. However, the mathematical reality is that it affects all non-zero handicaps. So it is simply not only for bogey golfers. (It affects a 2 handicapper's typical "10 best of his last 20" score of 74 on a course rated at 72, for example.) I happen to be a + handicapper and I can assure you, the severity of a course (based on its slope rating) affects us too (and me far more than Phil Mickelson). Thus, saying that all players scratch or better should not be adjusted for slope is not the answer to a fair formula. When you read my book and/or we continue this discussion privately or in this forum, you will hear some of my other ideas on the matter. I appreciate your interest and have enjoyed discussing this topic with you and the other members of TST.com. You have impressed me with your understanding of the issues involved and your interest in contacting the source (be it me, Dean Knuth, or the USGA) is commendable and appreciated.

[shredfit]

I think I understand. The graph posted(by iacas) basically shows the lines converging at a zero handicap index. However, the lines would also start to diverge when getting into + handicaps. Thus, showing that these plus indexes are indeed effected by slope(but it will not be a lot).

Is this correct? Will? reid?

[iacas]

I have a lot of ideas; some of which are in the patent and some of which I included in my book.

You seem to have shared very little in this thread. If you've already patented the idea, you shouldn't be so shy about sharing or so keen to keep mentioning that they're "in your book."

However, the mathematical reality is that it affects all non-zero handicaps. So it is simply not only for bogey golfers. (It affects a 2 handicapper's typical "10 best of his last 20" score of 74 on a course rated at 72, for example.)

You don't seem to have a problem with slope on the other side of the course rating - the rounds above the course rating.

On that side, the effect of slope approaches zero as you get nearer and nearer to the course rating. So that being stipulated...

I happen to be a + handicapper and I can assure you, the severity of a course (based on its slope rating) affects us too (and me far more than Phil Mickelson).

First off, I don't buy that it affects you more than it affects Phil. "Reid says so" doesn't qualify as proof to me.

Second, you're putting the cart before the horse. We're talking about calculating your handicap - if you shoot score x on a course with rating y and slope z, what would your handicap index for that round be? If that system changes, everyone's handicap changes too. If my system is used - ignoring slope below the course rating - and Phil Mickelson shoots 68 on a course with a rating of 77, he's a +8.6. He's no longer a +7. If you manage to shoot 71 on that course you're a +5.8 for that round. If Phil goes low and shoots 64, suddenly he's got a +12.5 for the round. If you shoot another 71 - pretty great golf on a difficult course - Phil is nearly five strokes better than you. Seems about right. I'm a 2.7 - I know how hard it is to shave a stroke off my index. Good luck shaving 4 to get to Phil's level! There's a world of difference there. In other words, I think the system I've proposed accounts for the "differences" between you and Phil just fine. Handicaps would be shuffled around and the "difference" between you and Phil would grow (because I agree it's likely greater than what your index would indicate). Phil's +7 (or whatever) handicap would increase (larger numbers with a + in front) and yours would probably increase as well, but by nowhere near as large a margin. The other problem is there are rarely accurate course ratings and slope measurements for the tees and setup used during PGA Tour events, so discussing it is tough enough already. And though I admire the goals of the USGA - to let me compete with Tiger Woods - I think that once you get into PGA Tour player type territory, the differences betweeen winning and losing are so small that no simple math equation (subtract, multiply twice, divide) can truly quantify things (which makes Tiger's feats all the more impressive).

When you read my book and/or we continue this discussion privately or in this forum, you will hear some of my other ideas on the matter.

I have no interest in doing either at this point.

[reid]

Erik: I am directing my comments to Will, not you.

"your system?" Please also see yours and others' posts from last February. Ignoring the slope below the course rating was brought to the USGA's attention by me more than 2 years ago.

[Big Lex]

I'm surprised there is still pointed argument going on here. I don't really find anything wrong with Reid's posting. I don't think he was really insulting the USGA, and as he said, I think he was speaking more directly to Will. I think Reid has contributed to the discussion thread; I don't think it's wrong of him not to share every single one of his ideas. Maybe he doesn't want to waste bandwidth with mathematical details, or hijack the thread into a discussion of his personal theories. On the other hand, I don't disagree with Erik's statements of fact, either. But maybe we can refocus on the facts of the debate.

There are things we all agree on, and some we don't:

1. We all seem to agree that the concept of slope is needed. Some course design elements affect only certain levels of skill. We agree that slope is a reasonable way to adjust for the difference in difficulty of a course for a scratch v. a bogey golfer.

2. We agree that there is an anomaly in the math such that the slope rating adjustment works "backwards" for scores below the course rating.

3. We agree that this should probably be fixed, but we don't agree on the fix. Erik believes slope should disappear at scores at/below the course rating, or players with hcp 0 or lower. Reid believes slope adjustments should continue for ALL scores.

The crux of this issue goes to the concept of slope.

1. Is it intended to stop at scratch? Erik has stated that it does "by definition," which is true enough. But I don't think that necessarily proves that it was the intention of Dean Knuth that slope adjustments _should_ stop at the scratch level.

2. Do the actual factors that determine a slope rating, for all intents and purposes, stop influencing the difficulty of a course at some level? If they do, that skill level should be where the system ceases to influence hcp determination.

I tend to think that just as there are golf course elements which bother a 32 hcp but don't bother me (12) at all, there are probably some which would bother Erik and not Reid, and probably Reid and not Phil.

But can these design elements be reliably and accurately determined and rated? I don't know.

Does the current rating system reflect the differences between Erik and Reid, or Reid and Phil? Again, I don't know.

And whether we _need_ to adjust for those factors, which might account for fractions of strokes up in the rarefied air of highly skilled golfers, is still another question.

Anyway, I've learned alot from this thread, and thank everyone for their contributions. I sincerely hope there aren't too many bruised feelings here, because it really shouldn't happen in a civilized forum like this.

[iacas]

Erik: I am directing my comments to Will, not you.

You're participating in an open discussion. We should all feel free to discuss whatever we all say here. That's kind of the point of forums.

"your system?" Please also see yours and others' posts from last February. Ignoring the slope below the course rating was brought to the USGA's attention by me more than 2 years ago.

Yes, "my system," as in the one I'm suggesting might be the best correction to the current system, and the one I've been talking about since coming around to agree that the current system of applying slope to rounds below the course rating is flawed.

What's last February got to do with anything? I don't even know what you're referring to. The graph comes from an article in May, so you don't mean that, I guess.

I think I understand. The graph posted(by iacas) basically shows the lines converging at a zero handicap index. However, the lines would also start to diverge when getting into + handicaps. Thus, showing that these plus indexes are indeed effected by slope(but it will not be a lot).

The graph is somewhat irrelevant - it uses the determined handicap index to give you a course handicap (strokes). We're talking about how the handicap index is determined in the first place.

I contend that slope should be ignored altogether for rounds ( not handicaps) below the course rating. Others seem to believe that the inverse nature of using slope for rounds below the course handicap should simply be reversed (i.e. a -4 round on a course with a lower slope results in a higher + handicap than a -4 round on a course with a higher slope [with the same course rating]).

[Big Lex]

Reid:

I think when Erik said "my system" he was speaking generically, as in his method of addressing the problem. I don't think he was implying that he had a proprietary system or idea to approach the USGA about changing the handicap formula.

Erik:

There was a post up there, at least for a while (you quoted it a couple of times in a reply), and if I recall it began:

"Will:
It was a few years ago that I brought this to the USGA's attention..."

Not that this precludes anyone else from replying or taking issue with the statements. But I would agree that it appears his intention was to speak to Will's concerns.

[Will]

I think I understand. The graph posted(by iacas) basically shows the lines converging at a zero handicap index. However, the lines would also start to diverge when getting into + handicaps. Thus, showing that these plus indexes are indeed effected by slope(but it will not be a lot).

Yes, that's right.

[Will]

I'm surprised there is still pointed argument going on here. I don't really find anything wrong with Reid's posting. I don't think he was really insulting the USGA, and as he said, I think he was speaking more directly to Will. I think Reid has contributed to the discussion thread; I don't think it's wrong of him not to share every single one of his ideas. Maybe he doesn't want to waste bandwidth with mathematical details, or hijack the thread into a discussion of his personal theories. On the other hand, I don't disagree with Erik's statements of fact, either. But maybe we can refocus on the facts of the debate.

Big Lex,

Nice post; I've learned a lot as well from the discussion. (Sorry for quoting your entire post, but sometimes it's hard to follow threads around here.) Just to add some more fuel to the fire, I just got a reprint of a letter from the USGA addressing the slope issue. It looks like it might be the Knuth letter, but doesn't specifically say so. It is written in a very confusing style, and will take me quite a while to dissect it. I'm attaching the letter to this post. But a warning for the faint of heart, it will make your head hurt.