Using short course scores in HI calculations

[Hacker James]

I probably already know what I should do concerning this, but thought I would ask for input from others. 

Recently, I was given a coupon which is good on only three par three or executive courses. I score on these courses about the same as on the longer courses as far as strokes over par even though the raw scores are much lower.  If I add these to my spreadsheet which calculates according to GHIN forumulae using the best ten of the most recent twenty rounds, the effect would be to push the highest differential off the grid and therefore the running index from the then best ten would be lower than before and continue the trend as higher indices are pushed off.   I guess my concern is, would this be considered an honest evaluation of my improvement?  My rationale is "12 over par is still 12 over, regardless of the course handicap "

Comparison of the relative course handicaps and slopes are generally:

67.2/120 on long courses      54.2/100 on the par three    executive courses (par 67) have not been played yet.

If I did this with the data I currently have entered, it would lower my HI to 17.4 which is down from the current 19.7

Edited July 29, 2017 by Hacker James

[Hardspoon]

11 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

I probably already know what I should do concerning this

Yeah, you enter them with the slope and differential, and your index is what it is (so, 17.4).

Some players have specific relative strengths (extra length, great putting, etc.) that can "game" the handicap system if they play one type of course repeatedly.  It is what it is.  Trust the system.  It's just as likely that your 19.7 was the result of courses that were a poor fit for your game.

[Hacker James]

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Yeah, you enter them with the slope and differential, and your index is what it is (so, 17.4).

Some players have specific relative strengths (extra length, great putting, etc.) that can "game" the handicap system if they play one type of course repeatedly.  It is what it is.  Trust the system.  It's just as likely that your 19.7 was the result of courses that were a poor fit for your game.

While that is more than likely true, the trend has been downward the last five outings. I started out at 21.8 or something and noted improvement ever since. What is a good fit is for me to be using the more forward tees on the longer courses and also I use Driver and fairway woods/hybrids more effectively than mid irons.  What I may do is to construct a separate spread sheet for the short courses.  I do not have an "official" index, nor do I want one. I use my spreadsheet for self evaluation

[Hardspoon]

 

7 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

What is a good fit is for me to be using the more forward tees on the longer courses and also I use Driver and fairway woods/hybrids more effectively than mid irons.

Yep - everyone has their own strengths.  My lowest differentials are consistently on courses that are long but have easy greens.

5 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

I do not have an "official" index, nor do I want one. I use my spreadsheet for self evaluation

Not to hijack the topic, but I'd suggest that the handicap index isn't a great tool for that.  I also keep my own spreadsheet - what I look at is simply my average differential.  It's a much better indicator than the "best 10 of 20", which is really designed for competition, not for evaluation.

[Hacker James]

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

 

Yep - everyone has their own strengths.  My lowest differentials are consistently on courses that are long but have easy greens.

Not to hijack the topic, but I'd suggest that the handicap index isn't a great tool for that.  I also keep my own spreadsheet - what I look at is simply my average differential.  It's a much better indicator than the "best 10 of 20", which is really designed for competition, not for evaluation.

Thats a good idea.  I also have a box that I use for overall average of "raw" scores. I could just as easily do the same for my differentials which also display on the sheet i.e. I would always have twenty to average. Thanks!

[Hacker James]

@Hardspoon. Okay, modified my spreadsheet to include: Average Raw; Average Differential, Average overall Index.

The overall average of indices shows me at a 15.1, but that would be because using the GHIN, the first few rounds are heavily skewed. For example, the first five rounds uses the differential from only the lowest and then adds more after every two rounds until you get up near the twenty where it changes every round. This would mean that there are more low numbers in the overall average.  In my case, the lowest is 11.5, the highest 19.7 and the overall is 15.1

I don't think I should call my self a 15.1 player though. So I will stick with the GHIN and use 19.7 for public display but the 15.1 as a working goal to improve.

Thanks again.

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

@Hardspoon. Okay, modified my spreadsheet to include: Average Raw; Average Differential, Average overall Index.

The overall average of indices shows me at a 15.1, but that would be because using the GHIN, the first few rounds are heavily skewed. For example, the first five rounds uses the differential from only the lowest and then adds more after every two rounds until you get up near the twenty where it changes every round. This would mean that there are more low numbers in the overall average.  In my case, the lowest is 11.5, the highest 19.7 and the overall is 15.1

I don't think I should call my self a 15.1 player though. So I will stick with the GHIN and use 19.7 for public display but the 15.1 as a working goal to improve.

Thanks again.

Hmmm...you're doing it in a more complicated way than I do (haha - when it comes to spreadsheets, that's rare!).  I literally just take my last 20 rounds (admittedly an arbitrary number, but for me, that's about half a season so it works) and look at the average differential.  It's always going to be higher (worse) than my USGA handicap, since that uses the 10 best.  That's what I want to measure against.

But yes, I also use my USGA HC for "public consumption".

7 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

In my case, the lowest is 11.5, the highest 19.7 and the overall is 15.1

I don't think I should call my self a 15.1 player though. So I will stick with the GHIN and use 19.7 for public display but the 15.1 as a working goal to improve

Wait...now I'm curious.  How are you calculating your index?  It should be the average of your lowest 10 differentials from your last 20 rounds, multiplied by 0.96.  When you say the "highest is 19.7", what do you mean?  That can't be your index, then...

[Hacker James]

41 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Hmmm...you're doing it in a more complicated way than I do (haha - when it comes to spreadsheets, that's rare!).  I literally just take my last 20 rounds (admittedly an arbitrary number, but for me, that's about half a season so it works) and look at the average differential.  It's always going to be higher (worse) than my USGA handicap, since that uses the 10 best.  That's what I want to measure against.

But yes, I also use my USGA HC for "public consumption".

Wait...now I'm curious.  How are you calculating your index?  It should be the average of your lowest 10 differentials from your last 20 rounds, multiplied by 0.96.  When you say the "highest is 19.7", what do you mean?  That can't be your index, then...

19.7 is the average of the lowest 10 x .96   the highest differential in that grouping is 25.9. Point was that the first six lines in the column labeled running index is the same i.e 11.5.  The last line of the entire 20 is 19.7 which is the average of the indices of the best 10.  That is why I beleive the GHIN is skewed, in that it is not really an average until you get at least five rounds since they only use one data point which is the lowest and then slowly let you add in data points as you get more rounds in.   Lines 11 through 20 are not even included as they would not be in the "lowest/best" 10 category. 

It is a "running" index.

[djake]

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

@Hardspoon. Okay, modified my spreadsheet to include: Average Raw; Average Differential, Average overall Index.

The overall average of indices shows me at a 15.1, but that would be because using the GHIN, the first few rounds are heavily skewed. For example, the first five rounds uses the differential from only the lowest and then adds more after every two rounds until you get up near the twenty where it changes every round. This would mean that there are more low numbers in the overall average.  In my case, the lowest is 11.5, the highest 19.7 and the overall is 15.1

I don't think I should call my self a 15.1 player though. So I will stick with the GHIN and use 19.7 for public display but the 15.1 as a working goal to improve.

Thanks again.

So I am confused by this whole posting?  First you are wondering about posting scores on shorter courses then you feel that you really are not a 15.1 that the average indices show you at, so you are keeping yourself at the highest 19.7 with a goal of 15.1.  Ok, I am not trying to attack you, please realize that, but if the following seams harsh then let's talk it thru.  This is what I was taught and I have felt; this is the perfect example of a sandbagger.  A sandbagger is a person that feels/wants a higher handicap then what they should have and is essentially cheating the system ESPECIALLY when utilizing that false higher handicap for any type of competition - friendly or tournament - based on the false higher handicap.  If you are a 15.1 be that you earned it and really man up and admit it.  If you are a 19.7 which it sounds as if you are not then be it.  The handicap is meant to give as fair a competition as possible between 2 golfers.  Yet I am at a 12.4 and if we played a competitive round based on handicap there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between me at a 12.4 playing against a 19.7 that is actually a 15.1.  Instead of giving roughly 3 stokes per 18 I would be giving you 7 strokes per 18 and I would have to literally play lights out awesome golf to beat you at what your current average rounds are.  Ok - now moving past that, I personally feel that the length of the course should not be taken into account with your spreadsheet as you have stated that on longer courses you play from the forward tees as they fit you better.  As such the longer courses are actually more equal to the shorter courses.  Personally I like to play off the tees that everyone in my group wants to use and I adjust my game to fit, which can be a lot fun.  The length of the hole is not necessarily the challenge, course management is.  Also let me point out that a Par 3 course is probably the single toughest 9 hole or 18 hole course you can play.  Here is my reasoning.  A par 3 allows one shot from tee to green and two putts, thus no margin for error.  None, you have to be a phenomenal scramble golfer to play a Par 3 Course even if you miss the greens consistently.  Par 4s are the next for difficulty followed by Par 5s as truly the easiest overall hole on a golf course.  You simply have more ground you can make up on a Par 5 compared to any other hole.  I will state if you play a course with long Par 4s you have your hands full, those holes are equal in difficulty in comparison to a Par 3.  Very little to no room for margin of error.  For me when I was playing competitive golf, entering tournaments that had a qualifying round and did not rely on handicap I would prepare by playing Par 3 golf courses over and over.  Those courses all have the same thing in common 150 yards in and that is make or break time.  Hit a bad tee shot in a match play tourney and you can go after the 150 yard maker or plot out how to get there to get up and down.  150 in was and is always considered up and down territory.  Then I would go to the driving range and work on the Driver, Fairway woods and long irons because I could accomplish more to prepare for a Tourney doing this then playing "regulation" courses.  My point to this exhaustive post is simple, a golf course is a golf course. A Par 3 course can benefit your game and make a quicker positive impact then playing a long regulation course. Followed by range time.  And play your true handicap, not what you think it is.   That truly is in the interest of fair play.  And I mean this entire post with respect and not in a mean or attacking tone.

[Hacker James]

@djake  Trying to follow your post. I think you may have confused the exchange between @Hardspoon and myself regarding GHIN. To use the GHIN it takes into consideration only the average of the BEST ten rounds of the most recent 20. In my case that is 19.7 after taking 96%.  The 15.1 is someone taking all twenty rounds and using the AVERAGES of all the differential calculations using GHIN's gradual including rounds, remembering that the first six lines do not change at all in my case 11.5 repeated 5 times, then goes to 14 twice, then 15.7 or something or other repeated twice, until you get up to round 18 when it changes every round.  He was simply stating that he uses overall averages NOT SKEWED as in GHIN. His questioning how I did my calculations were a little off topic, but I enjoyed the exchange.

Therefore my index is a true 19.7.  not 15.1

Also, it should be noted. I DO NOT COMPETE so it is a moot point and I am not a sandbagger as I am only competing with the course. If I am in a competition, we would use my actual GHIN (if I really had one which I do not). When I play, I sometimes get paired up with strangers. We do not even look at each others score cards, it is a social thing or in my case, just the comradery and my scorecard is for my own perusal. I could just as well use raw scores averages, but this way, I can also compare my performance on any course using the calculated course handicap based on my index. Otherwise I would be shouting on the roof tops.  "I just scored a 66" when while it might be true on a par 54 course, but does not mean diddly in comparison with a par 72. It is simply 12 over par. The same on the 72 course would be 84 which is in line with what I shoot. (my lowest this season is 81)  two years ago, I scored a 78 and 79 which has never been repeated but am getting close.

I do understand your rationale regarding the difficulty of some par three courses compared to par fives, and you are correct, i seem to do better on the longer courses. 

Nor do I think you are attacking.  Your points are spot on, IF I were competing, which I am not. Thanks for your insights regarding effective use of par three's (I still don't like them however). I turned 75 yesterday, so my future outlook and opinion regarding shorter courses may change out of necessity.

thanks,

James

[djake]

12 hours ago, Hacker James said:

@djake  Trying to follow your post. I think you may have confused the exchange between @Hardspoon and myself regarding GHIN. To use the GHIN it takes into consideration only the average of the BEST ten rounds of the most recent 20. In my case that is 19.7 after taking 96%.  The 15.1 is someone taking all twenty rounds and using the AVERAGES of all the differential calculations using GHIN's gradual including rounds, remembering that the first six lines do not change at all in my case 11.5 repeated 5 times, then goes to 14 twice, then 15.7 or something or other repeated twice, until you get up to round 18 when it changes every round.  He was simply stating that he uses overall averages NOT SKEWED as in GHIN. His questioning how I did my calculations were a little off topic, but I enjoyed the exchange.

Therefore my index is a true 19.7.  not 15.1

Also, it should be noted. I DO NOT COMPETE so it is a moot point and I am not a sandbagger as I am only competing with the course. If I am in a competition, we would use my actual GHIN (if I really had one which I do not). When I play, I sometimes get paired up with strangers. We do not even look at each others score cards, it is a social thing or in my case, just the comradery and my scorecard is for my own perusal. I could just as well use raw scores averages, but this way, I can also compare my performance on any course using the calculated course handicap based on my index. Otherwise I would be shouting on the roof tops.  "I just scored a 66" when while it might be true on a par 54 course, but does not mean diddly in comparison with a par 72. It is simply 12 over par. The same on the 72 course would be 84 which is in line with what I shoot. (my lowest this season is 81)  two years ago, I scored a 78 and 79 which has never been repeated but am getting close.

I do understand your rationale regarding the difficulty of some par three courses compared to par fives, and you are correct, i seem to do better on the longer courses. 

Nor do I think you are attacking.  Your points are spot on, IF I were competing, which I am not. Thanks for your insights regarding effective use of par three's (I still don't like them however). I turned 75 yesterday, so my future outlook and opinion regarding shorter courses may change out of necessity.

thanks,

James

Hello James; I - 110% believe you regarding your stated handicap!  Geez, with the level you have your Xcel Spreadsheet and the depth you are going into it, no doubt you are right.  Also I do not care to much for the handicap system, until joining this forum recently I have not had an "official" handicap since I was 18 years old.  I stopped with it and playing in tourneys that require one because of sandbaggers.  As well as my obsession to try and get to scratch  before I stopped playing the game for 12 to 15 years.  It just got to be no fun.  Now I have fun and it sounds like we play similar styles of golf in the fact that we are out for the social aspect.  I keep my own card for statistical reasons and now for the handicap while playing with my friends and people I have never meet before and get paired up with.  When I am out with my regular foursome we have so many games going that we usually do not even keep actual score.  We run up to 3 full cards per round and the games are all designed in such a way that your actual scoring ability does not matter.  With a traditional golf scoring system in our foursome we can be 20 strokes in separation between the lowest round and highest round.  Yet with the games we play your score has absolutely no value, well mostly.  We play positive and negative points.  This has really worked very well in keeping everyone happy with our golf games and no one feels dejected because they got creamed based on score.  And the person that would have had the highest score on the round many times is either winning or 2nd place on the point system we utilize.  Sorry if this went sideways regarding your original post.

My comments regarding Par 3s being the most difficult was something my father taught me to help me to improve my game and when I look at average scores that philosophy has always rang true for me no matter how I am playing.  I meant that to be in support of you using those executive rounds as equal for your handicap system as a Par 72 course, keeping slope in mind.  Like you stated, 12 over is 12 over no matter the Par of the course but I almost always have a lower over par score on a Par 72 course in comparison to a Par 54 course. 

Thank you for not taking my comments as attacking you, I am grateful for that.  Hopefully one day we can play a round of golf together, it would be fun.  And I would only play for fun, my father taught me to never gamble with a Senior, they will take your money from you every time. 

In closing, I would like to share the motto of our foursome, "Hit em straight and if you can't cheat and the last snake buys"

 

[Hacker James]

@djake  no probs 

here is what it looks like, but not sure if all the forumulas show in excel onlineL

https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ai4ErI93IDVskBlcRe59VZdV72a5

Edited July 29, 2017 by Hacker James

[djake]

2 hours ago, Hacker James said:

@djake  no probs 

here is what it looks like, but not sure if all the forumulas show in excel onlineL

https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ai4ErI93IDVskBlcRe59VZdV72a5

@Hacker James Very nice!  My wife is the xcel spreadsheet "Queen".  I showed it to her and she thought it was cool.  That is a major compliment as a lot of very large companies ask her to do R.O.I spreadsheets.  Personally I would still enter all courses played no matter the yardage or par.  With this you can really turn it into a beast of information to dissect and help you see areas in your game that need work.  You could also set the spreadsheet up so that you can "turn off" certain courses like the execs and par 3's when you want. 

Great stuff.  Thank you for sharing, you made my day.  I am going to show this to my father in-law also.  He will eat this up and will also really appreciate it.

If we ever meet I owe you a beer or whatever your favorite beverage is!!!

[Hacker James]

5 minutes ago, djake said:

@Hacker James Very nice!  My wife is the xcel spreadsheet "Queen".  I showed it to her and she thought it was cool.  That is a major compliment as a lot of very large companies ask her to do R.O.I spreadsheets.  Personally I would still enter all courses played no matter the yardage or par.  With this you can really turn it into a beast of information to dissect and help you see areas in your game that need work.  You could also set the spreadsheet up so that you can "turn off" certain courses like the execs and par 3's when you want. 

Great stuff.  Thank you for sharing, you made my day.  I am going to show this to my father in-law also.  He will eat this up and will also really appreciate it.

If we ever meet I owe you a beer or whatever your favorite beverage is!!!

Yah, good idea also. Perhaps a better choice would be to use Microsoft Access with its exhaustive filtering capabilities. I should also note, there a lot of commercial apps that do a much better job and as @iacas pointed out to me once, no need to re-invent the wheel, but alas, I kind of enjoy tinkering.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Hacker James

[djake]

47 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

Yah, good idea also. Perhaps a better choice would be to use Microsoft Access with its exhaustive filtering capabilities. I should also note, there a lot of commercial apps that do a much better job and as @iacas pointed out to me once, no need to re-invent the wheel, but alas, I kind of enjoy tinkering.

@Hacker James Access, I avoid.  Packaged stuff is nice but it is also limited.  There is a sense of joy in building your own system like hitting that one perfect shot in a miserable round.  It keeps you coming back.  Keep adding and working on your spreadsheet, it is really nice and it keeps your mind active.

[Hacker James]

20 minutes ago, djake said:

@Hacker James Access, I avoid.  Packaged stuff is nice but it is also limited.  There is a sense of joy in building your own system like hitting that one perfect shot in a miserable round.  It keeps you coming back.  Keep adding and working on your spreadsheet, it is really nice and it keeps your mind active.

Thanks. That is one thing I find helpful in that I can perform any number of "what if" scenarios and then choose not to save them and revert back to the basic spread sheet, whereas with the commercial ones, you are locked into what the authors have put in place. Being in the ranks of the fully retired, I have a bit of time on my hands, but S.W.M.B.O manages to keep me pretty busy in any event.

[djake]

21 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

Thanks. That is one thing I find helpful in that I can perform any number of "what if" scenarios and then choose not to save them and revert back to the basic spread sheet, whereas with the commercial ones, you are locked into what the authors have put in place. Being in the ranks of the fully retired, I have a bit of time on my hands, but S.W.M.B.O manages to keep me pretty busy in any event.

Oh no - I did not know what S.W.M.B.O meant so I went to The Wife and she looked it up for me.  Heavy dreadful laughter as now She has a new title

[No Mulligans]

There is a formula error on your spreadsheet (even though I can't see the forumulas there has to be an error).  Given your lowest of last 20 differentials is a 12.0 and the rest of the round differentials are 17 and higher you can not have a running average of 11.5.

The average of your best 10 is 20.42 times .96 = 19.6 (which is pretty much the same as the index you have listed with your site info)

Regarding short courses, I'd suggest that you look up the rating and the slope on the USGA National Course database for every course you play.  Don't rely on the scorecards as I've found them to be occassionaly wrong. 

Reidy Creek (possible the short course that lead to this thread?) for instance shows a rating and a slope on the scorecard, it doesn't really have a rating.  The course is less than 3,000 yards and therefore can't have a rating.  You can confirm this by looking it up on the USGA site and see that it is not lised.

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/NCRListing.aspx

Edited July 30, 2017 by No Mulligans