Will

You're kidding. I urge everyone to read the above quote three times, without gagging. I asked for some concrete examples, and that's what I get. I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on here. Go ahead, cloud the issue with "fancy math", as you put it. Ignore the issues that I've taken the time to carefully point out, continue to offer theoretical rebuttal to real problems. Increase the bandwidth. Have fun. I'm off to discuss the issue with the USGA.

I'd like to do a trip up there, the articles I've read say it's a great course in an out-of-the-way place. A new course, in the top ten in the world. I wonder.

Pretty impressive amount of bandwidth. Two lengthy posts, lots of math. Only, can you link me to some USGA publication that references bell-curves and standard deviations? Ones which specifically address our issue? I'd really like to know, can you give me a link? You seem to be trying to justify the handicap error by postulating some sort of known distribution. Then you say you can't substantiate said distribution. In fact, the USGA never considers the issue in that light (to my knowledge). The issue remains: There is a bogey rating for all golf courses which establishes the expected score for a player of certain abilities. There is a course rating for all golf courses which establishes the expected score for a player of certain abilities. Both of those ratings expect the score to be between scratch and bogey. The formula that calculates the (diff, index, and course handicap) for scores better than the course rating uses this thing called slope, which has nothing to do with the better-than-scratch golfer. The slope doesn't extend beyond the course rating because it has no meaning beyond the course rating. You can postulate some mathematical relevance, but it really doesn't exist. I found your posts interesting reading, but not relevant to the issue at hand. I have no dog in this fight, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise. The USGA will look pretty stupid if they have to change their handicap system after all this time. Please use simple language and examples to refute the error that was posed in my initial post.

Again, you are correct.

Ok, I've reviewed the USGA letter. The author seems to be entirely wrong, due to the fact that slope is derived from the bogey rating, and should only apply to scores above the course rating. (slope = bogey rating - course rating * 5.381) The author doesn't seem to understand that simple fact. His discussion regarding the slopes intersecting at the beginning of the article makes that clear. It is he who is confused by the negative differential. He also makes other mistakes, like using handicap index several times in place of differential. The system would work if there were a reverse slope which was calculated based on a "pro-rating". So, reverse slope = pro rating - course rating * 5.381 (or some other number). Then, the differentials for scores lower than course rating would be calculated using the reverse slope, and things would work fine. I do think it might be necessary to implement a pro-rating, so that plus-handicappers can compete fairly with other plus-handicappers in net tournaments. Now, they can't. So, I've modified "my system." (I can't recall, was it mine, or someone else's? Oh, well, doesn't matter.) Ok, here it is my (or someone else's) New System: The current slope is derived using the formula (bogey rating - course rating) * 5.381. Slope is used to determine the differential, which is basically your score adjusted for the difficulty of the course. This works for scores worse than the course rating. For scores better than the course rating, there is currently no valid slope to adjust those scores for the difficulty of the course. So I (or someone else) propose the SuperPro Rating (tm, all rights reserved, copyright, copyleft and patent pending). SuperPro Rating: A “SuperPro golfer” is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of +10 on any and all rated golf courses. A male SuperPro golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 350 yards and can reach a 570-yard hole in two shots at sea level. A female SuperPro golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 300 yards and can reach a 500-yard hole in two shots at sea level. The "SuperPro slope" is then calculated by (Course Rating - SuperPro rating) * 11.3 (which i estimate from 113/(72-62)). The differential is then (course rating - score * 113 / SuperPro Slope). That's the general idea. Should work.

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.

Yes, that's right.

Ok, I appreciate that you took the time to respond, and we'll just have to leave it at that. Obviously we don't see things the same way. End of issue.

Sounds good to me. I travel to Santa Fe frequently on business, but don't know much about New Mexico golf. Can you give me some pointers?

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.

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.

Interesting take. As a former moderator of a game forum, I understand the problems a mod must deal with. In my case, the forum was founded by the members, who elected their mods. We were governed by a charter, and could not, for example, simply edit a post without full disclosure to the poster and to the forum. I understand that you run this forum, so you can do what you want. If you wanted to edit my post and not tell me about it, or tell the forum, I guess that's fine. And I appreciate the fact that this thread is intact. As to not sending you a message, actually I did. It was to the address at cynicalpeak software. I signed up to test your beta program, complimented you on your work, and offered to have you play golf at my home course next time you visited Los Angeles. I thought that might be a good way to initiate a discussion. You say that I initiated a tactless attempt to present my side of the story, which involved fact enhancement. But let me ask you a relevant question: how can anyone verify the accuracy of that statement, when you have the power to edit posts? The problem here is this: you are both a mod and a poster. If you are involved in a "spirited" discussion, there is only one possible outcome. But look, the only reason I'm taking the time to write these posts is that I think this is a pretty cool golf forum. I haven't found another like it (though I haven't done an exhaustive search). So my long-winded point is this: if you want to attract people who will engage in spirited debate, and grow the forum, consider having an election for a 3-person panel of moderators. This will separate the owner of the forum from the moderation function, thus reducing or eliminating any perceived conflicts-of-interest. It would also reduce your workload, while increasing member interest and participation. What do you think?

In regard to your last question, I believe in the FAQ it says that admins can edit posts. It doesn't qualify that statement. That needs to be addressed. Your points are well taken, and I appreciate the support. For an admin to edit posts for the purpose of expunging material detrimental to his argument, and then to either not notify the membership of the change, or to give a spurious explanation (as in "rude comments deleted"), is to attempt to control the argument for his own benefit.

EB is Erik J. Barzeski, or IACAS. I would be happy to discuss the issue with him. Ultimately, the issue is larger than the present discussion. To wit: is editing of members' posts without explanation or notification a reasonable poilicy? Does it promote or retard discussion? Does it serve the interests of the members, or of the admin? These are reasonable questions.

I think he means well, too. I like his forum, and his podcasts, and his website. I can't really figure out what's going on in this case. I believe I've posted responsibly, and within the rules of the forum. I haven't had any email or communication from EB regarding this.