BlackDiamondPar5
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
.thumb.JPG.640dd6f31fe7f6aef91f879119bae1d9.JPG)
BlackDiamondPar5's Achievements
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 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. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Right, I went that low, not 2 stokes below it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When you say "monkeying with" Do you mean the world handicap system? For the record I don't think the whs wasn't needed and I don't like some of the formula changes. But I will tell you that the ghin app and website is eminently superior to it old version. So at least we got something better 😊
-
$35 for the GHIN for me in Western NY.
-
Tomorrow is almost like Christmas eve when I was a kid. Masters eve 😊
-
Yes growing the game is a weak smokescreen. Hey Phil, Sergio, how does bashing the PGAT help grow the game?
-
Poor Bryson 🤣🤣 Bryson DeChambeau: Tiger Woods cut off contact since defecting to LIV Asked if anybody had cut him off, DeChambeau answered, “Yeah, definitely, I’m sure you...
-
While for me as a mere mortal I'm not keen on an equipment rollback. But I do understand the reasoning especially at elite levels. If distances were dialed back on the PGAT by 5%-10% would it somehow make watching the Pro game less interesting to me? Absolutely not. It might even make it more interesting by requiring greater shot and club creativity rather than so much bomb and gouge. A while back I put together this chart showing how PGAT driving average distances have increased year over year. Something really happened between the late 90's and early 2000's. I'm guessing it's mostly driven by the ball and metal drivers?
