New Worldwide Handicap System

Russman wrote: »

I don't think the ratings will come into calculating the base index though.
If we're going live with the system on 2nd Nov, I assume (happy to stand corrected) they'll calculate your base index from your best 8 out of last 20 cards prior to this, i.e. under the "old" system, so the base will be subject to CSS etc. and course and slope rating won't come into that calculation. If this is the case my gut feeling is that lots of people will start with a base that's a shot or two lower than their closing H/C on 1st Nov. If we consider that for most normal people they'll have at least a few good rounds in their "best 8 of last 20", maybe even one or two very good rounds (if they're not careful :D!!)

I cant see how the two marry together though.

So the new system is all based on the difficult of your course and how you manage against that difficulty.

How can you start using the new system if your starting point (your index) is going to be based on the old system.

Wouldnt that mean I'd have a different index if my home course was Milltown vs Druids Heath? (e.g. I play to 10 regularly enough in Milltown but struggle to play to 15 in Druids Heath, so is my index 10 or 15?)

Presumably it will all settle down after a year, but the first year of interclub will be....interesting.

Russman wrote: »

I don't think the ratings will come into calculating the base index though.
If we're going live with the system on 2nd Nov, I assume (happy to stand corrected) they'll calculate your base index from your best 8 out of last 20 cards prior to this, i.e. under the "old" system, so the base will be subject to CSS etc. and course and slope rating won't come into that calculation. If this is the case my gut feeling is that lots of people will start with a base that's a shot or two lower than their closing H/C on 1st Nov. If we consider that for most normal people they'll have at least a few good rounds in their "best 8 of last 20", maybe even one or two very good rounds (if they're not careful :D!!)

hmmm, i would have thought that the will...... they should anyway!!!

Russman wrote: »

Interesting article on the new system..........

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth

He is American so obviously seems to know best

Seve OB wrote: »

He is American so obviously seems to know best

He's also the guy who helped to create the original US system, so it feels like a lot of bias against changing the system he developed.

For a lot of his calculations, is he working the numbers in some way to come up with extremes to make it seem much worse than it is, relative to the USGA system?

Taking a 14.1 handicap index player & stating that he could vary from a handicap of 1 up to 22 depending on tees, just by adding the "Par" piece to the formula?

Or a scratch golfer playing anything from +12 to 6?

hurleronditch wrote: »

I don’t think Milltown and DH is the perfect example, but say if you played ElmGreen you might be 10, and Ballybunion off the tips you would be 15, but your underlying index would be say 12.5.

Your underlying index is what is constantly measured. You work out your handicap for the day before every round when you know where your playing and off what tees.

As a member at Elmgreen I am very interested in seeing these slopes. Because Elmgreen is far from easy. But it’s difficulty is very hard to measure in any easy way

I probably have a higher percentage of cuts at away opens

My form in boards comps unfortunately hasn’t backed this up

blue note wrote: »

If they want to slope earrings to be accurate they'll have to adjust based on how members do when they play away courses and on how away players do at their course. I don't think that's planned though. Seems to be based on length, hazards at landing areas, green speed, etc. Sounds like an okay starting point, but incomplete.

Agree which results in people having advantages at opens and then conversely affecting their chances on home course

blue note wrote: »

Well if away players do better than home players in opens, then surely the home club handicaps are too low? Especially if it's the case that players from that club perform above average in away opens themselves. But is that being looked at?

No this could happen if the slopes do not correctly represent the course difficulty

blue note wrote: »

If they want to slope earrings to be accurate they'll have to adjust based on how members do when they play away courses and on how away players do at their course. I don't think that's planned though. Seems to be based on length, hazards at landing areas, green speed, etc. Sounds like an okay starting point, but incomplete.

i think that you are mixed up.
what a slope rating does is adjust a course based on how a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer would play the course, and yes all those points you make contribute towards the calculation.
but when members play either home of away, their scores are not relevant to the slope.

its complicated, but i suspect once in operation, will make more sense to us all.

I've read a bit on this and the whole thing leaves me baffled.

Very confused. Think this could take a few years to be implemented correctly. Slope ratings will be controversial and will lead to lots changing clubs.

Snotty wrote: »

No reason to believe the slope can't be changes, the club can apply to get the slope reviewed when there is changes made to the course but I'm sure it could get a review if the committee thinks that the slope is incorrect and putting its members at a disadvantage.

I don't envy the club handicap and competition secretary/committee when this new system comes in, there is going to be some amount of complaints, I worked out mine and got a shock.

I play a fairly wide but very long links course par73 slope is going to be near 130, there is another local parkland course too, very short tree lined par68, it is an easy course, slope won't be above 113, plenty of our members struggle on it due to the trees but it's slope is low, when our members find out that they are a, example, 15 handicap at home but only a 12 handicap at this course, its going to be fun.

I've 2 concerns with that.

Firstly, are we going to be relying in clubs to request reviews of the ratings? Because I would suspect that every course will want to be rated difficult as a matter of pride. So if a course is rated harder than it actually is, then I wouldn't expect a club to query it.

Secondly, would they just be reassessed using the same criteria? In which case you're checking if they were assessed correctly the first time as opposed to checking if the course is more or less difficult based on something the assessment criteria doesn't look at.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Slope rating is based on the bogey golfer. So you're looking at a player who won't reach the green in regulation unless it's a shorter par 4 or 5. And whether there are hazards that come into play for those golfers. And that rating affects members as much as visitors, so I'm not sure why a course would want to be rated 'harder' in terms of slope.

But my point is that no set of criteria will be comprehensive enough to capture everything that makes a course easy or difficult for a bogey golfer (or any type of golfer) for that matter. Wind behaves in funny ways on certain courses / holes. How will the criteria consider wind? I'm guessing they'll look at prevailing wind and maybe average wind speeds in the area? But some courses are particularly windy or sheltered. Maybe they'll look at whether it's links or parkland, but some parkland are exceptionally windy.

And that's just a little bit of what you could say about wind. Shots can get a surprising amount of run on some courses, probably due to natural soil conditions or something. Some courses have much thicker rough than others (not just longer). Will they be assessing thickness of rough? Can you do that accurately?

It just seems to me that if you only assess courses on criteria like length, fairway width, etc that you'll be limited by how complete your criteria is. You need another source to assess how accurate your system is. And for me looking at how players from a club perform in other clubs seems like a way of doing this. Because if they go to other clubs and over a reasonable period of time perform above average, then their handicaps must be too high. And they're high based on the slope rating of their home course.

And courses want to be rated as harder because everyone wants to believe their own course is harder than average. That way when shoot an average of 90 they can believe they'd be shooting an average of below 90 on most courses (when in fact they might be further from 80s if they played elsewhere). It's just like no golfer believing they're slower than average.

I think what is causing such discussion here and why it will likely cause much more controversy in Ireland than anywhere else in the world is the fact that Ireland has a system of opens that is not really replicated anywhere else in the world and a significant amount of interclub competition for handicap golfers. In the U.K. and in the US there is much less of a prevalence of both, so accurate handicapping is less significant as anything competitive away from home is a team event or maybe a member guest.

I do think once everyone gets their head around it it makes much more sense than it appears on paper, and is much closer to what the CONGU system currently does than appears on paper. When I moved to the US for the first few months I was totally lost as to how it all worked but now it seems totally natural. I just wonder how my club I’m now returning to will calculate my handicap, will they take my existing world handicap index and just transfer it across or will they make me do 3 cards, which seems silly

blue note wrote: »

But my point is that no set of criteria will be comprehensive enough to capture everything that makes a course easy or difficult for a bogey golfer (or any type of golfer) for that matter. Wind behaves in funny ways on certain courses / holes. How will the criteria consider wind? I'm guessing they'll look at prevailing wind and maybe average wind speeds in the area? But some courses are particularly windy or sheltered. Maybe they'll look at whether it's links or parkland, but some parkland are exceptionally windy.

And that's just a little bit of what you could say about wind. Shots can get a surprising amount of run on some courses, probably due to natural soil conditions or something. Some courses have much thicker rough than others (not just longer). Will they be assessing thickness of rough? Can you do that accurately?

They assess the course by visiting it. If wind is a factor all the time then it'll be a factor when it's assessed. Same for run and other factors. These assessments aren't done on paper. Somebody posted a list of the criteria on this thread and it's pretty comprehensive. And slope rating is only one factor in calculating handicaps for a given course/tees. Course rating also plays a part as does par (as noted above).

blue note wrote: »

It just seems to me that if you only assess courses on criteria like length, fairway width, etc that you'll be limited by how complete your criteria is. You need another source to assess how accurate your system is. And for me looking at how players from a club perform in other clubs seems like a way of doing this. Because if they go to other clubs and over a reasonable period of time perform above average, then their handicaps must be too high. And they're high based on the slope rating of their home course.

Slope rating is a neutral calculation for home players who play only on their home course. If it's artificially too high, those players will see their handicap index reduced baecause the course plays easier than the slope rating would suggest. And the same will happen if they play away (assuming the away course has an accurate slope rating).

blue note wrote: »

And courses want to be rated as harder because everyone wants to believe their own course is harder than average. That way when shoot an average of 90 they can believe they'd be shooting an average of below 90 on most courses (when in fact they might be further from 80s if they played elsewhere). It's just like no golfer believing they're slower than average.

Whether or not they want it to 'seem' harder should have no effect whatsoever on its rating. Position of bunkers and hazards can't be changed. Messing around with grass cut height will just draw attention to an issue that shouldn't exist on a well maintained course. Especially when things like frequency and height of mowing is part of the assessment criteria. And it takes a big variance to affect handicaps. A massive increase in rating of 10 points would only make an 8% handicap index change before course rating and par come into the picture.

The question that the unions won’t answer is will your handicap index be based on your playing history with slope or without.

It will make a substantial difference as a kicking off point.

J