Handicapping Rule Change

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I'm not sure that assumption is right. I used to play many solo rounds when I was working for a living, especially in Halifax. I used to play early in the morning and often late in the day. All of those 9 hole rounds were posted. It wouldn't surprise me that others may follow the same practice. More to the point, though, is why the golfing authorities would change their reporting policy, if such rounds are rare. If they are rare, then reporting them couldn't constitute a significant threat to the integrity of the handicapping system. Anything more and I will be repeating what I have already said in earlier posts.

I am like you. My twilight rounds were mostly as a single and created my personal benchmark. I have no interest in competitive events so handicap is simply used as an indication of potential in friendly matches. Sometimes we use them but mostly we go mano-a-mano and frankly handicap differences have little impact on outcome. The disappointment is that this personal benchmark is losing any value at all. First, they started re-rating all courses lower to increase handicaps for same scores on same courses. Then they forced the ridiculous 7 on us for par three again pushing handicaps disappointingly up.

I am now no longer going to keep an official handicap since its purpose as a personal benchmark is now useless and sends me only negative messages in historical comparison. Soon I will also probably give up the game because the powers that be are only interested in making our golf life miserable. No wonder there is such a huge decline in participation. They just don't get the non-competitive golfer.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

They just don't get the non-competitive golfer.

these changes are not geared towards non-competitive players though, they are to try and create a fair and honest , unified handicapping system for golfers who do compete.

Golfers who don't play competitive events , aren't going to care nor be impacted since they don't need to keep a valid handicap.
many competitive events are also Open events so caps are not needed.

If Non competitive golfers want, they can still keep a valid handicap and follow the guidelines, or they can follow their own rules and enter solo rounds , count max 5 on a par 3 ( it's only if your cap is higher than 10 that you can count 7 anyways)

It really doesn't matter what they do if it's just for personal reference and non competitive.

only about 1/2 of the guys I play with keep caps. Most of them are in the USA and it's for our annual 3 day tournament in Phoenix.

The ones who don't keep a cap, simply measure performance based on the scores they shoot.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

to try and create a fair and honest , unified handicapping system for golfers who do compete.

Well, they are failing. Almost all the more difficult courses I play have been re-rated as easy while all the easiest ones (that provide more financial backing) are rated as difficult to support their marketing. All rating cares about is length from the tips for the long drivers and ignores the critical factors such as green difficulty, rough, narrowness, and position of hazards. Handicaps are absolutely useless across courses after the latest round of re-rating and certainly do not create a fair and honest system. The value as a personal historical benchmark was its only redeeming value and now it is gone. Trying for a unified system requires fair and honest ratings and consistency over time. We have neither now.

And you are correct that the norm will become personal preference with zero friendly competitive value and zero inducement to follow rules and etiquette. Exactly opposite to the fair and honest manifesto that ties personal benchmarks to any form of competition based upon integrity.

[LobWedge]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Well, they are failing. Almost all the more difficult courses I play have been re-rated as easy while all the easiest ones (that provide more financial backing) are rated as difficult to support their marketing. All rating cares about is length from the tips for the long drivers and ignores the critical factors such as green difficulty, rough, narrowness, and position of hazards. Handicaps are absolutely useless across courses after the latest round of re-rating and certainly do not create a fair and honest system. The value as a personal historical benchmark was its only redeeming value and now it is gone. Trying for a unified system requires fair and honest ratings and consistency over time. We have neither now.

And you are correct that the norm will become personal preference with zero friendly competitive value and zero inducement to follow rules and etiquette. Exactly opposite to the fair and honest manifesto that ties personal benchmarks to any form of competition based upon integrity.

These are serious charges. Do you have proof?

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

All rating cares about is length from the tips for the long drivers and ignores the critical factors such as green difficulty, rough, narrowness, and position of hazards.

When did you last rate a course or actually watch the four plus hour process and then do the calculations paperwork. The manual alone runs to 120 pages. The User Guide (ie the operating manual) to 35.

Have you ever read this?

http://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/course-rating-primer-e5bf725f.html

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

When did you last rate a course or actually watch the four plus hour process and then do the calculations paperwork. The manual alone runs to 120 pages. The User Guide (ie the operating manual) to 35.

Have you ever read this?
http://www.usga.org/handicapping-art...-e5bf725f.html

Yes, I am aware of the theory. I am also not a rocket scientist but can safely conclude that a failed launch is due to some combination of wrong process, poor execution, or sabotage. Normalizing different course/tee difficulty is not easy but it seems from a rating standpoint it is being done quite well. It is slope that seems more arbitrary.

I and many of my friends score better on a strange 132 slope course than we do on our own 116 slope course that we know well. That seems contrary to the goal of slope ratings. My winter course for the last 15 years has undergone slope changes over the years from 124 to 115 to 130 to 117 with no changes to the course. Such lack of consistency suggests a faulty process. Worse is that the GM here then bragged that he coerced the increase to 130 with free golf. He said nobody wants to play a low slope public course but they love to come back to a high slope course that scores easier than the slope.

I have had many conversations with course raters and the consensus from them was consistent that distance not difficulty is the primary driver of slope.

Difficulty is more related to the relationship between margin of error and severeness of penalty faced on next shot. Phrased differently, a hole where a nearly perfect shot results in a severe penalty on next shot is far more difficult than a hole where a drive that goes far off course leaves a clear next shot. Today we are seeing shorter but difficult courses (a la Stanley Thompson) rated with easy slope levels while the longer wide open bomber courses are rated over 130. This is a failure to launch!

[gotogolf]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I am like you. My twilight rounds were mostly as a single and created my personal benchmark. I have no interest in competitive events so handicap is simply used as an indication of potential in friendly matches. Sometimes we use them but mostly we go mano-a-mano and frankly handicap differences have little impact on outcome. The disappointment is that this personal benchmark is losing any value at all. First, they started re-rating all courses lower to increase handicaps for same scores on same courses. Then they forced the ridiculous 7 on us for par three again pushing handicaps disappointingly up.

I am now no longer going to keep an official handicap since its purpose as a personal benchmark is now useless and sends me only negative messages in historical comparison. Soon I will also probably give up the game because the powers that be are only interested in making our golf life miserable. No wonder there is such a huge decline in participation. They just don't get the non-competitive golfer.

I played the majority of my 2015 rounds unaccompanied. Most of my social rounds were just fun too, with very little regard to follow every rule to the nth degree. I posted my scores and if anything would be accused of a vanity cap. Men's night is flighted (as was the few events I participated in) so it is important only to be in the right flight.

If I start only posting those scores played in a very strict setting, I can promise you I will at the end of the day probably be accused of being a sandbagger, which is the last thing I want.

Either you are honest or you are not (I may be a bit of both). No wonder people get so frustrated with golf and the rules.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

galted

I'm not sure I understand your problem with Slope.
Slope is not a measure of difficulty per se. It is only an indication of the relative difficulty of a particular course between a scratch and bogey golfer.
Slope is not allocated arbitrarily. It is a simple formula using the scratch rating and the bogey rating.
The Course Rating gives the rated difficulty for the scratch player, bogey rating for the bogey player.
When you say the slope of your winter course has changed, the rating system has changed during this time. Either the course rating or the bogey rating (or both) has changed. I would suggest this is the major factor.

The difficulty factors come into the equation in relation to the player's target area. This is of course the middle of the fairway or the green.
The effective size of the target and the proximity and nature of obstacles contribute to the calculations.
Given that the target areas of scratch and bogey placers are not in the same place, so the difficulty adjustment will be different. This will have an effect on the slope.

Incidentally, I have noticed that courses seem to be designed primarily around the very low capper. Often the size of target areas and positioning obstacles affecting the high capper would seem to be there incidentally rather than by design. The other problem is that most players are 'in between' and as slope is a straight line the difficulties don't match actual play. Instead of a straight line, the gradient may be a concave or convex curve. Slope came with mixed blessings.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Worse is that the GM here then bragged that he coerced the increase to 130 with free golf. He said nobody wants to play a low slope public course but they love to come back to a high slope course that scores easier than the slope.

If I was in that authority area, that would concern me greatly.
Rating is require to be done by a team, it suggests there is more than one apple in the bag.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

My winter course for the last 15 years has undergone slope changes over the years from 124 to 115 to 130 to 117 with no changes to the course.

Can you give me the Course Rating and length of the course?

[LobWedge]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hey Galted, FYI.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I played the majority of my 2015 rounds unaccompanied. Most of my social rounds were just fun too, with very little regard to follow every rule to the nth degree. I posted my scores and if anything would be accused of a vanity cap.

If I start only posting those scores played in a very strict setting, I can promise you I will at the end of the day probably be accused of being a sandbagger, which is the last thing I want.

you cant blame the USGA for the fact that you created a vanity cap for yourself by not following the rules of golf and not entering accurate scores.

if you now enter proper scores and your cap goes up and you are called a sandbagger , you created that problem yourself.

[QuentinJJ]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I wonder if there will be a way to post the solo score but have it not count towards HC, like an out of season score. I like using the statistic features of how I do on each course hole by hole, putts, FIR, GIR, etc.

Unlike John Gordon, my solo rounds in October 2015 were complete rounds where the course was not busy and no one could or would join me and I played by the Rules of Golf as I would if with others.

[LobWedge]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I wonder if there will be a way to post the solo score but have it not count towards HC, like an out of season score. I like using the statistic features of how I do on each course hole by hole, putts, FIR, GIR, etc.

Unlike John Gordon, my solo rounds in October 2015 were complete rounds where the course was not busy and no one could or would join me and I played by the Rules of Golf as I would if with others.

Stay tuned...

[gotogolf]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

you cant blame the USGA for the fact that you created a vanity cap for yourself by not following the rules of golf and not entering accurate scores.

if you now enter proper scores and your cap goes up and you are called a sandbagger , you created that problem yourself.

Not sure I follow you. Either you're honest or not. The same goes for the person with not many posted scores as they are casual rounds or the one's who claim they've really practiced a lot and not posted scores or only on unfamiliar courses but play solo at the lub and are not allowed to post their score.

Heck may as well play lights out and miss those 3'ers here are there and post a higher score.

Seems pretty stupid to me.