Handicapping Rule Change

[bk51]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Now that trusting golfers is out and solo rounds are out, when will the next shoe drop, namely: all rounds must be attested by another Golf Canada member?

Out of curiosity, I went to the Golf Canada web site to see what the screen for posting scores looks like. The layout has changed this year, although you can switch to classic view if you want.

I tried posting a score for Nov 1/15, so it wouldn't be counted in my h'cap calculation. There is a data entry field for Attestor, but it doesn't validate the name as a Golf Canada member, it's just a text entry field. So, as far as GC knows, Jordan Spieth or Donald Duck attested your score. That may change, but it seems for now the attestor doesn't have to be a GC member.

And, I did switch to classic view so I could delete the bogus score I just entered.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

What are the 12 factors that you are referring to? I know of the 10 obstacle factors and effective playing length = 11 but, not sure of the 12th.

See post #138

In addition to length, there are 11 other factors taken into account. Each type being evaluated differently for scratch and bogey golfers.
Roll, Layup, Topography, Fairway, Target, Recoverability and Rough, Bunkers, Out of Bounds, Water, Trees, Green Surface.

Technically, "Effective Playing Length Corrections".

[AlfaGolfer]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

See post #138

In addition to length, there are 11 other factors taken into account. Each type being evaluated differently for scratch and bogey golfers.
Roll, Layup, Topography, Fairway, Target, Recoverability and Rough, Bunkers, Out of Bounds, Water, Trees, Green Surface.

Technically, "Effective Playing Length Corrections".

I am looking at Section 13.3, page 94 of the Handicap Manual and I am counting 10, other than effective playing length, which is adjusted by 5 factors (roll, elevation, dogleg/forced layup, prevailing wind, altitude above sea level) hence my confusion as to the number of factors.

1. Topography
2. Fairway
3. Green Target
4. Recoverability and Rough
5. Bunkers
6. Out of Bounds/Extreme Rough
7. Water Hazards
8. Trees
9. Green Surface
10. Psychological

Thanks

[gotogolf]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Maybe we should also adjust for weather conditions? I find it silly reading all these factors and back and forths as it makes my head spin. I played in perfect conditions 95% of my rounds in 2015, often on a course that plays to my strengths (shortish, but 130 slope). I am sure my HC is lower then my true ability....

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I am looking at Section 13.3, page 94 of the Handicap Manual and I am counting 10, other than effective playing length, which is adjusted by 5 factors (roll, elevation, dogleg/forced layup, prevailing wind, altitude above sea level) hence my confusion as to the number of factors.

1. Topography
2. Fairway
3. Green Target
4. Recoverability and Rough
5. Bunkers
6. Out of Bounds/Extreme Rough
7. Water Hazards
8. Trees
9. Green Surface
10. Psychological

Thanks

Within the same course, they set up most of these as the same for both scratch and bogey golfer leaving distance as the only relative difficulty factor.

Technology has made distance no longer the key relative difficulty indicator of ability to score when comparing a mid-handicapper to scratch. More often, the ability to hit high iron shots to protected pins (distance to pin is important for that), recoverability, and short game deserve much higher weighting than distance.

Many bogey golfers these days hit it at least 40-50 yards past me usually into wider open fairways past the trouble. They lose most of their extra shots by being wild and with penalties.

I would suggest that these distance adjusting factors are more useful for comparing the relative difficulty of different courses.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I am looking at Section 13.3, page 94 of the Handicap Manual and I am counting 10, other than effective playing length, which is adjusted by 5 factors (roll, elevation, dogleg/forced layup, prevailing wind, altitude above sea level) hence my confusion as to the number of factors.
Thanks

I was looking at the System Guide used out on the course.
I omitted Psychological as I thought it might get contentious.

What are the versions of your Manual and Guide? Mine are is 2012-2015 and has Obstacle Factors in Section 12 from page 44. But they are not in the form of a list.

I am awaiting a 2016 version which is specific to GB & Ireland.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Within the same course, they set up most of these as the same for both scratch and bogey golfer leaving distance as the only relative difficulty factor.

This is not the norm. With the scratch tee shot target area at 250+ and bogey at 200+ it is more than likely fairway width, location of trees, bunkers and water are quite different. In addition the value assigned to a similar or the same obstacle for scratch and bogey is different.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Maybe we should also adjust for weather conditions? I find it silly reading all these factors and back and forths as it makes my head spin. I played in perfect conditions 95% of my rounds in 2015, often on a course that plays to my strengths (shortish, but 130 slope). I am sure my HC is lower then my true ability....

I think everybody plays to a handicap different than true ability on most days. The obsession with distance over scoring difficulty factors is one reason. The other is the strange emphasis on the 50% best scores over an extended period of time. When we get hot, we are immediately penalized for being hot. When we get cold, we get immediate help for our incompetence.

Totally weird.

People with all fall scores in poor weather have higher caps in spring than those of us posting (and many don't post them) great weather winter scores from down south. The obsession on normalizing across all abilities for unneeded equity is one of those myths we all know is not working.

It would be far more useful to use average adjusted scores from previous season with everybody using an ESC maximum of double bogey. My foursome has been playing for years without handicap (caps ranging 6-14) and the hot player on a day always wins and there are no complaints about equity. We know our bad holes deserve to lose and that we should need to shoot par or better to win on any hole. If we have learned anything, it is that the good days are infrequent!

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

This is not the norm. With the scratch tee shot target area at 250+ and bogey at 200+ it is more than likely fairway width, location of trees, bunkers and water are quite different. In addition the value assigned to a similar or the same obstacle for scratch and bogey is different.

All true but the basic assumption defining the distances expected from different
skill levels is wrong and not consistent enough to be used as a basis!

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

All true but the basic assumption defining the distances expected from different
skill levels is wrong and not consistent enough to be used as a basis!

What basis would you recommend?

[AlfaGolfer]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Maybe we should also adjust for weather conditions? I find it silly reading all these factors and back and forths as it makes my head spin. I played in perfect conditions 95% of my rounds in 2015, often on a course that plays to my strengths (shortish, but 130 slope). I am sure my HC is lower then my true ability....

It should be lower than your ability - it's a measure of your potential. That's what the entire system is based on.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

What basis would you recommend?

I think it is overly complicated. I think scores should be the basis. I would take over par per round excluding penalties and to a max of 2 over per hole. Average adj over par for a season on same course would remain the basis for entire next season unless an appeal of special circumstances is made to a handicap committee. The majority of need is for competitions between people on same course. I am sure someone would figure out a way to normalize across courses most likely by comparing a sampling of average scores on each course.

In bowling, average scores are used across a wide variety of lane conditions. Caps are constantly updated but increase in handicaps is capped at 10% unless a committee review deems special circumstances.

I think it is admirable that some geek tried to create an algorithm for rating but it is not achieving the stated goals. How people actually scored over a season on same course is a better measure of scoring potential.

[aaagc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I think scores should be the basis. I would take over par per round excluding penalties and to a max of 2 over per hole.

The problem with par is that it doesn't tell you anything.
Course 1 - 18 280 yard par 4s par 72
Course 2 - 18 450 yard par 4s par 72

A and B of equal ability index/factor 12.0.
A plays only at Course 1. B plays only at Course 2.
What will happen to their handicaps after 20 rounds?

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

It should be lower than your ability - it's a measure of your potential. That's what the entire system is based on.

exactly: copied from Pope of Slope

"a player will better their handicap only about 20 percent of the time, or once every five rounds.

Golfers should only beat their handicap by three strokes one out of every 20 rounds."


from the same article:
there are 10x more players with vanity caps compared to sandbaggers, (great for us honest players who play competitive golf)

"only 1 to 2 percent of golfers are sandbaggers, while 10 percent fall into the vanity-handicap category "

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

The problem with par is that it doesn't tell you anything.
Course 1 - 18 280 yard par 4s
Course 2 - 18 450 yard par 4s

A and B of equal ability index/factor 12.0.
A plays only at Course 1. B plays only at Course 2.
What will happen to their handicaps after 20 rounds?

That is the overly complicated thinking. Average score works regardless of all other factors to provide a consistent basis of defining individual proven ability level. There so many variables that just create confusion.

Your first example does not happen because cap is only to be used on same course where it was measured. That covers most competitions. The tournament committee can create some adjustment factor if necessary. The reality is bowling proved that differences in conditions have little impact on an average score. A par 4 still needs 4 shots for par and is still a max of 2 over for handicap purposes.

Handicaps would not change over 20 rounds. They would stay the same for the whole season and only change for the start of the next season. Eliminates all the bs variability that distorts rather than defines potential.