Alterations to WHS?

[Imurg]

However it's worded and however it's determined it still penalises/disadvantages the higher handicapper but taking a shot or 2 from their corse handicap.

 

[Swango1980]

It sometimes referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence'. Described here in an article dating back to 2008 by Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department.

Q: What does "bonus for excellence" mean?

A: To determine your Handicap Index, the USGA formula takes 96 percent of your 10 best differentials (adjusted scores taking Course Rating and Slope into consideration) from your last 20 rounds. Why 96 percent instead of 100? The USGA has added "bonus for excellence" into its system to give better players a slight advantage against higher-handicapped opponents.

Historically, the USGA wanted to reward the accomplishments of better players and recognize that high-handicappers' scores are harder to predict (wider range of scores and more room for improvement). The formula gives less-skilled golfers fewer strokes than they might need on average.

So if the handicap difference between two players is one stroke, the better player should win the match 53 percent of the time. For a six-stroke difference in handicap, the better player gains a one-shot advantage and should win 60 percent of the matches.

I am not certain at all you can call it a "bonus for excellence"

The statement you quote specifically says its purpose is to give an advantage to low handicaps. This is completely at odds to what we've been told.

It's purpose is to deal with the mathematical probability that a high handicapper in a larger field is more likely to get a score that a lower handicapper could not realistically match.

 

[rulefan]

However it's worded and however it's determined it still penalises/disadvantages the higher handicapper but taking a shot or 2 from their corse handicap.

That is of course the intent.

 

[rulefan]

I am not certain at all you can call it a "bonus for excellence"

The statement you quote specifically says its purpose is to give an advantage to low handicaps. This is completely at odds to what we've been told.

It's purpose is to deal with the mathematical probability that a high handicapper in a larger field is more likely to get a score that a lower handicapper could not realistically match.

Well that is what it was called by the USGA and they invented the term. In their opinion it was arguably a 'bonus' for better players.

 

[Swango1980]

Well that is what it was called by the USGA and they invented the term. In their opinion it was arguably a 'bonus' for better players.

So, what do you think it is then?

Is WHS essentially biased towards better players? Do those that produced it decide they wanted lower handicappers to have an edge in singles stroke play competition?

And, if this is the case, why did they not want low handicappers to have this bonus in fields less than 30 players?

I'd also add, I think the term bonus for excellence used by authorities is a huge contradiction to other statements made. For example, Gemma Hunter explained the 95% as needed for providing equity. And at end of the fairly lengthy explanation made throw away comment it used to be called a bonus for excellence.

So, the 95% is to achieve equity (fair and impartial) and yet it is also a bonus for excellence (bias towards low handicappers to give them an advantage). Make sense!?

 

[wjemather]

So, what do you think it is then?

Is WHS essentially biased towards better players? Do those that produced it decide they wanted lower handicappers to have an edge in singles stroke play competition?

And, if this is the case, why did they not want low handicappers to have this bonus in fields less than 30 players?

I'd also add, I think the term bonus for excellence used by authorities is a huge contradiction to other statements made. For example, Gemma Hunter explained the 95% as needed for providing equity. And at end of the fairly lengthy explanation made throw away comment it used to be called a bonus for excellence.

So, the 95% is to achieve equity (fair and impartial) and yet it is also a bonus for excellence (bias towards low handicappers to give them an advantage). Make sense!?

In general, people are probably happier with the priority being to maintain equity for better players, which cannot be achieved without marginally reducing the chances for higher handicappers (individually) and thereby slightly favouring lower handicappers, particularly in smaller fields; as a group, higher handicappers chances still increase with field size.

 

[rulefan]

So, what do you think it is then?

Is WHS essentially biased towards better players? Do those that produced it decide they wanted lower handicappers to have an edge in singles stroke play competition?

And, if this is the case, why did they not want low handicappers to have this bonus in fields less than 30 players?

I'd also add, I think the term bonus for excellence used by authorities is a huge contradiction to other statements made. For example, Gemma Hunter explained the 95% as needed for providing equity. And at end of the fairly lengthy explanation made throw away comment it used to be called a bonus for excellence.

So, the 95% is to achieve equity (fair and impartial) and yet it is also a bonus for excellence (bias towards low handicappers to give them an advantage). Make sense!?

It is an allowance, which some describe as a bonus, intended to provide a more equitable solution to the issue described in other posts.

 

[Swango1980]

It is an allowance, which some describe as a bonus, intended to provide a more equitable solution to the issue described in other posts.

So, to confirm? The 95% is to bias the odds towards low handicappers, whilst the 95% is to provide equity for all handicap golfers, regardless of handicap?

I simply think it is very poor communication, when defining it as a bonus for excellence. Because, that is not what its purpose is at all. In no way, shape or form did the authorities create a handicap system, and then said "right, now lets put in a reduction so that excellent golfers have a better chance". As properly explained, the 95% is to account for the mathematical probability that higher handicappers will have a bigger range of top 8 scores, so in larger fields a winner is more likely to be a high handicapper who shoots a best score in 20.

As has been said, the 95% is only recommended for fields larger than 30. In the UK, it is for all field sizes. However, I doubt our authorities made that decision because they wanted low handicappers to have an advantage in smaller fields. I believe the decision was actually made for simplicity. After all, it would be massively confusing if a player didn't have a 95% reduction, but then a 95% was applied if the field increased by one or 2 players, and it brought it over the small field limit.

 

[rulefan]

What do you think Slope does?

 

[rulefan]

So, to confirm? The 95% is to bias the odds towards low handicappers, whilst the 95% is to provide equity for all handicap golfers, regardless of handicap?

Sounds reasonable.
Why do think Slope was introduced?

 

[Swango1980]

Sounds reasonable.
Why do think Slope was introduced?

Why are you bringing in a completely different element to the system?

The Slope is applied to the Course handicap, and is done before any playing adjustments are made.

You are seriously saying the authorities wanted a system that is biased towards low handicappers. They wanted them to have an edge in competition (singles stroke play)?

In fourball match play, is the 90% applied to give the lower handicappers better odds of winning compared to the higher handicappers they play against? In best 2 of 4 strokeplay competitions, did the authorities want low handicappers to have better odds of winning than the high handicappers, and so apply 85% playing allowances?

And, how much did they want the odds to lean in the favour of low handicappers? After all, they could just apply 50% and really tilt it in their favour.

 

[Genu9]

Don't worry, it's all going to change. Take Woodhall Spa, Bracken Course, White Tee. (CR 72.2, Slope 134, Par 72) ATM every player with an HCI between 0 - 8.8 gets the same for 100% and 95%. Come 1st April, 26% of those HCI's will get one stroke less on 95%. In general around 20-30% of those on lower handicaps will now be affected by this change. (though not all will be negative, some will receive a stroke, depending on the Course Criteria). So 'equity' is changing.

Just as an aside.......
Flagship Course Handicap Table. Anyone notice what is missing?
(and I already know the predicted excuse).

 

[wjemather]

It seems there is another change for 4BBB match play. The example on page 46 of the updated guidance uploaded by EG today has been amended.

Guidance version 2.2:



Guidance version 2.3:



So basically a throwback to how it used to be done, i.e. 90% of the difference, rather than full difference after allowances have been applied.

The mixed-tee calculator has also been updated accordingly.

 

[nickjdavis]

So basically a throwback to how it used to be done, i.e. 90% of the difference, rather than full difference after allowances have been applied.

Jesus...I think our membership is now just about used to "the difference of 90%"...now our poor handicap sec is going to have to tell them to go back to the old way (90% of the difference)!!!

 

[rulefan]

Why are you bringing in a completely different element to the system?

The Slope is applied to the Course handicap, and is done before any playing adjustments are made.

You are seriously saying the authorities wanted a system that is biased towards low handicappers. They wanted them to have an edge in competition (singles stroke play)?

In fourball match play, is the 90% applied to give the lower handicappers better odds of winning compared to the higher handicappers they play against? In best 2 of 4 strokeplay competitions, did the authorities want low handicappers to have better odds of winning than the high handicappers, and so apply 85% playing allowances?

And, how much did they want the odds to lean in the favour of low handicappers? After all, they could just apply 50% and really tilt it in their favour.

Doesn't Slope above 113 assist higher handicappers?

But adjustments are about the individual player's likelihood of winning, not the field.

 

[wjemather]

Jesus...I think our membership is now just about used to "the difference of 90%"...now our poor handicap sec is going to have to tell them to go back to the old way (90% of the difference)!!!

Indeed.
I can only assume it's so that everyone can (easily) calculate their strokes received using Course Handicap tables without the need for apps/calculators/spreadsheets.
But then there is no change for foursomes and greensomes.

Makes no sense.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Don't worry, it's all going to change. Take Woodhall Spa, Bracken Course, White Tee. (CR 72.2, Slope 134, Par 72) ATM every player with an HCI between 0 - 8.8 gets the same for 100% and 95%. Come 1st April, 26% of those HCI's will get one stroke less on 95%. In general around 20-30% of those on lower handicaps will now be affected by this change. (though not all will be negative, some will receive a stroke, depending on the Course Criteria). So 'equity' is changing.

Just as an aside.......
Flagship Course Handicap Table. Anyone notice what is missing?
(and I already know the predicted excuse).
View attachment 51498

Using 95% of rounded CH caused a disproportionate lump of players with PH of 10. I viewed this as an error.
Scotland did not have this discrepancy.
Moving to unrounded CH has rectified this.
More appropriate to say that equity has been restored rather than changed, in my view.

In your example where CR-Par is 0.2.
This will cause a change. But is a transitional change that occurs on one day only. After that - carry on as before.

 

[Genu9]

It seems there is another change for 4BBB match play. The example on page 46 of the updated guidance uploaded by EG today has been amended.

Guidance version 2.2:

View attachment 51499

Guidance version 2.3:

View attachment 51501

So basically a throwback to how it used to be done, i.e. 90% of the difference, rather than full difference after allowances have been applied.

The mixed-tee calculator has also been updated accordingly.

Thanks for the notification of the update. Simple answer here ........ avoid Mixed 4BBB wherever possible.

 

[Swango1980]

Doesn't Slope above 113 assist higher handicappers?

But adjustments are about the individual player's likelihood of winning, not the field.

It doesn't "assist" them in terms of giving them an additional advantage over low handicappers. Rather, it makes a necessary adjustment to their handicaps based on the relative difficulty of the course.

Besides, the Slope is used to get their Index in the first place, so the process is just reversed to convert it back into a course handicap. Whereas the 95% is not used to work out a Players Index in the first place.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Thanks for the notification of the update. Simple answer here ........ avoid Mixed 4BBB wherever possible.

They call it a "mixed gruesome" at my club.