(Note: This post is a reprint of an article first published in 1993. It is posted here because 1) It will be referenced in an upcoming post, and 2) It iilustrates the political nature of decisions on handicapping at the USGA--a recurring theme of this blog.)
Introduction - The United States Golf
Association (USGA) adopted changes in the Equitable Stroke Control (ESC)
procedure for adjusting scores in 1993.
The USGA maintained that the new procedure would increase the equity of
competition, and should have no effect on playing time or the prevalence of
sandbagging.
The
USGA's conclusions, however, appear to be based on questionable analysis and an
unrealistic view of the golfing world. A
more probable outcome is that the new ESC (termed ESC93 in this paper) will not
lead to any significant improvement in the equity of competition and might
actually lessen it. ESC93 procedures
will undoubtedly increase the problem of slow play, and make life easier for
the sandbagger. To see why all of this
will happen, this paper examines the old ESC and ESC93 in light of four
criteria mentioned by the USGA in defending the change: equity of competition,
simplicity, speed of play, and the effect on the practice of sandbagging.
Equity of Competition - The purpose of
ESC is to prevent unduly high scores from having an abnormal effect on a
player's Handicap Index. The USGA
presented three arguments for why the ESC93 procedure will increase the equity
of competition. Each is examined in
turn:
1. Under the Old ESC (see
Table 1 below) high-handicap players frequently were not able to post their
average hole-score on difficult holes.
An
example of the inequity ESC93 was designed to correct would be a player with a
thirty-four handicap who averages 8 strokes on a par four, but can only post a
maximum of 7 strokes (i.e., a triple bogey) under the old ESC. Under ESC93 he would be allowed to post a
maximum hole-score of 9 (See Table 2).
Table 1
OLD ESC PROCEDURE
Course Handicap
|
Limitation on Hole Score
|
Plus or Scratch
|
Limit of one over par on any hole.
|
1 through 18
|
Limit of two over par on number of holes equal
to Course Handicap. Limit of one over
par on balance of holes.
|
19 through 36
|
Limit of three over par on as many holes as
course handicap exceeds 18 strokes.
Limit of two over par on balance of holes.
|
37 through 54
|
Limit of four over par on as many holes as the
Course Handicap exceeds 36 strokes.
Limit of three over par on balance of holes.
|
Table 2
ESC93 PROCEDURE
Course
Handicap
|
Maximum Score Posted on Any Hole
|
9 or less
|
6
|
10-19
|
7
|
20-29
|
8
|
30-39
|
9
|
40-49
|
10
|
50+
|
11
|
The size of any correction to equity
will depend in part on the frequency with which a player's average score
exceeds the maximum score permitted by ESC.
In our example, a thirty-four handicap player averages approximately two
over par on the holes he plays. A hole
that would require 4 or more strokes over par on average should be a statistical rarity. Therefore ESC93 would not appear to have a
large impact on equity because it corrects for a problem that seldom occurs.
Even the small contribution to equity
of ESC93 in stroke play may be outweighed by the inequity it could cause in
match play. The player in our example is
now allowed to post a quintuple bogey on a par four hole. To demonstrate a possible inequity created by
ESC93, assume the player in the example has two holes where he always posts the
ESC limit of 9-strokes, and that he is still a thirty-four handicap. He will then average approximately 1.6
strokes over par on the remaining 16 holes (i.e., he plays like a 28
handicap). Our player should have a big
advantage over the player who earns a thirty-four handicap with a more even
scoring pattern.
In match play a score of 5 strokes
over par should be considered "abnormal." Any strokes over a triple bogey are
irrelevant since the hole most probably would have been lost by then. Allowing a player to post a nine would seem
to be just the thing that ESC was designed to eliminate. In effect, our player is rewarded because of
his abysmal play on two holes. This is
not only inequitable, but it sets up an incentive system that is detrimental to
promoting good golf.
2. The old ESC depends
upon the par of each hole, and par ratings are often set higher than they
should be.
To make the argument, the USGA gives the example of a hole
under 401 yards for women that is set as a par five at one course but as a par
four at another course. This would
result in different equitable stroke control limits because of the difference
in par ratings. If this is a problem, it does not appear to be a compelling
reason to change the old ESC system. A
simpler solution would be to require governing golf associations to approve the
par rating of each hole in accordance with USGA guidelines.
3. The old ESC causes
unfairly low course handicaps just below the break-points.
In
fact, the ESCC93 procedure has the same problem, if not worse, as the old ESC
procedure at the "break-points."
Let's examine the breakpoint problem under the old ESC procedure
first. Assume we have an eighteen and a
nineteen-handicap -- one player above and below the breakpoint under the old
ESC system. The nineteen-handicap can
post one triple bogey while the eighteen-handicap cannot post any
triple-bogeys. Now assume the two
players have identical eighteen-hole scores and each player has a triple
bogey. The handicap difference of one
stroke would remain even though the players had identical rounds. While this is inequitable, it is also fairly
insignificant. Even in the unlikely
scenario of our example, the handicap inequity is at most one-stroke. In trying to correct this inequity, however,
the USGA has only made matters worse.
Assume a nine and a ten-handicap as
an example of players at the breakpoint under ESC93. If each player has the same score which
includes a double-bogey on a par five, the nine-handicap would post a score
one-stroke lower than the ten-handicap.
If they both scored the same but each had a triple bogey on a par four,
the same one-stroke disparity would appear in their adjusted scores. Just as with the old ESC, the handicap of the
player below the breakpoint is underestimated.
While the old ESC limited the
adjusted score difference of identical scores to one-stroke, under ESC93 the
difference in adjusted scores could be much larger. If both players double-bogeyed all of the par
fives, for example, then the difference in adjusted scores would be
four-strokes. In the words of the USGA,
the nine-handicap would receive an "unfairly low handicap." Therefore, ESC93 does not eliminate the
breakpoint inequities as the USGA maintains, but actually increases the
possibility and the size of such breakpoint inequities.
Additionally, the ESC93 procedure
exacerbates the problem by adding more breakpoints. Under the old ESC procedure, only the
breakpoints between 18-19 and 36-37 affected a significant number of
golfers. The ESC93 procedure includes
four breakpoints (9-10, 19-20, 29-30, and 39-40) for this same group. In summary, the ESC93 procedure makes the
problem at each breakpoint more severe and adds more breakpoints.
ESC93 also has the problem of not treating all players
evenhandedly. While the ESC93 tends to
raise the index of most players, it will reduce the indexes of high
single-digit handicap players. Based on
a simple probabilistic model, a high single-digit player will be giving his low
double-digit handicap competitor one more stroke when the ESC93 procedure is
fully implemented.
Simplicity - The USGA argued that
"clubs have difficulty teaching golfers to use the old ESC procedure
correctly." The argument that a
growing innumeracy among the golfing public requires a switch to a
mathematically less demanding ESC formula seems strange coming from an
organization that just foisted the Slope System on that same public. Certainly more golfers understand the old ESC
system than can correctly explain the Slope System. Does this mean the Slope System should be
abolished? While simplicity is a virtue,
it should not be the primary criterion for selecting appropriate handicapping
procedures.
Pace of Play - The USGA states that the
pace of play has nothing to do with ESC.
The USGA's position simply is not logical. ESC93 will require players to
play more strokes. That more strokes
require more time seems irrefutable.
Under the old ESC, a thirty-handicap could pick up after five strokes on
a par three (scoring a 6-x). Under
ESC93, the player picks up after eight strokes (scoring a 9-x). Watching a player play out for his nine will
be as painful as it is time consuming.
The USGA has defended its position
on the specious argument that high handicappers can play as fast as low
handicappers. While that assertion may
be true under certain assumptions, it avoids the appropriate research
question. The USGA should have asked,
"Does it take the same player longer to play 8 strokes than 5?" Framed in this way, the direction, if not the
size, of the effect of the ESC93 on the pace of play is obvious.
The USGA has also argued "ESC
does not tell a player when to quit hitting a ball." Again, the USGA misses the point. While ESC does not prohibit a player from
exceeding the limit, it does act as an informal barrier to such action. If a player is not involved in stroke play
competition, he will often quit hitting the ball when he reaches the ESC
limit. To quit sooner than the ESC limit
would cause an unjustifiable low handicap.
To quit after the limit is reached would serve only to irritate his playing
partners. The USGA has chosen not to
recognize the role of ESC in shortening playing time because such recognition
would not support their change in policy on ESC.
Effect on Sandbagging - Under the old
ESC, the unethical player (assuming a ten-handicap) was limited to two-strokes
over par on any one hole. ESC93 allows
him to take four-strokes over par on a par three and three-strokes over par on
a par four. Under the ESC93 procedure,
he can have fewer bad holes and still maintain his handicap. This increases the strategic advantage the
sandbagger already holds over the ethical player. The USGA recognizes ESC93 makes it easier for
the sandbagger to ply his trade, but makes the argument "that it would be
a step backward to write rules or to develop a handicap system solely to trap
sandbaggers."
Of course no one has argued that
trapping sandbaggers should be the sole purpose of the handicap system. The
system should have the dual objectives of estimating a player's ability and
making it difficult for the unethical player to manipulate the system to his
advantage.
Having two objectives can often
force tradeoffs. For example, in
calculating a player's handicap only the ten best scores out of the last twenty
are used. This is inequitable to the
player who has large variation in his scoring.
His handicap will overestimate his actual ability, and he will be at a
disadvantage to the steadier player. By
selecting only ten scores, however, the USGA was making it difficult on the
sandbagger to artificially inflate his handicap.
While no system can be devised that
is "sandbagger-proof," any new system should make it tougher for the
sandbagger to ply his trade. ESC93 does
not meet this simple test.
Conclusions - ESC93 has the advantage
of being simpler, but will not make the contribution to equity the USGA
claims. Simplicity may lead to a more
uniform and consistent application of ESC.
This benefit may be outweighed, however, by the detrimental effects on
the pace of play and the prevalence of sandbagging.
ESC93 is also an example of the type
of tinkering with the Handicap System that should be avoided. The conservative administration of the game
of golf should be the guiding philosophy of the USGA. Changes should only be undertaken if there is
documented evidence that new policies will make significant contribution to the
objectives of the USGA. The USGA has a
good record in that regard with their equipment testing program, rules and
competitions, and turf grass research. It is only in the area of handicap
administration where too often the USGA has confused motion with progress.
See Position Paper on the New Equitable Stroke
Control Procedure, United States Golf Association, Far Hills, NJ, 1992.
