Forums

Re: Average Scores

• alanti 10,564 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 2:27 PM

  Hi all, I have read many things about the average scoring system WGT use to calculate our average scores, therefore tiers. I did read a post that advised to play the par 70 courses, so to shoot an 8 under round, it would be a 62 rather than a 64 if it was a par 72 for example, thus would lower your average score to allow you to advance a tier faster.

  This seems a little strange as surely the average should be based on the actual course rating (and which tees are used) which takes the course and slope ratings into account. I find the US Open courses much harder than say St Andrews and I would consider and 8 under at Oakmont a better score than 10 under at St Andrews but under the current average scoring system would be the same net result. I am not sure of the actual course ratings (one being in the US and the other in Scotland could be another slight issue).

  I would like to hear WGT's comments on this computation. I think we all know the current system is flawed and would like the input from all to get a fairer system for everyone.

   

• ApexPC 3,164 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 7:07 PM

  WGT doesn't handicap. Course rating and slope ratings relate to handicap.

  As it is at some point in a Tier, your bad score don't effect your scoring average at all.

  My scoring average dropped to 64.13 from 64.33 after a 9 hole round on the back 9 at St.Andrews. The 18 hole round of 78 at Oakmont  I shot previous to the 29 at St. Andrews didn't change my scoring average any.

  Had I been a newly minted Master tier level player, the 78 at Oakmont would have increased my scoring average.

• alanti 10,564 Posts

  Mon, Aug 27 2012 9:09 PM

  I agree with you 100% but what I am suggesting is shouldn't WGT move towards a handicap based average than the current system. it is not a true average as you pointed out with the 78 at Oakmont (even with a handicap system your handicap would have very little impact).

  Currently like you point out, when you get to a certain point in a tier only a lower score affects your average - probably because WGT want you to progress to the next tier where you may have to upgrade your clubs to be compete.

  Most of us want to improve to play as well as we can, yes the sandbaggers will get around any system, but playing to lower my average would mean I would exclude playing the harder courses like Olympic, under a handicap based average my 68 at Olympic i just played could well better my handicap than a 64 at St Andrews.

  Anyone with a valid handicap in golf realises it is much easier for you handicap to drop than rise

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 1:32 AM

  The tiers are the handicap system here: Players who don't have the advanced skills (and equipment) are allowed to compete with the others from shorter tees.

  Apart from that, this site is a virtual image of Open Championships from US and UK. Those competing there don't get strokes due to their handicaps - all play from scratch.

  Therefore, think Professional and don't dream of handicap aide!

  And yes, STA front nine is preferred by many who want to drop their average. Why not?

• srellim234 2,077 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 9:10 AM

  To get a truer picture of the player's ability without changing the current practice of only counting the best scores WGT would have to switch away from a "stroke average" to "strokes against par" average. Compute the average and post a person as, say, " -11.41 hcp" instead of "60.33 avg." Best scores would then be the best  based on the amount under par in each round, not the raw stroke score.

  While probably not a particularly major bit of programming to substitute such a change over the existing way it's done I definitely don't see something like that in the foreseeable future. The current system seems to be pretty well accepted by the vast majority of players here and such a change would be very confusing at first.

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 10:13 AM

  Which is the objective behind your proposal?

  What would become better from that?

• Infinito3010 3,689 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 1:32 PM

  A handicap system is alot more representative of ones playing ability than an average.  Consider shooting 12 under on Bethpage Black (58) versus 12 under at St. Andrews (60). Then one considers, wow, he/she has a 58 average. 

  Now, if one uses the course rating and slope specific for each course then the handicap index becomes meaningful.

  In other words, the handicap system, relates apples to apples, and the average system, relates apples to oranges.

  Then one might argue, how does playing conditions affect the results.  The easiest way to compensate for that would be to take the last 100 indexes, keep the best 80 and then calculate the average.  Then the index calculated provides a lot more information

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 2:40 PM

  IMHO its useless to discuss a handicapping / rating system for WGT. This is for amateurs - our avatars play as professionals, from scratch.

  Nor will WGT return to any "last scores" calculation method - they left it a while ago.

  I can't think of a modification to "+/- Par" instead of straight scratch scores but i'd like to hear some objectives of this idea.

• srellim234 2,077 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 3:49 PM

  I'm with you on this one, alosso. While the current system isn't perfectly accurate, it works for this game. While the current system makes it easier for someone to tier up as a "one course wonder", I don't see a huge problem with it. But then, I don't take the game as seriously as many do around here.

  If WGT were going to tweak the current system they would be better served to put a statute of limitations on scores instead of the open-ended time they have now. For example, scores from 24 months ago shouldn't count toward your low score average. That takes into account deteriorating skills due to age and the like, keeping older, more affluent customers with time on their hands in the game. In my opinion, though, that problem is so small that it's not worth investing the time and resource to it. Someone really struggling with that type of problem can just ask WGT to start over.

  As "scratch" golfers on this game, you're absolutely right. Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods don't give strokes when they play Tom Watson and Tommy Gainey in tournaments.

  Other than being technically more accurate I don't see a lot of value in changing the score computation here.

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Tue, Aug 28 2012 11:06 PM

  Ty for your kind words.

  While playing light-hearted, it's still pleasent to brighten the views and thoughts about the game. It adds to my fun!

  The consequence of oblivion of old scores would be a way to tier down - unthinkable or at least too difficult to figure out. In addition, the time scale might be difficult to define - this is a computer game with short half-value times. In those rare cases a new account might be acceptable.

  I, too, don't see much value in a change of the average computation. It struck me, though, that it would even more encourage "one course wonders", the 30 at STA becoming more valuable for the average than a 30 at RSG or OLY.

  Hit it straight!